pages: CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-04-07 | 14 | direction can be given at this meeting and will be incorporated into the current emergency ordinance as a clear, simple, additional change; direction has been provided to staff to look at whether or not a longer repayment period beyond 180-days after the conclusion of the pandemic is appropriate; staff will need approximately two months to conduct outreach to stakeholders; which can be done given the existing grace period of 180-days after the conclusion of the pandemic; direction has been provided for lobbying at this meeting and staff will do so as appropriate. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (20-210) Public Hearing to Consider Entitlements and a Development Agreement for the Development of the 9.4 Acre Property Located at 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue with 182 Residential Units and Publicly Accessible Waterfront Open Space; (20-210 A) Resolution No. 15641, "Approving Tentative Map Tract 8060 PLN 20-0118, Density Bonus Application PLN 20-0119, Development Plan PLN 20-0120 and Open Space Design Review PLN 20-0121 for Development of the 9.48 Acre Property Located at 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue;" Adopted; and (20-210 B) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Boatworks, LLC Governing the Boatworks Project for Real Property Located at 2229 to 2235 Clement Avenue. Introduced. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director, City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether changes made to the first reading can be placed into the second reading for final passage. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated any Council changes at the meeting will be considered dais changes and can be incorporated for adoption; when an item is brought back for second reading, the only change that can be made would be clerical changes, nothing substantive. Councilmember Daysog stated the Planning Board had concerns related to the concession of affordable units requested by the project proponent; outlined the Density Bonus ordinance; noted that he did not see a proforma or financial report in the record as required. The City Attorney stated State law has changed and become more restrictive; when the City's local Density Bonus ordinance was written, the onus fell on the developer; State law has recently changed; Government Code Sections 65915e1 provides that the City now has to bear proof or denial of a Density Bonus request; the change results in the City not being able to bear the burden to disprove the request. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 April 7, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-04-07.pdf |