pages: CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf, 30
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 30 | implementation of the density bonus provisions for affordable housing that have existed in State law and the ability to modify the City Charter absent a vote of the people; Council changed that in the middle of December; the dialogue that SunCal had was that the only way to implement a change to Measure A was to have a vote of the people; when the Code was modified, SunCal looked into whether the election could be pulled, but there is no ability to do so under the Elections Code. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal's attorney and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel should both provide a brief on whether the City fundamentally changed SunCal's ability to request a density bonus under State law by anything the City did in December; SunCal did not need an amendment to Measure A to request a density bonus and to get what is entitled to under a density bonus ordinance. Mr. Faye stated that is a good solution. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for Measure A, a specific plan, and a development agreement; SunCal was aware of density bonus before. Mr. Faye stated most voters were in favor of the plan; however, most voters were opposed to the process; voters felt the effort was to usurp Council's ability to do its job; that he hopes the debate will be about the plan/plans and not about a discussion of process; now the process is normal. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for Measure A [amendment], a specific plan and a development agreement; Mr. Faye is saying none of that would have been done if the City had a density bonus ordinance; density bonus was discussed leading up to Measure B; SunCal was aware of density bonus. Mr. Faye stated polls showed most voters were in favor of the plan, but opposed to the process; the debate now should be about the plan, not the process. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan stated that his own polling indicated that the reasons the Measure was defeated were SunCal's financial inabilities, with 29 bankruptcies, transportation and traffic impacts, elimination of historical buildings, Measure A, density, environmental remediation, ballot box initiative deal, specific plan and environmental impact study; the back page of his handout has the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) proposal the SunCal agreed to, which spells out the requirements and what the City was looking for: 1,735 new homes and 3.4 million square feet office space; said criteria was set; SunCal came back continually saying that it does not pencil out. Mr. Faye stated SunCal came back in response to new information. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 10 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |