pages: CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf, 29
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 29 | The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City had one application for density bonus under State law before the City had an ordinance on the books. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she does not think Council thought passing the density bonus ordinance changed Measure A. Mr. Faye stated the ordinance in mid-December specifically allows a developer to submit an application that not only increases density with providing affordable housing but also grounds Council the ability to consider a waiver of Measure A, which was new. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the record needs to be very clear that the State density bonus law would have allowed the same thing; changing Measure A is not necessary; Council did not do anything in December that is different than State density bonus law; Council did not amend Measure A; amending Measure A is not necessary to use the density bonus ordinance; the State density bonus law has been in place for many years and could have been used by SunCal at any time with the same affect essentially as the City's density bonus ordinance passed in December which only reflected a few changes for Alameda. Mr. Faye stated bringing back the ordinance at the next meeting might be appropriate; that he thinks there was material changes. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal had the ability to use the density bonus ordinance before December and the answer is yes. Mr. Faye stated the answer to the question, as to whether SunCal was able to get a waiver to Measure A under the Code absent a vote of the people, changed in mid December. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal was able to get an effective change to Measure A under State density bonus law; the City Attorney/Legal Counsel would say yes; inquired whether said statement is correct. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated Council would have had the obligation under State density bonus law to consider a request for a waiver of the multi-family configuration restriction if necessary to site additional market rate units granted through the bonus, which is what the law says; Council would have been obligated to consider that even prior to the ordinance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is getting the sense that Mr. Faye is saying that it is the City's fault that SunCal had to put Measure B on the ballot because the City did not do a density bonus ordinance until December, which is not the case. Mr. Faye stated that he is not what he is saying; there is a difference between the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 9 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |