pages: CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf, 25
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 25 | breakdown of the costs, to which Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff was informed that there are costs that were not included in the escrow account. Mr. Faye stated that he does not have any problem providing any additional incurred costs that have not come from the escrow account. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout outlining the various plans submitted; stated the Measure B plan has 4,500 homes; the modified plan shows the same density of 4,500 homes; [Measure B has] 3.5 million square feet for commercial; the density bonus is up 4.3 million square feet; inquired why the City went through Measure B and now SunCal is submitting something that has more than Measure B. Mr. Faye responded there are a couple of answers to the question assuming the numbers are correct; stated Measure B would never have been necessary had State law relative to promoting affordable housing with the corresponding density bonus been in place and had the City's Municipal Code been modified to address the promotion of affordable housing through density bonus; if State law and Alameda's changes arrived at a different time or if the ENA timeline were different, there never would have been an election; the density would have been at the discretion of the Council. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated references were made to density bonus in the Measure B dialogue, which is contrary to what Mr. Faye is saying. Mr. Faye stated the project proponent submitted signatures in September; State law changes went into affect shortly thereafter; the City implemented State law through changes to the Municipal Code in mid December. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he thought the density bonus State law was in place before. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place for a couple of decades; the City was a little late in adopting its own ordinance, which is completely consistent with State law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated State law could have been invoked ten years ago; the City would need to comply because State law supersedes City law. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 5 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |