Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Phasing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues Dorsey Marketplace phasing request to Dec. 9 after resident objections and developer absence
Summary
Council continued a staff‑proposed phasing condition allowing the Dorsey Marketplace to be built in phases over seven years (with possible extensions) after residents and the CEA Foundation raised legal, environmental-remediation and public‑interest concerns; a council member recused, and the council asked that the developer attend the Dec. 9 hearing to answer questions.
City staff presented a proposed amendment to the previously approved Dorsey Marketplace entitlements to allow phased construction over a seven‑year period, with minor phasing modifications delegated to the planning director and up to two 12‑month extensions under the development code.
Amy Wolfson, city planner, said the project has a long history, referenced prior certification of a subsequent EIR in September 2024 and the lifting of a court writ on Nov. 1, 2024, and explained that the site will require remediation of contaminated soils in coordination with the Department of Toxic Substances Control before building permits can be pulled. Wolfson said the phasing plan in the packet proposed a seven‑year window and staff prepared a CEQA addendum concluding the phasing change did not require further environmental review.
Multiple residents and the CEA Foundation speaker, Ralph Silverstein, objected to a seven‑year phasing timeline and argued the approval had already expired under the city's development code; Silverstein urged a denial or, at minimum, a shorter phasing horizon with measurable deliverables each year. Virtual commenter Matthew Colter echoed concerns about speculation and public‑safety consequences for the vacant site.
Several council members said they wanted the developer present to explain the timeline; one council member recused from the item because of proximity to the site. With the developer absent, the council moved to continue the item to a date certain, Dec. 9, so the developer could attend and answer questions. The continuance passed on a voice vote; the item will return to council with developer input and any updated phasing details.
