Loading...
Resolution 11891CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 11891 RESOLUTION READOPTING GENERAL PLAN - - AMENDMENT GPA -89 -2, A REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, State regulations require a periodic update of the Housing Element of a City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda has submitted a Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development ( "HCD "), in compliance with Government Code section 65754(a), which was received by HCD on May 29, 1989; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 65754(a), HCD has reviewed the Draft Housing Element and reported its findings to the City of Alameda on July 7, 1 989; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda has considered HCD's comments prior to final adoption of the Housing Element, in compliance with Government Code section 65754(a); and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda has revised the Draft Housing Element to comply with all of HCD's recommendations regarding revisions that, in HCD's opinion, were needed for the Draft Housing Element to comply with Article 10.6 of the Government Code, as described in attached Exhibit "A" dated November 13, 1989, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda has considered General ('Inn Amendment GPA -89 -2, adopting the Draft Housing Element as the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan; and WHEREAS, after holding public hearings on GPA -.89 -2 and examining pertinent reaps, drawings and documents on September 25 and October 4, 1989, said Board voted to recommend its approval; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda considered General Plan Amendment GPA -89 -2; and WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on GPA -89 -2 and examining pertinent maps, drawings and documents on October 17, 1989, the Council of the City of Alameda voted to adopt GPA -89 -2; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby readopts, by this resolution, General Plan Amendment GPA -89- 2, the proposed revision and updating of the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan with changes to correct typographical errors and remove reference to Twin Towers Church. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 21st of November, 1989, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmem.bers Arnerich, Thomas. Withrow and President Corica - 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Camicia - 1. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 22nd day of November, I 989. City he City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A ", NOVEMBER 13, 1989 This exhibit summarizes the changes made in response to the July 7, 1989, commer s from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the May 19, 1989, Public Review Draft Housing Element. The following first summarizes HCD's comments and then explains the changes that were made. Appropriate page references to the Draft Housing Element (DHE) and the Adopted Housing Element (AHE) are also included. A. Review and Revision HCD comment: The element should include an analysis of the differences between what was projected or planned for the previous housing element and what was achieved and a description of how what has been learned from the results of the previous element has influenced the new housing element. (DHE p. 11-2) Response: An evaluation of the implementation of the 1980/81 Housing Element was added. (AHE pp. 10 -3 to 10 -5) The evaluation includes a listing of what was or was not done to carry out each of the programs listed in the 1980/81 Housing Element and a summary discussion of what was learned from the results of the 1980/81 Housing Element. B. Housing needs, Resources, and Constraints HCD Comment (B.1): Provide additional analysis of the housing needs of special groups. In particular provide additional information regarding the need for emergency shelter and transitional housing. (DHE pp. 6 -4 to 6-11) Response: The separate discussions of the special needs of the elderly, households headed by single women, handicapped persons, families, families and persons in need of emergency shelter or transitional housing, and military families were all revised and expanded. (AHE pp. 6-4 to 6 -13) For some need categories additional information was collected; for others the analysis of existing information was expanded. Information on special needs from the City's HUD - approved Housing Assistance Plan was added in several areas. In particular, the discussion of families and persons in need of emergency shelter or transitional housing was greatly expanded to more clearly document the existing need for both emergency shelter and transitional housing. (AHE pp. 6-8 to 6 -11) HCD Comment (B.2): While the element does not include a thorough analysis of overcrowding, overcrowding does not appear to be a problem. No additional analysis is required. (DHE p. 4-8) Response: None required HCD Comment (B.3): Demonstrate how the City determined that 35 very low and low income units were added to the housing stock during 1 988. (DHE pp. 6 -3 to 6-4) Response: These 35 units were removed from the very low and low income categories in Table 6 -3 and included in the moderate and above moderate income categories. (AHE pp. 6 -3 to 6-4) HCD Comment (B.4): The element should provide additional information about the "infill" development potential. The element should provide additional information as to how the City infill sites provide the opportunity for lower irYcome housing development and include information regarding the number of sites available at the various densities described. (DHE pp. 7 -2 to 7 -3) Response: The discussion of infill development potential was revised to provide 1) a clearer distinction between infill on vacant lots and infill on lots with one or more existing units; 2) more historical perspective on infill development in Alameda; and 3) a clearer description of assumptions for the assignment of these units to particular income categories. (AHE pp. 7 -2 to 7 -4) A summary of infill potential by geographical area and zoning category was added to Figure 7 -2. (AHE Figure 7 -3) A new appendix including a listing of infill building permits for 1 987, 1 988, and 1 989, and diagrams showing examples of infill projects was added. (Appendix E) HCD Comment (B.4): The element should provide additional information regarding the anticipated income levels of the occupants of the proposed Navy housing, as well as how the City determined the income split of the units. (DHE p. 10 -2) Response: Assumptions concerning the income split for the proposed Navy units were revised based on new information received from the Navy. (AHE pp. 11-1 to 1 1- 2) HCD Comment (B.5): The analysis of governmental potential and actual constraints should include more discussion and analysis of the City's parking requirements, City policies concerning second units, Measure A's impact on the City's ability to provide a variety of housing types and to meet its regional fair share for all income groups, City amendments to the model building codes and code enforcement, and City site improvement requirements. (DHE pp. 9 -3 to 9 -8) Response: The discussion of the City's parking requirements was expanded. (AHE p. 9 -5) The discussion of the City's current regulations for second units was expanded. (AHE pp. 9-4 to 9 -5) The discussion of Measure A and its implications was revised. (AHE pp. 9 -7 to 9 -10) The discussion of building codes was expanded by inclusion of a complete listing of adopted City codes and modifications and a summary description of City code enforcement efforts. (AHE pp. 9 -12 to 9 -13) A new section discussing on -site improvement standards was added. (AHE p. 9 -12) HCD Comment (B.6): The analysis of the price of land should include estimates of the actual cost of land within the Community. (DHE p. 8 -2) Response: The discussion of the land costs was expanded to local real tors of land costs in Alameda. (AHE p. 8 -2) HCD Comment (B.7): The element should provide an update Buena Vista Apartment complex conversion and any City assistance. (DHE p. 10 -2) include estimates by on the status of the program to provide Response: The discussion of the status of tenants in the Buena Vista Apartments (Bridgeport Apartments) was revised. Information is not available on the status of the low- income tenants. References to possible City action were eliminated. (AHE pp H-2 to H-3) - - HCD Comment (C.I): The element should provide more detailed program descriptions and comments to ensure that the City can accomplish the program objectives within the time frame of the element and meet housing element law requirements. (DHE pp. 2 -4 to 2 -14) Response: The programs of the element were substantially revised. Among the changes were the following responding to HCD's comments: a) No new program was added. Revised analysis shows need for larger units is less than suggested in Draft Housing Element. (AHE pp. 6 -7 to 6 -8) b) Program A.2 (AHE Program A.3) was expanded to identify possible funding programs the City might pursue. c) Program A.3 (AHE Program A.4) was not revised. The City routinely offers and provides the assistance described in Program A -4 to all self -help rehabilitators. d) Program B.I was revised. e) Program B.2 was revised. f) Program C.I was eliminated. In its place, two programs (AHE Programs C.I and C.2) describing the City's affordable housing program ordinance and affordable housing unit /fee guidelines were added. (See also p. 12 -2) g) Program C.5 (AHE Program C.6) was not revised since the City recognizes that the status of funding programs changes frequently, making it difficult to target specific programs. i) Program D.I was not revised. The City has provided technical assistance in the past to HOPE and United Philipinos of Alameda. The City will continue to provide such assistance as opportunities arise. j) k) Program D.3 was eliminated. Program D.5 was eliminated. This program was replaced by AHE Programs C.I and C.2. (See also p. 12 -1) 1) Program D.7 (AHE Program D.5) was revised. HCD Comment (C.1): The element could provide information about the role of the redevelopment agency in meeting the housing needs of the community. Response: A new program (AHE Program 0.14) was added (See also p. 12 -1). The redevelopment agency is also a funding source for AHE Program C.S. HCD Comment (C.2): Depending on the results of the revised needs analysis, the City may have to identify a program to provide adequate sites with appropriate zoning and development standards and public services and facilities to facilitate and encourage development of various housing types for all income levels and to meet the City's regional share of new construction need. Response: The housing programs and analysis of available resources and constraints have been extensively reworked to ensure production of the maximum feasible number of units in all income categories. The results of this additional work are reflected in revised Table 2 -2, Summary of Quantified Objectives. (AHE pp. 2 -12 to 2 -13) HCD Comment (D): Describe the City's efforts to achieve the public participation of all economic segments of the community in the preparation of the housing element. (DHE Apprendix C) Response: Appendix C was expanded to include a list of those who were notified of the most recent Housing Element revisions and copies of notice letters and legal notice ads.