Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading of amendment pausing $20M housing payment while Oxford explores housing options
Summary
Council introduced and waived first reading of an ordinance to amend the Public Market Development Agreement, pausing scheduled affordable-housing payments tied to parcel entitlements while Oxford Properties pursues residential options on Parcels A and B under a set of new milestones.
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Emeryville City Council voted to waive first reading and introduce an ordinance adopting a second major amendment to the Public Market Development Agreement that pauses scheduled payments tied to a prior $20 million affordable‑housing trade while developer Oxford Properties studies and pursues residential projects on Parcels A and B.
Community Development Director Chad Smalley said the amendment responds to market realities for large research-and-development leasing and gives Oxford time-limited milestones to submit detailed study-session materials, final development plans and building permit applications for residential projects. Under the amendment, scheduled payments to the city’s affordable-housing fund that were due on set June 30 dates will be paused and reindexed with a 4% annual escalation while Oxford meets the agreed milestones. If Oxford proceeds instead with the previously permitted nonresidential R&D project, the amended DA requires payment of the outstanding balance earlier — at building-permit application — rather than waiting until occupancy.
Smaller but material changes in the amendment include extending the term of the development agreement to March 2029 to accommodate the new timeline and requiring Oxford to submit a pro forma feasibility analysis for ownership housing on Parcel B by the same initial residential submittal deadline. Planning Commission members reviewed the proposal in May and recommended approval; the staff report cited the planning commission’s unanimous vote and noted several commissioners preferred the original plan’s concurrent residential delivery but acknowledged market constraints.
Oxford representative Mark McGowan told the council the company is seeking flexibility to “explore what is possible” in the present market while indicating a preference to deliver housing if feasible. The council then voted to introduce the ordinance by title only; the item will return for a subsequent final reading and adoption at a future meeting. Staff identified CEQA review as exempt under State CEQA Guidelines, citing Sections 15332 (infill development) and 15061(b)(3) (general rule of no significant effect) in the recommendation for the ordinance’s adoption.
If Oxford meets the milestones and delivers residential development on the parcels, the amendment describes crediting prior payments against any required amounts; if milestones are missed, pausing payments resume per the escalation schedule specified in the amendment. The City Clerk will publish the ordinance language and set the item for final reading as required by law.

