Our House
It’s a big week for transportation related items at the Council, CIC, and Housing Authority. Things get pretty wonky, pretty quickly, and so I’ll skip the Economic Development Strategic Plan (at the CIC for Approval Tuesday), the awarding of a contract to begin the West End Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study (for bikes and peds) at the council, two grant applications one to update the Long Range Transit Plan and one to create a Transportation Demand Management plan, both of which are parts of the Transportation Master Plan. I’ll even skip the Otis / Lum – Line 63 bus stop issue and the resolution allowing bus stops to be painted red on State Route 61 (Caltrans has special rules) which will be before the council on Tuesday night as well.
Instead, a quick note about a Measure A (or non-measure A as the case may be) issue that is coming to the Housing Commission. In the late ‘80s, Clayton Guyton sued the city. I believe the lawsuit was that Measure A prevented the city from creating affordable housing. The city settled in 1990 and a “Exception” to Measure A was created for 325 affordable housing units which could be built at non-measure A densities.
Since the housing commission does not keep its documents on line, just some quick info from the packet for the meeting. Of the 325 allowable non-measure A units that can be built. 283 are built or “planned.” (Meaning that they have been allotted to future developments.) A list of the city’s current and future projects is here.
· 48 @ Breakers at Bayport
· 39@ Shinsei Gardens
· 157 @ Alameda Point
· 39 @ Alameda Landing
This leaves 42 remaining, and the Housing Commission (the council plus Michael John Torre) is being asked to put in place a policy regarding the how it is determined where they are used.
What brings transportation into this, is that now that even Action Alameda accepts that density and reduced auto-use are connected, it is surprising that the policy doesn’t have much of an emphasis on where these locations should be built.
For Housing Authority projects, there is no mention of placement near transit. None. (Given the discussions about the Housing Authorities Independence Plaza and how walking across the parking lot is dangerous to bus riders, but not to car drivers, I think that transit use is not on the radar at the Housing Authority.)
For private developments, there is a scoring system to decide who can use all or some of the final 42 units. Promoting transit is used as an example of what might be considered a tangible benefit.
So, given that the families who live in these units tend to be more transit dependent (due to lower car-ownership) and given that density correlates to reduced car use. Shouldn’t the Policy have “All Guyton exempted housing units MUST be built on major transit streets?” Once (If?) the Transportation Master Plan is adopted later in the year, they can change the language to read “Primary Transit or Exclusive Right of Way streets.”
On Wednesday night, the council, ahem Housing Authority, has the ability to do something about Measure A and transportation. Hopefully they will take this opportunity to take the long view.
Final caveat, I think the housing authority does a good job. The housing they provide is good and their financials and crime stats are admirable. While I’d like them to become more aware of transportation issues, and their role in affecting them, I don’t want to seem like I’m anti-housing authority, just would like to see this one blind-spot disappear.
Leave a Reply