pages: CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-03-10 | 4 | The City Attorney stated State law does not allow the City to use traffic as means to get out of addressing the Housing Element; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has clamped down even more; transportation cannot be considered as an environmental impact; there are two kinds of moratoriums; staff does not believe the City could qualify for the lesser 45 day moratorium, which could be extended up to two years; the findings to justify a [two year] moratorium are very severe and do not include traffic; the City Planner mentioned public health, safety and welfare; the welfare category cannot be used for a moratorium; not having a water source would be an example of the type of thing to justify a moratorium. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry whether another attorney might answer the question differently, the City Attorney stated a City Attorney is required to have experience in municipal law; anyone experienced in municipal law would provide the same advice. Councilmember Oddie further inquired whether the answer would remain the same if there were a different City Manager and different Councilmembers, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the location of the affordable housing units is required for a long term project, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated when the affordable housing would be built in each phase and the location of each phase has been identified for the Del Monte project. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Measure A still applies, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; provided background on Measure A; stated State law requires the City to designate some land for multi-family housing; cities cannot cover the entire city in single family zoning; there is a conflict between State law and Measure A; State law always wins; the City received a letter from the State in 2006 outlining all of the City's problems, which took 6 years to fix; once the City fixed everything, the State certified the Housing Element; the fix included the City adopting the density bonus ordinance; developers willing to build affordable housing units are given certain things, such as additional units, in order to pay for the affordable housing; in addition, waivers must be granted for other development standards, such as height limits if units are physically prohibited from fitting on the site, which is why the City came up with the multi-family overlay zoning district in 2012 for particular sites; the City did not need to go to the voters since the district was created to comply with State law; Measure A still applies to 99% of Alameda. Councilmember Oddie inquired what would happen to Measure A if the City did not follow State law, to which the City Planner responded that he gave a presentation on the matter in 2012; stated a lawsuit was pending; the City did not want go down the Pleasanton route; if the City Council had not adopted the multi-family overlay, the lawsuit would have been filed and Measure A could have been found invalid by the Courts for the whole City; the City Council did a very careful 1% cure; the multi-family overlay saves Measure A. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 March 10, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf |