Meeting Summary
Present: Weirick, Haney, Blatz, Francina
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details — verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Development Agreement for Four Sites
- Staff presented a proposal covering four sites with 27 deed-restricted affordable units and a phased construction plan to prevent tenant displacement.
- The City Attorney outlined three potential outcomes, noting that approval secures tenant protections and shifts litigation costs to the developer.
- Council members discussed income limits, restriction periods, and the necessity of the agreement to avoid losing affordable housing opportunities.
- The Council passed a motion to approve the agreement with a condition requiring the city to hire a consulting arborist for a revised tree protection plan.
Full summary
Agenda Item: Approval of the Agenda
- A motion was made to approve the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded and passed.
Agenda Item: Public Hearing and Staff Report on the Development Agreement (Cottages Among the Flowers, Mallory Way, World University, and Montgomery Site)
- The Council conducted a public hearing regarding a proposed development agreement for four sites. The established order of proceedings included staff reports, public comment, developer comments, ad hoc committee reports, council questions, developer rebuttal, and council deliberation.
Staff and Legal Presentations
- Staff presented a report detailing the project's history, noting that permits were originally issued in 2007 and that the City Council appealed a 2019 Planning Commission decision to secure affordable housing requirements. Following negotiations, a development agreement was proposed covering four sites: Cottages Among the Flowers (12 units), Mallory Way (30 units), World University (10 units), and the Montgomery site (15 units). The proposal includes 27 deed-restricted affordable units (20 moderate, 6 low, 1 very low) restricted for 55 years, and 10 market-rate units at the Cottages site restricted to rental-only status for 10 years. A Residential Relocation Assistance Plan was presented, offering existing tenants priority for new or renovated units, moving costs up to $2,000, and up to 12 months of rent assistance if no unit is available within the project. The development is phased to ensure affordable units are constructed before tenant displacement occurs. Environmental and historic mitigation measures, including CEQA exemptions, historic resource preservation, tree retention, and water recharge, were addressed.
- The City Attorney outlined three potential outcomes: denying permit extensions and winning litigation (resulting in zero deed-restricted units and potential tenant eviction); denying extensions and losing litigation (resulting in 40 units with minimal affordability and significant legal fees for the city); or approving the development agreement (resulting in 67 units, 27 deed-restricted units, tenant protections, and defense of any subsequent litigation at the developer's expense).
Developer and Ad Hoc Committee Reports
- The developer's representative highlighted improvements made during a 30-day extension, including additional affordable units and strengthened tenant protections. The Ad Hoc Negotiating Committee reported that the agreement tool was used to secure protections not present in original approvals, noting that rejecting the agreement would likely lead to litigation and the loss of affordable housing opportunities.
Council Discussion and Clarifications
- Council members discussed income limits, deed restriction periods, and the 10-year rental restriction. Clarifications were provided that state income limits serve as ceilings, the 55-year restriction is a state requirement for density bonus projects, and the 10-year rental restriction applies only to specific market-rate units. Concerns regarding the sufficiency of tenant protections and legal risks were addressed, with staff and the City Attorney reiterating that the agreement provides protections exceeding current state laws. Questions regarding the timeline, historic guidelines, and community contributions were also answered.
Public Comment
- Prior to public comment, a motion was made to limit comments to two minutes per speaker. A substitute motion was offered to allow three minutes per speaker. The Council voted on the substitute motion, which passed. Public comment was then heard from numerous speakers. Comments included support for the agreement citing the need for housing and the risk of losing the opportunity, as well as opposition citing concerns over the net loss of affordable units, displacement of residents, destruction of historic structures, and environmental impacts. Procedural concerns regarding the timing of the decision and the validity of CEQA exemptions were also raised.
Developer Rebuttal
- The developer's representative provided rebuttal comments, characterizing the agreement as an unprecedented deal that provides significant tenant protections and affordable housing not otherwise available. The representative expressed concern that rejecting the deal due to misinformation would result in a loss for the community.
Council Deliberation and Motions
- Council members engaged in extensive discussion regarding litigation risks, tenant relocation, project scope, and environmental impacts. A proposal was made to require the city to hire a specific consulting arborist to develop a revised tree protection plan. The City Attorney confirmed the council could direct staff to hire an arborist and make compliance a condition of approval. Procedural considerations regarding the timing of the decision and the potential for a referendum were discussed.
- Two motions were placed before the Council regarding the development agreement: 1. Motion to Deny: A motion was made and seconded to deny the development agreement. The motion failed. 2. Motion to Approve with Conditions: A motion was made and seconded to approve the staff and Ad Hoc Committee recommendations, including the introduction of the ordinance to approve the development agreement. The motion included a stipulation requiring the city to hire a consulting arborist (Mr. Jan Scow) at city expense to develop a revised tree protection plan. The motion passed.
- The ordinance is scheduled for a second reading and final adoption at the next council meeting.
Agenda Item: Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned by the presiding officer.