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