Loading...
1978-02-01 Joint CC HAB MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, HELD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1978 Meeting convened at 7:30 o'clock p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City Hall with President Corica presiding. ROLL CALL: Roll was called and Councilmen Beckam, Diament, Sherratt and President Corica, (4), were noted present. Absent: Councilman Tillman, (1). Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of this Special Meeting had been acknowledged by the Councilmen and was on file. Purpose of the special session was for consideration of (1) a presentation by the Association of Bay Area Governments on the Environmental Management Task Force Plan, and (2) submittal of the proposed application for funding of the Senior Citizen Taxi Program, Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, in the amount of $3,000, and action on the above items, if desired. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Presentation by Association of Bay Area Governments on the Environmental Management Task Force Plan, and action thereon, if desired. It was ascertained there was no representative from ABAG in the audience, and the presentation was held over to a later date. President Corica reported the Plan, in finalized form, would be considered for adoption on April 8, 1978, by the General Assembly of ABAG. 2. Submittal of proposed application for funding of the Senior Citizen Taxi Program, Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, (S3,000), and action thereon, if desired. President Corica noted the Program had been expanded to provide that taxi service would be provided by both Yellow Cab and Goodwill Cab. Councilman Sherratt moved adoption of the report and the resolutions be taken out of order. The motion was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following voice vote. Ayes. Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Tillman (1). RESOLUTIONS: 3. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8857 Authorizing Submittal of Application for Senior Citizens Transportation Assistance Program to County of Alameda." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Tillman (1). 4. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8858 Authorizing Execution of Contract with County of Alameda Relating to City's Senior Citizens Transportation Assistance Program." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Sherratt and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Tillman, (1). 5. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Beckam, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8859 Authorizing Execution of Agreement with Yellow Cab Company Relating to City's Senior Citizens Transportation Assistance Program." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Tillman, (1). 6. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Diament, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 8860 Authorizing Execution of Agreement with Goodwill Cab Company Relating to City's Senior Citizens Transportation Assistance Program." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Beckam and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Tillman, (1). The President declared the foregoing resolutions adopted. A short recess was called. At 8:00 p.m. the meeting reconvened in a Joint Special Meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and the following Commissioners of the Housing Authority were noted present: Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Ferro, Commissioner Godfrey, Commissioner Palmer, Commissioner Pruitt, Commissioner Trujillo, and Chairman DeWitt, (7). Absent: None. Also attending: Mr. Richard D. Marquardt, Executive Director. Receipt of the Notice and Agenda of this Special Joint Meeting had been acknowledged by the Commissioners and was on file. The purpose of the special joint session was for consideration of (1) a presentation of the Final Report from M.K.G.K. on feasibility of low income housing sites; and (2) the Parrot Village site of Makassar Straits Housing Project, and action thereon, if desired. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 7. Presentation of Final Report from M.K.G.K. on feasibility of low income housing sites. Mr. Robert Wonder, Assistant to the City Manager, noted the Site Acquisition Utilization project was not originally part of the second year HCDA application; that it had been included at HUD's insistence and as a condition of grant approval. He stated HUD's rationale was based on data found in the city's Housing Assistance Plan, which showed the city had (1) a low rental vacancy factor; (2) a large number of additional low and moderate persons expected to reside in the city; and (3) a preponderance of housing needs among families and large families. He said when HUD staff had reviewed the application, they felt the Housing Assistance Plan had identified needs which were not being addressed by any of the city's HCDA projects; that in particular the city had not developed a specific program to meet the new construction housing needs of the community. He reported that consequently the city agreed with HUD that strategies should be explored to find ways to accommodate the growing housing needs. He stated the report from M.K.G.K. had been commissioned in July, 1977, to identify methods for meeting these housing needs. He introduced Mr. Sheldon P. Gans of the consultant firm of Marshall, Kaplan, Gans, and Kahn. Mr. Gans summarized the major points and findings of the written Final Report. He stated the study had been carried out by M.K.G.K. in conjunction with Messrs. John Reiser and Joseph Kent of Reiser Design & Construction. He reported the basic scope of the study involved three major elements. First, the analysis of four site alternatives provided by the city had included two sites on Atlantic Avenue, the site of the old Lincoln School, and a city -owned site on Bay Farm Island, and these had been selected because they would provide an amount of housing deemed reasonable and feasible. He said the second major element was to develop site plans for each location which were within the city's special requirements relating to "Measure A," zoning, parking, et cetera. Utilizing posted illustrations of each location, he reviewed the site plans. Mr. Gans reported they had then conducted a financing feasibility analysis of the alternatives, and an implementation strategy, which were set out in the Final Report and which he explained. President Corica reported, for the information of the audience, that HUD would guarantee a rent subsidy for Section 8 housing for a three - bedroom apartment of up to S500 a month. Mr. Joe Simmons, M.K.G.K. Project Director, stated this amount was negotiated on the price of the project. President Corica questioned the S17,000 cost of the study. He said he thought it was very well done, however believed the project could have been done by staff. Councilman Sherratt noted many manhours were spent in developing the report and stated he doubted staff would have had available time to accomplish the project. He remarked that the Council had approved the request for the study, which had been paid for by HCDA funds. Councilman Diament stated it was her feeling that if the Council were to follow any one of the suggested plans, that it be taken to a referendum for a decision by the electorate. Mr. Leon Corcos, 3125 Bayo Vista Avenue, reported he was the owner of a parcel of land facing Atlantic Avenue which was between two parcels being considered as a site alternative for low and moderate income housing. He complained that neither he nor other property owners in the area had been contacted about the possible future use of the alternative site. Mr. Corcos commented that in 1974 he had applied for a commercial rezoning of his property, at which time he was informed by the City Council a study would be made because of the fact the Alameda Belt Line was planning to abandon its right of way. He noted the Belt Line property was contiguous to the parcels and as of this date nothing certain was known concerning its disposition. Using the posted site alternative plans, Mr. Corcos pointed out the location of his property and its relation to the Belt Line Property. He questioned the construction of additional subsidized housing in the west end of Alameda, the cost of such a project, and the proposed density. Mr. Corcos remarked that should the two - parcel site be developed as proposed, it would literally make his property valueless. He presented two separate proposals for the use of his property in conjunction with the site plans for the proposed low - income housing. Mrs. Florence Dalziel, representing the California Mill and Lumber Company property located between Atlantic and Buena Vista Avenues, also complained of not being notified of the proposal to locate additional low-income housing in the area. She stated they had been awaiting a decision on the disposition of the Alameda Belt Line property for over four years, so they could do something with their pr0pertv. On question, City Manager Goss reported that at one time the Belt Line was interested in selling the property; that at the direction of the City Council, staff had been evaluating proposals for bike paths, pedestrian ways, et cetera, along Atlantic Avenue, however the Belt Line seemed to have lost interest and things were at a standstill. Mr. Goss commented that the presentation by M.K.G.K, at this meeting was solely for information purposes, and was not designed with any particular recommendation or action at this point. Mr. Robert DeWitt, 2917 Central Avenue, questioned the method used in arriving at an estimated purchase value for the old Lincoln School site. He noted the figure of $485,000 was based on about $4 per square foot, and in his estimation property values in the area ran from $9 to S10 per square foot. Mr. Wonder explained that S485,000 was the minimum sale price set by the Board of Education, and was based on two appraisals. Mr. DeWitt also questioned other figures set out in the report, and the Bay Farm Island site, to which Mr. Simmons responded. President Corica reported that before any additional low income housing could be built at any of the four alternative sites, it would be necessary to put the matter to a vote of the people. Commissioner Godfrey stated it had been his understanding this meeting was to be a joint session between the City Council and Housing Authority. He reported that representa- tives of M.K.G,K. had not contacted any member of the Housing Authority staff or Commission, nor were they given a copy of the Final Report and fiDdings. For this reason, he said, the Commissioners were unable to take a stand or enter into the discus- sion. City Attorney Stroud indicated that he, also, had not received a copy of nor seen the Final Report under discussion. At the suggestion of President Corica, it was the consensus of the members of the City Council that further discussion on the matter be postponed to a later date. O. Consideration of Parrot Village site of Makassar Straits Housing Project, and action thereon, if desired. President Corica reported the Housing Authority had torn down 100 units at the Parrot Village site and had approval from HUD for 50 replacement units. He stated concern had been expressed by residents of the area about impaction, and they had circulated a referendum petition and had allegedly secured sufficient signatures. He noted the dead- line for filing of the petition was 5 p.m. on February 2, and this meeting had been called to discuss possible solutions which would alleviate citizens' concerns. Mr. William Hildebrand, representing the Northside Association, stated they were not opposed to the Parrot Village site for public housing, but were opposed to the use of the site for the purpose of impaction. He stated their concerns were for the peace and security of their homes; that the residents of the area were speaking from experience and had lived with the public housing project in the past. He said they were willing to accept some utilization of the site for public housing. He reported there were formerly 200 bedrooms on the site which, he alleged, determined the population density. He said it was their feeling the 50 units could be built on the site and meet the number of units agreed to with the Tenants Union, namely, 86% of the units removed, or 160 bed- rooms. In addition, he said, there already existed the previously relocated units containing 14 bedrooms, bringing the total to 174. He stated they felt they could live with the 174 bedrooms if it were spread out over the whole site. He said they also felt any zoning of the site should contain a Planned Development overlay; that it was their understanding with the potential lack of funding there was a problem that landscaping would not be accomplished, play areas would not be built, and laundry areas would not come about. He said they felt the area should have some sort of a security program; that there should be adequate maintenance; garbage areas should be out of sight and protected, and adjoining properties should be adequately fenced for protection. Mr. Hildebrand stated it was their intent to file the referendum petition; that the Council could take action to nullify the petition by enacting an emergency ordinance changing the zoning. He said, in this event they would ask that the zoning be changed to R-1-PD which would permit construction of 56.95 units on the site; that this would allow 50 units plus the 7 existing units. He stated they had taken the position that if the Council, by resolution, would assure them there would be no more than 50 units built in addition to the existing houses, and the Housing Authority took the same position, and at least a PD zoning was placed on the site assuring proper review of the project by the Planning Board and other city staff members, this would satisfy their concerns. There followed a discussion of the referendum petition. City Attorney Stroud commented that inasmuch as no ordinance had been prepared for consideration at this meeting, he would agree the Northside Association should file the petition and any action by the Council could be taken at their next regular meeting. President Corica asked for comments from the Commissioners of the Housing Authority. Chairman DeWitt reported they had met concerning the 50-unit proposal and the zoning. He said they did not have a resolution to present, but had thoughts concerning the situation. Commissioner Godfrey stated the Northwide Association had not previously discussed rezoning the property to R-1-PD. He said he thought the Housing Authority was prepared to vote at this meeting not to place more than 50 units on the site, however Mr. Hildebrand was now recommending the 50 units be placed on the entire site which he had not said before. Chairman DeWitt noted that if the 50 units were built on the entire site, then they would be unable to build a park or recreation building. Mr. Hildebrand stated any ancillary buildings to the housing project would be considered part of it; that they were only asking that the 50 units be on the site and not exceed 174 bedrooms, and there was no objection to the recreation building. Following considerable discussion, Commissioner Godfrey moved the Housing Authority go on record for no more than 50 units as proposed in their plan, which would give 160 bed- room units, and no more than that on the site. Mr. Hildebrand recommended the motion be amended to include the additional 14 bedrooms contained in the relocated units. Commissioner Godfrey stated he had not intended to include these units in his motion. Commissioner Ferro seconded the motion as originally stated. The motion carried on the following roll call vote of the Commissioners of the Housing Authority. Ayes: Seven. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman Beckam commented on remarks which had been made concerning review as to sites, including location of the urits within the entire site and their relationship each to the other together with landscaping, et cetera. He asked how this would be handled under present Subdivision and Design Review procedures. City Attorney Stroud stated if the property was not zoned with a Planned Development overlay, then the Design Review Board had jurisdiction over siting and landscaping; if zoned PD, then it would come under review by the Planning Board and the Design Review Board would look at the design of the building. Mrs. Barbara Worden of the Northside Association reported their membership had voted that the 50 units be placed over the entire three-block site; that the Housing Authority proposal was to place the 50 units containing 174 bedrooms on a two-block site and the Association objected to this compaction of people. She suggested a recess be called so their members might discuss the matter. President Corica declared a ten-minute recess. Upon reconvening, he asked for comments from other interested persons. Mrs. Selina Faulhaber, 1838 Ninth Street, stated she had lived in the neighborhood of the previous Parrot Avenue project for more than nine years. She said she considered it a very suitable site for the proposed project, and would be distressed if there were a plan to build more than the original proposal for 78 units. Mrs. Faulhaber said that after a review of the Combined Land Use Plan she had arrived at the following figures. That the proposed 78 units would come to a density of 12.9 dwelling units per net acre; that the present R-2 zoning would allow a density of 22.65, or almost twice the proposal. She stated the proposed single family zone discussed in CLUP, which was the zoning proposed for the neighborhood, would allow a density of 12.45. She said she thought the neighborhood should consider that if the land were turned over to a private developer, the density would probably not be less than what the Housing Authority was proposing. She stated she would be happy to see an agreement that would put a limit on the number of units built, however would be opposed to any rezoning which would restrict the housing type, as it would lead to more expense without any improvement in the dwelling unit. Mr. John Doherty, President of Alamedans With HOPE, reported they had been concerned with the need for housing for low income families; that they were discouraged with the proposal to build only 78 units to replace the 100 units which had been torn down. Mr. Doherty referred to his written proposal that the Housing Authority build the 50 units as proposed in Phase I; that they agree to limit additional units to be built on the property to 28; and that the total bedrooms on these 28 units be limited to 45, consist- ing of 17 two-bedrooms and 11 one-bedrooms. President Corica reported the city had 1274 subsidized low and moderate income housing units, or 5.2% of the total housing stock; the highest percentage of any city in the county. He said it was his belief this indicated the city's concern for low income and needy families. He stated the plans were to relocate the tenants from Makassar and tear down those deteriorated units. Mr. Eric Lyons, 433 Buena Vista Avenue, Chairman of the Alameda Tenants Union, commented on the need for low income housing for present Alameda residents. He complained that many of the present tenants had come from without the city. Mr. Hildebrand reported that during the recess the members of the Northside Association had discussed the issue and it was their feeling the 50 units should be utilized over the three blocks which had contained the other units. President Corica asked the members of the Housing Authority if the foregoing would be feasible. Mr. Lin, Project Architect, reported the preliminary proposal had been 154a approved by HUD, however HUD had expressed concern about the density of the 50 units as spread over the two block site. He said there was a possibility that if the plan were now changed to spread the 50 units over the entire three blocks, this might not be acceptable to HUD. Mrs. Louise Bovat, 1816 St. Charles Street, a member of the Northside Association, stated one of their members had contacted HUD on the question and had been advised they would have no objection. She asked that the situation be investigated. Following further discussion, Councilman Beckam moved the Council approve the 50 units to go on Phase I; that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary agree- ment between the Housing Authority and the City to install the 50 units in Phase I, together with the necessary resolution to enact that agreement; that he further be instructed to prepare the necessary ordinance to change the zoning to R-2 which would permit the Housing Authority to install the 50 units; and that the Housing Authority be requested to investigate the potential with HUD of moving the 50 units to the three blocks. The motion was seconded by Councilman Diament and carried on the following roll call vote. Ayes: Four. Noes: None. Absent: Councilman Tillman, (1). There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. in respect to the memories of OTTO RITTLER, former Director of Parks and Recreation, and MRS. ELLEN GODFREY, mother of Housing Commissioner William Godfrey. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk