pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 3 | building ten out of forty units would not be economically feasible because there would be no tax increment funding. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Homes is not required to provide an economic analysis; stated the 2004 inclusionary housing requirement was reduced to 15% in 2009; staff is recommending the reduction for the Grand Marina project because of parity; the Grand Marina project is the only project in the City required to provide the 25% without any subsidy from the City; the priority is to get the project underway as quickly as possible as well improving the surrounding area. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the parity would be within the Master Plan area and not Citywide, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the parity would be Citywide. Councilmember Tam stated Alameda Point requires a 25% inclusionary housing as a result of a settlement agreement; parity will never happen at Alameda Point. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated Alameda Point is different because of the settlement agreement. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding was available when Grand Marina considered relocating to Island High School. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City did not provide financial assistance to help with the relocation. Speakers: Lois Pryor, Alameda; and William Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City reduced the inclusionary housing percentage so that developers would not be automatically entitled to incentives; inquired how staying with ten affordable units would impact the developer's use of the density bonus. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Homes has not submitted a density bonus application as part of the project. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board provided a recommendation, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City's requirement is 15% by State redevelopment law, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated staff's thoughts for changing the inclusionary requirement from 25% to 15% is based on the way that the density bonus ordinance counts existing units within a development; the ordinance counts all units, including ones that the City requires under the inclusionary requirements, and if a developer could count 25% Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |