Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC ACCESS TO MEETINGS <br />1) In Section 2-150 (1), omit the phrase "as required by the Brown Act." Reason: the Brown Act <br />requires 72 hours notice of City Council meeting agendas, thus this phrase is inaccurate and <br />confusing. /t is also unnecessary. <br />2) In Section 2-150 (3), revise the language to read as follows: "City Council meeting agendas must <br />include any reasonably anticipated future Council business relating to "development projects" <br />meeting the criteria set forth in Section 2-153(a)." Reason: the /anguoge in the staff report is <br />incredibly vague and allows such broad discretion that no projects may be listed. The preceding <br />language makes clear that the universe of projects required to be listed is the some as those <br />requiring community meetings as part of site plan review. <br />Agree ment(DDA)." Reason: Inclusion of projects that are subject to a DA or DDA is better <br />PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS <br />1) In Section 2-151(a), remove the phrase "Development Agreement or Disposition and <br />Development Agreement," and in Section 2-151 (b), expand the definition of "City-sponsored <br />project" to include all development projects that are "the subject of a contract to which the City <br />is a party, including a lease, Development Agreement (DA) or Disposition and Development <br />achieved through this approach because a project cannot "receive" a DA or DDA in the way that <br />it receives the forms of subsidy in the Section 2-151(a) definition. Moreover, this pre-meeting <br />requirement should apply to al/ development projects for which the city is in a contracting (as <br />opposed to on/y regulatory) relationship and with which it accordingly has more opportunity to <br />negotiate to ensure the project meets community needs, not merely those projects subject to a <br />DA or DDA. <br />2) In Section 2-152, revise the second clause to require that applicants meet all community <br />meeting requirements set forth in Section "2-153", not "2-153(a)". Reason: the meeting <br />requirements are set forth in Sections 2-153 (6) - (i). <br />3) In Section 2-153(a)(3), add "Mitigated Negative Declaration" to the list of CEQA approvals. <br />Reason: Projects subject to Negative Declarations and full Environmental Impact Reports are <br />already included. This simply clarifies that projects subject to the intermediate Mitigated <br />Negative Declaration are covered as well. <br />4) In Section 2-153(a)(2), exempt from coverage under the new residential category any project <br />containing 100% affordable units. Reason: It is well established that 100916 affordable projects <br />face a disproportionately challenging road. Their multi-layered financing is much more complex <br />and restrictive than market-rate projects and they face outsized N/MBY opposition. The State <br />clearly favors the development of such projects in law and policy (see, e. g. density bonus <br />statutes, tax credit and bonding programs) and indeed state housing element requires <br />CCM: 09/17/2012 <br />WSA