From Penny@cozad.com Wed Jan 23 04:46:47 2002 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:37:01 -0800 From: Penny Cozad To: EPAC Cc: bkerr@ci.alameda.ca.us Subject: Re: Econ Dev Commission mtg 17 Jan, good news The following are some thoughts on the Estuary Park and the Housing Element. The Housing Element is purported to be a housing guideline for the city's future development. However, it appears to be a perfunctory exercise. The state/ABAG computes future housing needs that cities are to achieve in five year increments of time. Cities are then required to submit a report that shows how and where they plan to allow for the housing numbers. The numbers, however, seem to mean very little. The 1990/1991 Element goals were not met, and there were no repercussions. The 1995 Housing Element wasn't even submitted. The Housing Element and the General Plan are required by State Law, but there doesn't appear to be any enforcement if a community fails to submit or fails to comply with their goals. There has only been a vague threat mentioned by the Planning staff at some of the Housing Element presentations that the city could be sued. By whom and for what has never been made very clear. The deadline of December 31, 2001 wasn't even serious. We are now being told that March 2002 will be the deadline. The Housing Element, however, once adopted into the General Plan, guides the city's decisions on where housing will be developed. Deb Greene had the seed of a great idea in her comments to the EDC on Jan. 17. She requested that the Dutra Property (site 20a-Laguna Harbor: 76 proposed housing units) be taken out of the Housing Element proposal. Her idea was that development of housing on that property would then require an amendment to the General Plan, giving residents time to find funding for a park on that site. The Commission glazed over her recommendation, but asked how much time she felt would be needed to find the funding. The members seemed to like Deb's idea to delay the housing allocation in order to put a park in that area of Clement Avenue. From the Planning Board meetings I have attended, the Planning Board would also like someone to present them with a way to say yes to a park on the estuary. The privately owned properties along the estuary that EPAC is hoping to develop as park (10+ acres indicated in the 1990 General Plan), are currently zoned as M-2/General Industrial - Manufacturing. Today, in order to build housing on those sites, the developer has to jump through hoops to change the zoning. I don't know how that process works, but it does take more time than a simple building permit. The Planning Department is where that happens, and the General Plan is their guideline. It is important that the Housing Element not get approved with the estuary manufacturing lots in their proposal. I think we can help the Committees by presenting the argument that the Housing Element doesn't need the locations indicated as 20a or 20b. The Housing Element exceeds the state's numbers for "very low" and "market rate" housing, so eliminating one or more sites from their proposal would not hurt those required "bottom line" numbers. "Moderate" housing numbers, however, would be impacted by the deletion of 20a or 20b and would have to be found somewhere on the island. The following is a possible scenario: 1] Bay Farm Island could provide the needed "moderate" housing deleted from the sites noted above. In the Housing Element's Appendix I: Neighborhood Descriptions, it states that "(T)here are some opportunities for small lot construction..."in the eastern portion of Bay Farm near Maitland Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Existing funding programs could help moderate income housing units to be built in this area of Alameda. The 1990 Housing Element allowed Bay Farm Island developers the opportunity to build market rate housing without the restriction of "inclusionary housing" required for redevelopment areas. This has put an unfair burden of providing needed moderate housing in the most densely built areas of the island. This 1950's area of Bay Farm has a small number of homes and lots affordable to moderate income households. 2] Alameda could negotiate a deal with future developer(s) on sites 20a & 20b to trade the requirement for including (16) moderate housing units for 10 acres of park space. Today's standards already require a percentage of open space. The developer for site 20a - Laguna Harbor is required to show 2+ acres of open space (including the strip of 100 feet of public space along the water) in his proposals to the Planning Board. The trade would be a smaller lot to develop, but all the units would be market rate and the lots would have guaranteed undeveloped open space at the perimeter. In our quest for the Estuary Park, we should also show why this area of the island needs a park for the existing neighborhood and the future residents of the proposed developments shown in the new Housing Element. On page 34, the 1990 General Plan stated: "The (Estuary) park would serve the city sector with the greatest current shortage of parkland..." Some city consultant thought that 10 years ago, and no new parks have been built since then. The need is still there. The city has done nothing since its eloquent rhetoric in the 1990 General Plan: "This park ...will probably do more than any other single project to ensure Alameda's long term quality." (pg. 97) The 1990 Plan shows 10+ acres of Parks/Open Space running 1400 feet along the estuary across portions of what appears to be the proposed Housing Element's sites 20a and 20b. The 1990 General Plan figured that "(T)he proposed Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (Northern Waterfront Improvement Project) would provide public actions and financing to facilitate the provision of this park...Local funding sources could include income from leases of public property to adjacent private property owners..." The Estuary Park was a noticeable part of the 1990 General Plan. What has happened in 10 years to make that disappear? Penny Cozad 2049A Eagle Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Penny@cozad.com