pages: CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf, 27
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 27 | without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr. Faye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda. Mr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions; stated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure A, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not enacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot had that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to enact the modification to the Code in the middle of December. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Faye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density bonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda until December. Mr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of attached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an ordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City Charter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would have been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the project proponents submitted signatures. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would have been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State density bonus law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed the density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law nullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter; density bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set aside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request a waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has been true for twenty years. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to Alameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary housing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 7 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |