pages: CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf, 28
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 28 | State law; to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated the 15% versus 25% inclusionary housing issue is not in State law, is a separate issue and was a separate modification. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he understands Mr. Faye is saying SunCal would have acted differently and not put Measure B on the ballot had the City enacted the ordinance earlier; nothing is different; the same outcome is possible today as six months ago without the ordinance; that he has a hard with taking that as a real answer. Mr. Faye stated that he tries to give real answers; the adoption by the City of the ability to modify the Charter through Council action versus an election of the people is very different than isolating and focusing on the density bonus provisions; it is very interesting for the City Attorney/Legal Counsel to point out that density bonus provisions have been in State law for a long time, which is correct; the ability to implement that was limited in Alameda by the City Charter; until the middle of December, the Municipal Code was not modified to comply with State law to allow for modifications to the City Charter to accomplish the density bonus provisions in State law relevant to Measure A. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that is where there is a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation and application of State law. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City's density bonus did not modify Measure A; only a vote of the citizens can modify Measure A; Council does not have the authority to make an amendment or modification to Measure A; the density bonus ordinance simply implements existing State law and creates the opportunity for a developer entitled to a density bonus to place or site additional market rate units that comprise the bonus; Council has to grant a waiver if the developer shows that it is necessary to waive the multi-family restriction under Measure A in order to fit the development, including the new market rate units, on the site. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether that would have applied in June before the ordinance was passed in mid December. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance just makes it easier, more reader friendly and makes the process consistent so that the community does not get a different answer from the Community Development Department. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue that needs to be really clear is that the Council action in December did not really change that; even June or two years before, the same thing could have been done by any developer under State law that was not tailored to Alameda laws. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 8 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |