04/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\,-e J J Mr. Smith, with regard to questions about the Vancouver project, stated his under- standing of its operation, and noted that people in that unique situation needed great adjustment and counseling. He felt proper location, design, size, and use would result in a stable environment, but that that was not fulfilled by this project. Although staff felt work could be done to increase area, he said, there should be further input to determine the meaning of "increased area." And he was not sure that this type of specialized housing where a number of young children were present should be located in this particular area, it was not strictly residential. He suggested that the Planning Commission's decision was erroneous and that staff reached the wrong conclusions. Ms. Thomsen noted that the number of tenants in the twenty units would be 80 - 40 mothers and 40 children. Also, comparison was made of the cost of this housing with the private market. Considering_two mothers sharing kitchen facilities, Ms. Thomsen felt sharing costs of a higher rental would put them in a better living situation at less cost per person than this project. Councilman Murray referred to the code covering location, design, size, etc., with regard to uses that would result in a healthful environment and wondered whether this project could be considered in the light of traditional land use concern~. He thought it might be another issue when people are congregated together in one place. Ms. Benjamin, assistant city attorney, hesitated to give an opinion since review had been of planning criteria only, not so much of the program going on inside the project. Mr. Saul had real reservations about approaching the issue from purely social considerations. Councilman Williams thought the question had to be considered within the context of the current state of housing available for this group and "that includes living in an auto." He had no concerns that this particular development would provide substantially improved health and safety conditions as well as social interaction. He felt it would be better than most anything else now available for single parents of one child. Councilwoman Shirey wondered if the fact that the city was gIvIng $60,000 toward the project would change "how we look at it." She asked too if there was any idea what future development on the site would involve, whether there was the possibility it would support a day-care center, which she felt should be there. Mr. Saul answered that the question of the $60,000 subsidy would be weighed at a later time as a budget request. With regard to the code section (9.782(e)) referred to by Mr. Murray, he said making that decision was essentially trying to make a judgment whether the project as proposed would reasonably meet the elements - size, design, location, etc. He assumed that the question of the $60,000 would be discussed after final approval of the project and before the money was actually needed. Mr. Saul said no plans had yet been submitted for the balance of the development, but that Mr. Morgan had indicated that to a certain extent it would be for the elderly to minimize day-care need. He added that the request for funding submitted to the Joint Housing Committee would be before the Council in several weeks. Councilwoman Beal asked if anyone had inquired of persons for whom this project was supposedly intended whether it was the type of housing they wanted. Robin Cushman, housing expediter, reported that testimony was given before the Joint Housing Com- mittee to the effect that young mothers in this category would accept housing of this kind. Councilman Bradley thought the two issues inseparable - physical aspects and funding - and asked entertainment of some delay - postponement or tabling - until the issues could be discussed simultaneously. Councilman Murray didn't question the need for this type of housing but he had concerns when qualified human service professionals ;"19 4/26/76 - 5