pages: CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-07-17 | 5 | which is where ABAG becomes involved; ABAG is the regional governing entity for the Bay Area; ABAG works with all the cities to allocate the units among the various cities; Alameda is no different than any every other city; all cities are concerned about traffic and have difficulty accommodating more housing; ABAG comes up with formulas on how to distribute units; the formula is very complicated and takes into account regional policies such as reducing greenhouse gases, preserving farmland, and access to transit; ABGA gave Alameda just under 2,100 units; the Housing Element was written for said number; the State sent Alameda a letter in 2009 indicating the City failed in the last round and received a penalty, which added 374 units. Councilmember Johnson stated Alameda previously appealed an ABAG number and won at the ABAG level, but ultimately lost at the State level. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding challenging the number, the Planning Services Manager stated the City has not done so since 2006; challenges are very difficult; some other city has to accept the units if ABAG takes the housing units away from Alameda; ABAG has to allocate all units and cannot tell the State the number is too high. Discussed legal options under State and environmental law: Ken Peterson, Alameda. Discussed complicated language and public noticing of the Housing Element; and protecting Measure A: Mary Anderson, Alameda. Following Ms. Anderson's comments, the City Attorney explained the State's authority over housing; stated the government has a hierarchy with most power at the federal level, then, the State, then, local levels; California has Charter cities and general law cities; general law cities are created pursuant to statute and can only do what the legislature authorizes; Charter cities have more power; the State constitution allows for Charter cities as long as matters in the Charter are of municipal interest; for matters of Statewide interest, the State preempts the Charter; regarding the Housing Element, the State has stepped in and said providing housing is of Statewide concern; therefore, the State directs what the City has to do; staff has been trying very hard to protect as much of the interpretation of Measure A as possible while still conforming with the requirements of State law; the overlay is being done to prevent losing all of Measure A's provisions; a density bonus ordinance had to be passed because the matter was a Statewide concern; the City passed a density bonus ordinance and still maintained Measure A; the City has to take a similar action [on the Housing Element] because Measure A could be found unconstitutional if challenged, since it does allow the City to comply with State law. Discussed ways to get around State law and unit size designation for tax purposes: Bill Stallman, Alameda. Urged the Council to adopt the ordinance: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES); Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 July 17, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf |