On tonight’s Planning Board agenda, one of the items up for discussion and consideration is Warmington’s Grand Marina project. This 40-unit development, like all new developments in Alameda is required to build a certain number of units as “affordable.” Affordability as defined by the income limits set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, when Warmington first brought this project to the City, they were going to build 10 units as affordable, now, they are asking that the Planning Department recommend to the City Council to approve an amendment to their plan and allow them to build some of the required units offsite.
They sweetened the deal by proposing that they would build more units offsite to bring the total of affordable units as part of this project from 10 to 14. The site in mind? The old Island High school site on Eagle. On its face it would seem as though this is a win-win situation for all parties involved. Warmington gets to build more homes (both market rate and affordable) rather than less, the City has more housing to apply toward the ABAG allotted fair share. But here is my problem with the site exchange, while the City staff makes a very compelling argument about the lack of land to build in the East End of Alameda (apparently the line designating East from West is Grand Street), it’s not as though the Island High site is smack dab in the middle of the Fernside area, it’s largely industrial and the part of Park Street it is near is a car repair shop and a gas station. In fact the parcel itself is zoned M-1 Immediate Industrial.
And while proximity to services and transportation is also a good argument in favor of moving the units to the Island High site, considering that there are much more ill-placed affordable housing developments with even less access (Shinsei Gardens, Breakers at Bayport) coming on line in the near future than the Grand Marina site, it falls a bit short. Because what we are really talking about Warmington building in this site is not very-low and low-income households that would benefit from the proximity to services that are easy to walk to and transportation lines, but rather moderate income families. Corrected to add, apparently the units that Warmington is seeking to relocate are the vey-low and low income residences from the Grand Marina site to the Island High site to replace those with market rate homes. Does this make me feel any better? Nope. In fact, it makes me a little bit more uncomfortable with the notion that Warmington wants to move all the very-low and low income housing units and keep the moderate income residences within the development itself to meet their quota of affordable units.
I would prefer that Warmington be asked to build what was initially planned in its initial plan and the decision of what to do with the Island High site can wait until the North of Lincoln plans start moving forward and a better idea of how that area will be shaped is formulated, since it appears that the old Island High site is included as part of the Park Street North of Lincoln project area. I think that affordable housing units are more successful when they are integrated into a project seamlessly and not shunted off to and concentrated in another location or off to the side of a development project.
Unless, of course, the Island High site will be declared as surplus and Wamington will purchase at full market value the land on which Island High sits, thereby adding some much needed cash to AUSD coffers.
Any comments on this by AUSD who owns the Island High site?
Comment by David Kirwin — June 23, 2008 @ 7:14 am
Obviously the Grand Marina site would be more attractive to upscale buyers, so the developer wants to maximize that potential. The lower income folks get pushed into an industrial area. Not much new with that. Same old story.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 23, 2008 @ 7:38 am
OK, I can see why some people would not be ok with this proposal, but if I were to be in the market for an “affordable” home in Alameda, I would MUCH rather live next to park st. Much more convenient, plus, Edison.IMHO.
Comment by MarkD — June 23, 2008 @ 7:53 am
#3
Just redraw the attendance zone and they’ll go to Haight.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 23, 2008 @ 8:21 am
#4,Which is where the Grand Marina kids would go.
Comment by MarkD — June 23, 2008 @ 9:04 am
AUSD as a developer of affordable housing is a convoluted issue from many points of view and I’m not sure if this helps solve that or makes resolving Warmington’s concerns more muddy.
I think Tiff and Mark D are both right, and Lauren’s point about not getting ahead of the Park North of Lincoln plan, is a good one..
One thing about Park North of Lincoln is that it will remain partially industrial, especially along Blanding and Clement, but there are many residences mixed in there now and it is going to become less industrial in the transition. The most drastic changes will to the retail businesses fronting Park. The workshop would indicate we will see more mixed uses.
Comment by Ishmael Irons — June 23, 2008 @ 9:05 am
#6 oops. Forgot to correct my name from Budget post where I was ribbing DK with references to Moby Dick.
Comment by Mark Irons — June 23, 2008 @ 9:09 am
I have posted a correction above about what units would potentially be moved from the Grand Marina site to the Island High site. It’s after the strikethrough above.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 23, 2008 @ 9:43 am
“The Island High is well located for affordable housing. In addition to being in an area that is not well served by affordable housing, the site is well served by transit and commercial services. The site is located within one block of the major Park Street transit routes and the Market Place grocery store, pharmacy, meat market, and bakery. The site is also less then a three-block walk from the Bridgeside Shopping Center and Knob Hill foods.
In contrast, the Grand Marina site, although also a beautiful housing site with access to public parks and the waterfront, is not as well situated for access to transit and services. AC Transit line #19 is located approximately three blocks away and the Marina Village Shopping Center and Park Street retail districts are a long walk from the site. It is hoped that at a future date, retail services and goods will be available at the nearby Del Monte Building, but those goods and services are not available at that location currently.”
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/pb_sub_1131.pdf
First of all there is an assumption that low income people do not have cars. I would like to see the data on that. The last time I checked the data, 90 percent of Alameda households had at least one car.
Then there is the assumption that public transit is for low income people and putting high income people in an area poorly served by public transit is okay — especially if it is a, “beautiful housing site with access to public parks and the waterfront.” (Not that low income people would benefit from that.)
Third, this sets up a situation where you can only put lower income housing near public transit. The Gold Coast and Fernside have successfully reduced or eliminated public transit in their neighborhoods. This policy provides a neighborhood incentive to remove public transit in order to keep lower income people out.
Why don’t we just put low income housing inside of big box stores? We could require rows of tiny houses be placed inside of the stores for the company’s low income workers. That way they could shop, work and live all in the same facility.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 23, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
“Why don’t we just put low income housing inside of big box stores? We could require rows of tiny houses be placed inside of the stores for the company’s low income workers.”
Sounds good to me, but I don’t think that you would get Island “progressives” to go for it. They seem to think that everyone is entitled to waterfront housing and that the middle class should pay for it. I know … let’s add another parcel tax so that we can buy better Island housing for people who can’t afford it. Redistribution of wealth is cool!
It seems to me that if a person cannot afford a house on Alameda, and we as a community find a place for them at less than market rates, they should be grateful instead of complaining that they didn’t get it in the waterfront community that they were hoping for. And that is all that I have to say about that …
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 23, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
Single family homes with fireplaces and plenty of open space on the island. Why aren’t these people grateful for all that we have done for them?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1540b.html
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 23, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
ALL CRY: I want my MTv.
Comment by dk — June 23, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
ANT, I definitely see where you’re coming from. In fact I agree with you about the public transit/upscale neighb argument, it’s pretty backwards thinking in this day and age. That said, I guess I’m just being a bit more selfish, I would look at what was more convenient/beneficial for my family. And if I was hell bent on buying in Alameda, more specifically, enjoying all those things that make the East End particulary desirable i.e edison, Lincoln, parks, public trans, Lots of shopping,at a “very low income” level”, I would probably go for it.
Comment by MarkD — June 23, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
AlamedaNayTif implying that below market value housing on the Island is like slave housing unless it is in a proposed upscale development … I love it!!! That is a wonderful illustration of the sense of entitlement that that makes middle class tax payers say enough is enough.
Comment by Alameda Parent — June 23, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Please-anyone who cares about this must stay involved. Having just come from the library-they are proposing 36 units on the Island high site! I live directly across the street. Everyone is freaking out-and I spent the last 6 months at school board mtgs about how my kid may be diverted out of Edison b/c this area has too many kids-now AUSD would like to endorse adding 36 units of very low income kids across the street from me. Are we not blighted enough by Toyota car alarms all day, speedy smog, racing auto body shop cars, etc-let’s add 150 people on a postage stamp size lot to that-that’ll be fun!
Please help if you care.
Comment by mw — July 23, 2008 @ 10:16 pm