The Planning Board sent to the City Council the recommendation that anything over 30K sq ft. be considered a large format retail store (big box) and would require that any retailer looking to put in a store at that threshold or higher would be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit.   The City Council decided that was not restrictive enough and therefore directed staff to write up a prohibition on anything over the 90K with the 10% non-taxable good element.  Basically that would even prohibit simply trying to get around that through a conditional use permit.

After some discussion, first meeting for newest Planning Board member Art Arturino by the way, the Planning Board basically said that they liked what they had initially sent to the City Council (anything over 30K needs a Conditional Use Permit) and that the non-taxable good element that the Council wanted was not really in their purview and recommended that it go to the Economic Development Commission for review.  

I think the Planning Board made the right call on this one, the policy of anything over 30K sq ft requiring a Conditional Use Permit is restrictive enough that the City can make the decision of whether they want a certain type of store or not.   Additionally, it is not as though the abritrary 90K, 10% would prohibit anything in the areas that are going to be able to fit a 90K building anyway since Harbor Bay and Alameda Landing are exempt because of exisiting development agreements.   And Alameda Point would probably end up being exempt as well.

Oh yeah, and something that was mentioned during discussion was that if the talks with Target are successful, Catellus will be back before the Planning Board with a new site design to accomodate the larger footprint required by Target.  

As reported on Stop, Drop, and Roll there has been a little movement in the Alameda Landing project, but it's mostly more paper pushing and less actual physical construction.   As I mentioned earlier the CIC has the most important element in place: land, to create the Willie Stargell/Tinker extension.   The interesting things are some developments on the Catellus side, although the city staff keep calling the the company attached to the Landing project Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (PAC).

Clif Bar, who terminated their Letter of Intent with Catellus earlier this this year, is apparently still talking to Catellus about the possibility of still moving in to Alameda Landing, even though it would appear they are reluctant to put it in writing again.   Catellus/PAC has proposed an early office phase which would allow for them to build the infrastructure necessary to pave the way toward an Alameda Landing with glamour tenant Clif Bar.   According to the staff presentation at the CIC meeting, Clif Bar is still interested in Alameda Landing, but is keeping their options open, just in case.   If my memory is correct, I believe their lease runs out in their Berkeley location in 2011.

And the biggie, but not a suprising development, is that PAC will be moving forward with getting planning approvals for...wait for it, wait for it...

A Target store.

They'll be going for approvals around August or September according to the staff presentation.  For more information, you can read the staff report here.   This was approved by the City Council sitting as the CIC, and I have to give much props to Doug deHaan who mentioned that even though they were approving these extended timelines, he would like to see the developer not sit on their hands during this time, but to actually actively do something.   That was my initial concern when I read about the extension and saw basically how long the final drop dead date for Alameda Landing would be and started to dispair that this would never get built in my lifetime.   I will be mightly impressed if Doug deHaan takes the lead and holds Catellus' feet to the fire on this issue and actually gets them to aggressively move forward on the Alameda Landing project.  

There is a complicated bit of narrative in the staff report explaining how the trustees were able to make this exchange to the City, which composes of the Education Code allowing for the trustees to deed a right-of-way for roadway use to an entity without needing to go through a surplus property bid and then because of the ROW deed they are able to then transfer the property the ROW runs through to the same entity they have given the ROW to.  

If these landscape plans are still up to date you can see how Stargell will be rerouted and extended, the renderings on page 2 of the reader are the most clear, I found that if I rotated it clockwise it was easier for me to figure out what goes where.  In the background you can make out what the existing roadway looks like underneath the reconfigured roads.   If you also notice, the extension does not use all of the land that is exchanged.   Of course, it would be too much to hope that it would just be left open and landscaped because according to the staff report, while there are no current plans for the remaining land, certainly they are "considering a range of uses for the site."

So this is a step forward for the Alameda Landing project, but I'm not holding my breath that it will get constructed any time soon even after all the paperwork is shuffled around and settled.  Although according to the renderings, looks like the will be giving Neptune Park a bit of a face lift as well.   Neptune Park, for those that don't know is a rather nondescript piece of land that is so inaccessible that its usefulness as an actual park is rather questionable.   Hopefully with the reorientation of Stargell and the inclusion of sidewalks and a way to access it it will actually get more use than simply as a blur of green that folks whiz by on their way in and out of the tubes.

Oh and for those that might be wondering what the College will be doing with the property at 860 Atlantic, it is slated to become a lab for students according to the staff report.   Mapping the property, one can see that it is the building that is the first building in the business park that is closest to the College which should make it easier for students to walk there. 

Catellus Development Corp. and Federal Development LLC are among 13 developers who have submitted bids for redevelopment of the former Oakland Army Base.

The city of Oakland announced the bidders Thursday following a two-month solicitation of qualifications that closed March 10.

The companies will compete to redevelop 108 acres of the former base in west Oakland...

That news followed the news that Catellus' Bay Area office had relocated to a space in Jack London Square and oh look at what was part of the article:

...Catellus, which is working on the mixed-use Alameda Landing development on former Navy land in Alameda, was previously located at 807 Broadway in Oakland...

And then today, this comes up on the news wire as a press release:

Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis (NYSE: PLD) company specializing in mixed-use development, announced today that it has been selected as master developer and finalized the agreement for a 550-acre mixed-used project located near the Stockton Metropolitan Airport...

While it's nice that Catellus is continuing to get business during this downturn, it would be nicer if Catellus could give some attention to the projects that it has already secured, like Alameda Landing.   After all, in their own press release it states:

...Other major projects developed by Catellus in California include Mission Bay in San Francisco, Pacific Commons in Fremont, Alameda Landing, Los Angeles Union Station, Los Angeles Air Force Base, and Santa Fe Place in San Diego...

Note the term "developed," as in, already completed or at least started.  I think Alameda deserves some explanation as to why nothing has been done yet, particularly if the information from Sideline is accurate.  As mentioned by Karen Bey, this is simply a cost of doing business, Catellus entered into this agreement to develop this land with eyes wide open.  This isn't your typical greenfield development and so they should have understood that the problems that accompany this kind of development is a business cost they should have accounted for.

Looks like Alameda is going to lose what could have been a really great business.   Perhaps they will consider the other 2 million square feet of commercial space that is still up for grabs in Alameda, but from what it sounded like ClifBar didn't want just any old business park environment, they wanted something that would fit in with their environmentally aware businesses practices. 

As it stands Alameda Landing is still just a twinkle in Catellus's eye, I'll basically believe that it exists when I start seeing some activity going on behind those chain link fences.

What would you do?

Me, I'd let the guys haul it away and pay me for my troubles.   The City of Alameda?  Not so much.   From the Journal:

The city will spend $200,000 to remove a 293-foot boat illegally docked on the estuary, despite an offer from two scrap salesmen who have told the city they recently purchased the vessel and will pay to take it.

City attorney Teresa Highsmith said the main problem with the offer is that the two men have failed to show proof that they own the boat or that they have the ability to promptly remove it.

"It's more of an issue of credibility," Highsmith said. "How can I say this nicely? Their claim is not credible."

The two men, Kenny Pham and Robert Roush, both of Houston, said they purchased the boat, known as Faithful, on Dec. 13 and planned to have it hauled away by the end of February. They said they also offered to pay the city $13,013 for about 10 weeks worth of docking fees.

"We said we're working on it, we just took possession of it and we're trying our best to move it," Roush said. "More or less, the city said 'Pay $140,000 or we're going to turn around and pay someone $200,000 to get rid of it.'"...

Two words: credibility schmedibility.   They are offering to take it off our hands at NO COST TO US and they City says, nope, we'd rather spend the $200K we don't have to get rid of the damned thing.  Unbelieveable.   Just let the guys haul it away and be done with it and write it off as some bad monitoring by the City to police its docks and make sure that folks aren't dumping their leaky vessels in our waters. Use the $200K to, I don't know, build some more bus shelters or something.  

Yes, yes, I understand that there are liability issues if the City gives away the property to someone who might not own the property, but according to this article there is clearly interest in the boat.   Declare it abandoned property and auction it off to the highest bidder with the understanding that they will be responsible for all costs to haul it away and clean up any issues resulting from the move.   It's got to be cheaper than $200K.

Launched in 2004 after decades of planning and designed to encourage a multicultural neighborhood to flourish, the Fruitvale Transit Village is now a bustling residential and commercial enclave surrounding the Fruitvale BART station.

While the retail business had trouble gaining a foothold initially, that seems to be changing.

More than 90 percent of the retail space in the plaza off East 12th Street has been filled and all of the space available for community groups and nonprofits is leased, officials said...

The first phase of residential construction, 47 apartments that opened in 2004, filled right away, said Unity Council Chief Executive Officer Gilda Gonzalez. Retail space struggled, however.

"We built out the space for the commercial boom that was going on during the dot-com era," Gonzalez said. "In hindsight, we should have built more residential."

...

Phase II is divided into three parts calling for 450 additional units. The next phase calls for 92 units to be completed in 2010. The whole project is designed for working-class incomes and Unity Council can fund $125,000 in down payment assistance.

...

The imbalance between residential and commercial was also a result of the center's location. The two parking facilities that serve BART are situated so that people can easily enter and leave BART without setting foot in the shopping plaza.

"We decided to get in commuters' ways. So we started a farmers' market. We have celebrations, music and other things that bring folks into the pedestrian mall," Gonzalez said.

...

In December, the grand opening is planned for an additional marketplace, The Public Market, located in the 100-year old Masonic Temple on East 12th Street. Just across the road from the village, the market will offer artisan goods such as handmade ice cream, textiles, jewelry and a florist. A Latino cultural arts center is planned for the second floor. The market, part of Unity Council's neighborhood development program, was funded by grants from the Ford Foundation...

Fruitvale is a wonderful example of the pitfalls and success of mixed used development.   That it's not simply a matter of leasing up empty storefronts and calling it a day, that the mix of retail needs to be right for the community in which it is trying to serve.   Which hopefully is something that Catellus will keep in mind for their partial mixed used development at Alameda Landing.   When they begin to lease out the buildings in 2009 or 2010 or whenever the retail portion is slated to be complete now,  they should hold another workshop with Alameda residents to see what it is that would be the appropriate mix for Alameda Landing and not simply retailers that will eat up the most square footage in the least amount of time.   By then, Alameda Towne Centre should be pretty much complete with the majority, if not all the storefronts, leased.  The retail should be complementary and not direct competition.  The idea is to keep as many residents shopping on the Island as much as possible.

The next appeal is, of  course, Catellus's appeal of the Planning Board's decision to insist on a sidewalk to be part of the north - south driveway in the Alameda Landing retail area.   But rather than be petulant about it and simply appeal the decision, Catellus has proferred up an alternative Plan #4, which I think is better than any of the previous plans.   It has sidewalks on both sides, but unlike the other Plan with sidewalks on both side, it allows for better East West access down the aisles of parking rather than dead ending at the sidewalk.   Everyone wins!  Yay!   But the strangest thing is why Catellus didn't just come up with the Plan 4 in the first place.   I think they were more than aware of the Planning Board's insistence on sidewalks, they should have just planned it in to begin with and then there wouldn't have to be yet another meeting on this topic.  

And on the topic of yet another wasted meeting , the City Council has to hold a "special" meeting on Wednesday to talk about the roles and reponsibilities of the Alameda Point Task Force because of confusion.   I noticed that there wasn't any items attached to that agenda, but I hope at the very least that the City Council would be given a transcript ahead of time so that they all can recall (at least on paper) what was said and who proposed what and what does "assisting and advising" really mean?

So you'll need to get your bearings using this map because it's not precisely that intuitive, or at least I didn't find it that way.   It really should be rotated clockwise about 90 degrees, but you work with what's out there.   So the top of the graphic is Mariner's Square loop and the right side is Tinker/Stargell and the bottom is 5th street, so that should give you a pretty good idea of what is what.   Click on the graphic itself to enlargen.   The red arrows designate the north-south running main driveway that this Alameda Journal article is discussing:

Catellus Development and the city's Planning Board are at odds about how many sidewalks should be built within the sizable retail component of the Alameda Landing development.

At issue is whether sidewalks should be built along both sides of the main driveway within the retail portion of the planned 77-acre development. Catellus officials believe one sidewalk is sufficient.

In a 4-1 vote Tuesday night, Planning Board members insisted on the additional sidewalk. But Catellus and city staff say its problems -- including the loss of 121 parking spaces -- outweigh the sidewalk's benefits. Board member Patrick Lynch dissented.

Unable to reach a consensus with the Planning Board, the developer says it will appeal the decision to the City Council.

"The Planning Board has their view and we have our view of how it should be, and it got to the point where we had to agree to disagree," said Aidan Barry, the vice president of development for Catellus...

Personally, I am rather pleased with the insistence of the majority of the Planning Board members to have sidewalks running on both sides of the main driveway.  I understand from the staff report that one of the concerns Catellus had with the inclusion of sidewalks on both sides was that the loss of the parking spaces would hurt their chances of retailing the center properly.   One other concern City staff and the developers raised to making the main driveway more "street like" with the two sidewalks is that they were afraid that it would encourage cut-through traffic and speeding.

I have to say when I saw this rendering it had a very uncomfortable "Pacific Commons" feel.   Now Pacific Commons works well for Fremont, but wouldn't necessarily translate well to Alameda.   Making the center driveway feel more street-like with the double sidewalks, more landscaping would be a much better fit.   Besides, shouldn't pedestrian safety trump everything else?   After all, retailers insisting on x number of parking spaces per square foot or however it is calculated wouldn't last very long if the area around their stores are perceived as dangerous for pedestrians.    Since Catellus has only talked about potential clients and have yet to offer up a list of retailers that they are actively soliciting perhaps the tenants who are insisting on the increased parking space are not necessarily retailers that Alamedans are particularly thrilled about.

Anyway, the sidewalk issue is now out of the hands of the Planning Board and will be appealled to the City Council.   Let's hope they see the wisdom in having more sidewalks and not less. 

For more discomforting maps, check out Stop, Drop and Roll today...this is a shocker.

Tonight, on the Planning Board agenda are some items of interest concerning Alameda Landing.  As reported by the Alameda Journal:

...In January, the city approved Catellus' 77-acre housing and commercial development at the site of a former Navy supply center along the Estuary. As part of the development, Catellus planned a public promenade on 12 acres along the water adjacent to the headquarters of energy-snack maker Clif Bar.

Due to the infrastructure problems, Catellus now has come back with a new plan for that area that will change pieces of the overall design and reduce publicly accessible open space by about an acre. The original plan approved by the city had required no less than eight acres of open space.

...

The problem on the northern waterfront is that as many as three-fourths of the 7,116 pilings holding up the wharf along the water's edge are corroded. In addition, the soils and embankments under the wharf need seismic retrofitting...

Surprise surprise, infrastructure problems on former military property.  No way!   So what the article goes on to say though that Clif Bar, remember, they are getting one of the rehabilitated warehouses next to the water, will still get their rehabilitated warehouse on the water.  But the warehouse to the west of the Clif Bar one will be torn down.   The text in the staff report mentions that the intent is to set back the second building from the water to increase the amount of public space in front of NCBB (Not Clif Bar's Building).   Staff say that there is now an increase in public open space on this section from the orginial 44 feet from building to water to 100 feet from building to water.   All fine and good, but as other people mentioned during those workshops if there is nothing on that side of the development to keep activity "alive" during non business hours, the open space will be useless for evenings and weekends.   And while the Clif Bar retail store and restaurant are a good start, it's going to take more than that to keep that end of the Landing jumping.  It might be nice to include, in the new building, small retail space for a cafe or something like that as the Miracle League is planned for that end of Alameda Landing.   It could be very useful for folks during practice or games...but I digress.

The biggest change however, should please some folks who complained about lack of access to the water itself.  Because Catellus doesn't want to shell out the $30 - 35 million (who can blame them?) to fix the supports in order to build what they had approved initially, they have instead proposed a secondary level that the public will walk down to to be closer to the water, it will be 40 feet wide and will ostensibly provide better access to docks for kayakers or boats.   That is, if docks are included in the plan.

So, we're going from 11.9 acres of open space to 10.8 acres, losing about 1.1 acres...although can you technically "lose" something if you never had it in the first place?   The staff report is quick to point out that a minimum of  8 acres is required under the master plan.   Of course we could all be extra wowed or extra disappointed if we only had some drawings to look at.   Evidently, even though the text references renderings that would give one a better idea of what we can expect, there are none to be found on the website as part of the packet.  Of course there is a tiny note on the website that says:

*Site Plans are available for review in the Planning & Building Department during regular business hours.

Yeah, but who has time to get down to the Planning & Building Department during regular business hours?  So now, I have to wait until the meeting tonight (or watch it tomorrow morning) and squint at the tiny little picture that is the Web feed and then try to make out what is on the overhead projector -- which is almost black on the television.   And I'm complaining about this because I know that most people are going to be interested in what the agenda item previous to the waterfront change should look like, in drawing format.   Yes, Catellus is request design approval for the retail center portion of the project.   Which includes "large format stores" like building A, which if I remember correctly will be at corner of 5th Street and Tinker/Stargell.   They say that have tweaked a lot of the plans based on feedback from the Planning Board, but how would we all know because there are no fricken renderings.   And although I have a great imagination, I just can't visualize what providing "more fluctuation in the envelope" means.  Maybe that's just my own personal deficit.  So big night tonight for Alameda Landing watchers.

So, what does this mean for the big bullseye, well after listening to about 3 hours of Planning Board discussion and watching the presentation for Alameda Landing, it's pretty clear that Catellus is probably going to be rewooing or has already wooed Target to fill one of the "large format" slots for Alameda Landing.  Reflecting back, it seems that Harsch was pretty meh about Target coming in, according to this article the head of the company was very neutral about Target in general:

But while the head of the company that owns the Towne Centre would love to see the Target added, he said he wouldn't sweat it too much if it doesn't work out.

"This is a long-term development for us," said Jordan Schnitzer, president of the Portland-based Harsch Investment Properties, which has owned the South Shore shopping center since the late 1970s. "We want it to be done right. Target would be a wonderful addition here ... but there are other options."

Let's hope that the "other options" include something a little more creative than yet another grocery store or discount clothing retailer.  My last visit to ATC included a pop-in to the Old Navy and a walk through the main mall-y area.  I have to say that the changes are a complete 180 to what was there, but the lack of tenants to fill the "boutique" shops is distressing.  Maybe the businesses are waiting until more of the anchor stores are complete before coming in like Bed Bath and Beyond (one of my particular favorites, and was recognized as a "Blue" company by the now defunct BuyBlue.org). 

But back to Alameda Landing, for one, they have a new shiny website, but this one, while much more user friendly, is still as uninformative as the old one.  I was hoping to find the power point slides they presented at the Planning Board meeting, because heck if I could make out anything on that tiny screen.   Add to that the terrible sound quality -- can ANYONE fix the microphone for the public speakers, half of the time they are so loud it distorts anything anyone has to say.   I got the "yesterday and today" theme that runs through the project, but I guess I would like the benefit of seeing the pretty pictures as well to make a final judgment. 

One of the things that I like is the constant efforts to reuse materials and be more environmentally friendly.  According to the presentation they are going to be reusing timber and steel reclaimed from the old buildings and incorporating it into the facades of the buildings.  I like the idea of the water towers which recapture a historic feel but also (I believe) will be capturing rainwater to reuse.   I also like the idea of  graphic elements on the building to relieve the montony that tends to be a part of the "large format" buildings. 

But more importantly, which of these "large format" buildings do you think will be the future home of Target?

I assume they would want the biggest building that is available, but I can't really tell by the little boxes which is the biggest.

Clif Bar Headquarters

As has been well advertised, the Clif Bar headquarters will be housed in an exisiting warehouse that will be rehabilitated.   Additionaly, they will be rehabilitating a second building into a "parking shed."  The warehouse that Clif Bar will be headquarted in is approximately 72,000 sq ft and will be converted to a 100,000 sq ft of space for Clif Bar and other related support functions.   The warehouse itself will be redesigned by ZGF Architects and the parking shed will be designed by SMWM.  One of the major concerns that arose with this portion of the waterfront being so heavily commercial is that it would end up being lively and active during the work week and work hours, but abandoned much like the Marina Village and Harbor Bay Business Parks after hours and on weekends.  Clif Bar has promised to include at their headquarters a number of support uses that will also be open to the public and hopefully will provide that after hours and weekend activity to keep that portion of the waterfront "alive."   Some of those uses are that have been specifically noted as being open to the public:

• Clif Bar and Grill Restaurant (Mediterrean style)
• Luna Lounge (coffee club type space)
• Clif Bar Retail Store
• 272 seat Theater with Balcony

One of the amazing things that Clif Bar is going to try to do is that provide natural lighting in such a way that they will not need to use electricity during the day.  Of course, they are also attempting to secure a LEED platinum rating as well and mentioned that they would be studying the feasibility of harnassing wind power in addition to solar.

Want to watch the presentation?  It starts at 1:04 on the video feed.

The Parking Shed

As mentioned previously, the Parking Shed will be designed by SMWM, the building behind the Clif Bar headquarters has been earmarked for the Parking Shed.  There will be 160 parking spaces in the Shed.  They are pretty much going to keep the building as is, trying to keep as much original fixtures as possible.  The only color they intend to add into the Shed is a bright orange.  According to the staff report (starts at page 11) they will be introducing huge lettering on one side of the building spelling out "parkingarage" (when I say huge I mean, building height letters).  I imagine that this will appeal to some and not appeal to others.  Me, I like it.  I'm into caps.   What is neat about this Shed is that it is intended to be a space that could be converted to something other than a place for parking like space for an indoor farmers market or concerts and events.  Or at least that is what the report says.

Landscaping

Interesting, but it's a more of a wait and see sort of thing.  It's easy to draw full grown trees into plans, but usually the reality is such a bummer to what is drawn.   Psst...to anyone reading this that is responsible for the Alameda Landing website, can someone update it with the powerpoint slides that have been shown for the Alameda Landing project and its pieces?  

Only a handful of people came out for public comment, all positives, no negatives.  I skimmed the rest of the meeting, evidently Board member Mariani wasn't into the "parkingarage" sign, as I imagine that others probably won't be into either.   Anyway, from what I skimmed through, everything was approved, with conditions of course.  I'll just wait for the minutes to be typed up which is so much quicker than having to watch the video feed.

I would have done more of a cut and paste-y analysis for you all, but the PDF was the same old same old (although hopefully this should be the end of the non searchable PDFs from the city), check out Stop, Drop, and Roll's pick up of some of the items I missed, most notably the staff report about incorporating Measure A compliant housing on the waterfront.

Last Monday, the Planning Board appointed an Ad Hoc committee to set up forums to discuss overturning Measure A in all of Alameda.

 

Last Thursday, the Planning Staff hired consultants using a grant from MTC to present a “convincing” case for overturning Measure A at Alameda Point.  This charge was led by the Senior Planning staff and the Vice President of the Planning Board.

...

 

It is all outrageous.  Planning has no business using MTC money (our taxpayer money) to campaign for the overthrow of Measure A. It was admitted by their own hired consultant that we will have sufficient density to support mass transit.

First of all, let's ease up on the alarmist language shall we?  The Ad Hoc committee was established to set up a workshop to talk about Measure A...not overturn it.  If supporters of Measure A don't believe in it enough to think it can withstand the scruntiny of a few community meetings, perhaps that is evidence enough that we as a city should be reviewing it and taking a good hard look at it again.  And, considering that Jean Sweeney was one of only four people who came out at the initial planning board meeting to talk about why we should not have the meeting we had at Mastick Center, her contention that the Planning Board has "no business using MTC money...to campaign for the overthrow of Measure A" is sort of odd.   At that meeting she spoke at, Andrew Thomas cleared up that issue:

At about 2.15, Andrew Thomas explains what the MTC monies were awarded to Alameda for and it was, in fact, largerly to study the impacts of Measure A.  So if the forum funded by MTC monies does not involve Measure A, the money will have to be returned to the MTC. 

While I thought the presentations were well done and very convincing, it was in no way a "campaign" to overthrow Measure A.  They simply presented the facts and their analysis as professionals, and we like professionals remember?  We don't like <insert profession of choice> playing at being <insert other profession of choice>.  And I'm not sure what presentation Jean S. was listening to, but I seem to remember the consultant talking about the need to add more housing to open space to maxmize possible transit usage. 

Next Jean S. says:

We were told by the Planning Board VP on Thursday that it was hard telling her daughter why she had to be there that evening.  I should think it would be hard to tell your child that you have led the charge to overturn our density ordinance after 35 years of protecting our city from over development.

One, I don't think that Ann Cook is leading "the charge to overturn" Measure A.  I believe she is doing what she thinks is best for the City: to reexamine a more than 30 year old law that may or may not still be good for Alameda. But for the sake of argument, let's say that she did, and if she did, I'm puzzled by Jean S.'s statement that it would be "hard to tell your child" that information.  I guess you have to come in with the mindset of "Measure A is the savior of all that is Alameda" but this is not some battle between good and evil. 

Then Jean S. says:

Catellus has asked for the overthrow of Measure A in their proposal to be the developer at Alameda Point. If we can’t get a developer to make Measure A work, then we should try one that can. The Preliminary Development plan is compliant with Measure A.

Actually, perhaps Jean S. missed that section in the additional questions to the developers, but Catellus was actually the only developer who pandered to the yay-Measure A side.   They said they would be "open" to exploring non-Measure A compliant options through community processes, but never did they ever say they wanted to overthrow Measure A.  In fact, they clearly state that they are able to make "Measure A work" for their vision:

Catellus feels confident that our financial goals can be met within the parameters of Measure A. Based on past experience, increased residential density does not always translate into increased revenue. The allowable densities set forth in Measure A are compatible with creating a sustainable and green community.

Next:

AC Transit says that the percentage of Alamedans who ride the bus is as high as any Bay Area community, but the planning staff, not AC Transit, says that we need more density at Alameda Point. We have plenty of development on the West End to keep AC Transit happy.

I don't think that the idea of Transit Oriented Development was proposed for Alameda Point in order to "keep AC Transit happy."  But rather a way to develop smartly at Alameda Point in order to mitigate the impact of an inevitable increase in population.  No one is saying or even implying that transit will fix all the traffic problems that Alameda has and will have, but if you give a person a convenient option to use transit then it becomes attractive.  AC Transit saying that the percentage of Alamedans who ride the bus is high comes as a good counterpoint to those who have been beating the drums of "no one rides the bus in Alameda so buses are unnecessary in Alameda." 

And:

Planning Staff leaped at the opportunity posed by a member of the audience who proposed work-live for the existing BEQ and BOQ saying, “I can see a consensus building.”

This is when the meeting actually started to get productive, rather than the red faced shouting and heckling.  Rather than pose this as though it is something negative, I wonder what Jean S. would propose the city do with the BEQ and BOQ buildings?  If Jean S. has a better use for the buildings we are all ears, but personally I think work/live is an excellent way to reuse the old buildings on Alameda Point.

Just to sum up a few thoughts I had about the meeting, I understand why a lot of folks who may be open to amending Measure A for Alameda Point would be reluctant to speak at a meeting like the one at Mastick, as has been reported in other comments, there was a lot of angry people that spoke at the beginning of the open forum and it set a really negative tone for the remainder of the meeting.  It started getting better after a lot of the cranky people left, but I personally, did not feel as though it were a "safe" place for me to speak my mind or ask any questions.  

For me, what took the cake was when a young man spoke about the possibility of Alameda Point being a car-free zone, while it was definitely a non-starter, it was his time to speak but before he was even a quarter into his statement people started...it can only be described as heckling...him.  This was very disappointing to me because it was not as though it was a bunch of teenagers, in fact, at that point I thought that a bunch of teenagers probably would have been more respectful.  Even though folks as a whole may not have agreed with him, the least they could have offered him was a moment to finish his thoughts without interruption.   Hopefully, we can do better at the next forum folks.

The Alameda Journal/crossover Alameda Times-Star article characterized the meeting rather politely:

Measure A dominated a question-and-answer session after WRT's presentation Thursday. At times, it turned emotional.

And this statement from Doug deHaan:

City Councilman Doug deHaan questioned whether the consultants had adequate background information on the history of Alameda Point and said they didn't seem to have a good feel for the community.

"They didn't understand the passion for Measure A," he said.

If they didn't understand before that meeting, they understand the "passion" now.   As to having a "good feel for the community," I don't necessarily think that the people at that meeting were representative of Alameda as a whole.  Although I can empathize with those that are "passionate about Measure A," I understand that they are frustrated with folks like me and can't understand why there is the need to revisit something they feel has served Alameda so well.  On the flip side, I don't know if those that are "passionate about Measure A" can understand folks like me and why I am frustrated with their reluctance to even talk about Measure A.   Although I must say that "passion" does not excuse rudeness.

Next, Doug deHaan says:

...the city has approved relatively high-density development within the confines of Measure A at places such as Cardinal Point, a senior community across from Jack London Square, and at Alameda Landing, where Catellus is preparing to build a major mixed-use development.

Cardinal Point is Measure A compliant because it sort of skirts around what is a "housing unit."  If you look at the floor plans, you will notice something missing.  That's right, it's missing a cooking area, and by cooking area I mean a stove.  I'm sure you can do a lot with a microwave, but a kitchen is not a real kitchen without a stove and oven.  [I've been told that Cardinal Point does have stoves, so I'm trying to figure out what aspect of Cardinal Point would have exempted it from Measure A...quite possibly the senior housing or the meal plan...stay tuned] And while Alameda Landing is going to be exciting in its mixed-useness, it doesn't take advantage of all the planning and land use tools to make it truly "smart" because of the limitations of Measure A.

I know this is belated, but this is the celebratory post for the final approval of Alameda Landing.

Yay!

*confetti*

From a press release I received a few days ago, highlights:

...Alameda Landing will be developed on an 81-acre waterfront site that formerly served as a U.S. Navy industrial supply depot. When completed, it will include up to 300,000 square feet of new retail development, 400,000 square feet of offices, and 300 single-family homes and townhomes. 

The Alameda City Council formally approved a new development agreement for the project on Tuesday, following years of planning and community input. Demolition work at the site is expected to begin this spring, with delivery of the first phase of office and retail buildings planned for the second half of 2008. 
...

Under the approved Alameda Landing development agreement, the company will receive title to the land from the city. The company, in turn, has agreed to fund approximately $103 million in planning, cleanup and public infrastructure costs at the site. The company expects to recoup up to $56 million through proceeds from tax-increment bonds, community facilities districts and other public funds over time. Catellus will manage the entire development process, undertaking certain components of the project on its own and conducting transactions with other developers as appropriate. 

Hmm...we know that Catellus doesn't do homebuilding, smells like we have another Warmington Homes development underway for the Landing.    If Warmington is indeed going to be selected to build the Landing Homes, I don't expect any of the homes to be built until Bayport and Grand Marina  (scroll past the tree stuff) are completely sold out. 

I assume that the first priority for Catellus will be rehabbing the warehouse the Clif Bar has been promised, since there are plans that the new Clif Bar site will be a model of green construction (eg. carbon neutral, platinum LEED certification, solar panels, etc...) they better get cracking. 

Catellus now has about a year and a half, according to the promised first phase of completed office and retail to be delivered in late 2008, to find a good solid retail mix for the Landing.   I hope that they will go back to the community to solicit feedback on what residents want for the Landing.  I know I have a vision for what I want, retail-wise, and I would bet that every citizen in Alameda  (whether or not they wanted the Landing in the first place) has a list of stores they would like to see populate the Landing.

In other news, ACLO will be hosting a trivia contest on April 28 at 6:00 p.m.   Very neat.  I love trivia.  Anyone want to form a team with me? :)

The rest of Alameda developed organically for over a century, with development centered around transit (Park St and the various stations). Things were built according to demand and utility.

To which NIMBY echos with:

I’ve been trying to explain the concept or organic growth to anyone who cares to listen—and very few get it. You nailed it—it’s growth based on need, not greed. The analogy I have come up with is “just prune and water,” in other words allow things to develop over time, get rid of what’s bad without losing the good, respect what’s already there and experiment with new things in small steps.

Park Street and the other historic "Stations" in Alameda were developed long before the advent of Measure A.  There is nothing "organic" about growth that has to occur under Measure A.

Both Just Plain Dave and NIMBY talk about the need to develop based on "demand and utility" and "growth based on need, not greed."  The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on the anticipated population growth in the Bay Area and the potential for there not to be sufficient housing for that growth, some excerpts:

The Bay Area's population will rise by about 2 million people over the next 30 years...

Planners and demographers said Thursday it may be time for the Bay Area to bite the bullet and plan for density, because people will continue coming here to work.

...

That population growth is likely to exacerbate the long-standing housing shortage in the Bay Area, say regional planners inside and outside the [A]ssociation [of Bay Area Governments]. The housing shortage is something that must be addressed regionwide and not just city by city, they say.

...

At a presentation of the 30-year plan in Oakland on Thursday, planners with the association said cities will need to create multifamily housing and boost growth in areas that are hubs of public transportation to accommodate the projected 2035 Bay Area population of 9 million.

The report recommends cities create a variety of housing options, from single-family residences to multifamily residences such as townhouses, and believe that 20,000 to 25,000 units of housing will be created each year.

...

Cities in the Bay Area should plan where new housing can be built and minimize red tape that delays construction, Fassinger said, repeating a refrain commonly heard in the Bay Area for at least two decades.

That's much easier to say than to do, said Hans Johnson, a research fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California. Surveys conducted by that organization show that city planners rate interest in creating multifamily housing just above creating zones of heavy industrial development. [emphasis added]

I've linked to this report before, but ABAG came out with an updated version of this report: A Place to Call Home which lays out the housing situation in the Bay Area.  So, if this article and report do not show both a "need" versus "greed" scenario or a "demand" for housing, I'm not sure what other proof is necessary.  Jump to page 27 of the report and it shows that Alameda has only built 30% of its housing allocation regionally.   Some excerpts from the report which show the results from not having enough housing and therefore reducing affordablity:

The lack of affordable housing options in the Bay Area forces many consumers into paying a higher percentage of their income for housing. This leaves families with less to spend on necessities such as food, childcare, and healthcare, and at local businesses.

...

While some families respond to the shortage of affordable housing choices by paying more than they can afford for housing, others end up in overcrowded homes as a way to lower their housing costs. Four Bay Area counties— Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda— rank within the top 100 counties in the U.S. relative to overcrowded housing.

...

Travel patterns are dictated by the location of people’s homes, jobs, and other activities. In the Bay Area, high housing costs force many people to move to less costly areas and accept longer commutes—sometimes from outside the region. And, of course, high housing costs and traffic congestion limit economic growth.

NIMBY recommended on another post that I

...should read at least the introduction to the General Plan—it gives a pretty good overview of what kind of city the people of Alameda already decided they want, and it outlines the general direction. Unlike much other city documentation, it’s a very thoughtful and well-written document.

Fair enough, I read it and I don't disagree with what is written there, as I have stated before.  Some things I found:

I really enjoyed Eric Kos's column in last weeks Alameda Sun about the need for signage announcing that one has entered Alameda.   On a side note, I noticed that Eric K's column is entitled "Jersey Boy," but if I were the one picking a name for his column it would be "Kos and Effect."  Too cute?

Some highlights:

...Why don’t we have any welcome signs at the entrances to our fine community? To be honest, I’ve looked, I’ve been over all the crossings, the entrances, the gateways to Alameda — it must be almost a thousand times each.

Roughly west to east, the six entrances are: the Webster Tube, the Park Street Bridge, the Fruitvale Street Bridge, the High Street Bridge, Doolittle Drive and the Ron Cowan Expressway. Those six entities navigable by automobile, each cross the line between Oakland and Alameda, and no others do. At each there’s a disorienting lack of welcome once you’ve actually arrived in Alameda.

...

Robert Drake, a long-time Alameda resident, businessman, and a fellow board member of GABA came up with the idea; I’m just trying to get it done. And on the advice of another board member, there will now be a large jug in my office for people who want to donate money for the signs.

Interestingly enough, at the last City Council meeting, this is the issue that Tony Daysog kept bringing up. In talking to some other people in the community, it seems like this topic rears its head every so often and then seems to disappear into the ether.  But what probably ends up happening is characterized in Eric K.'s piece:

...there’s also the possibility that we’ll have 36,000 people who think the signs ought to be green and 36,000 people who think the signs should be red or maybe blue, or maybe 72,000 will be undecided. And maybe the mayor would want them this way, but the city manager wants them to be that way, or you know. And then there’ll be someone upstairs pulling the strings and someone else getting a kickback on the construction in the backroom. Sadly, I can’t go on without saying there’s likely an element here in town who will tell me they don’t want to welcome anyone else into the city who isn’t already here. Those scary xenophobes are out there, too.

Personally, I want it to have a huge panda on it with outstretched arms and a huge grin welcoming everyone with open arms.  After all, what is more welcoming than a huge bear hug.   And a panda bear one at that? 

Eric K. ends with an appeal to all:

With all the people who come to the Alameda Sun office, some funds are bound to be raised. I’ve got the jar set up here at 3215J Encinal Ave., so please come by and pitch in a dime here, a penny there, and someday, we’ll all be welcome in Alameda.

All in all, I think it's a good idea for there to be signage into Alameda, when I lived in Hayward, there was a big sign off Jackson Street, I don't know if it said "Welcome" but it definitely announced in a non-CalTrans way that you were now in the Hayward city limits.  We were just in Pinole the other day and there was both a "Welcome to Pinole" sign and on the reverse it said "Come Back Soon" or "Thank you for Visiting" something along those lines.  I think like Pinole though, we should think of our exiting message as well, maybe each of the exiting signs could reflect the mood of the neighborhood that the exit point is in.  The Park Street Bridge could have a sign stating "Come Back Soon! (and bring your retail dollars with you)"  Maybe the High Street Bridge could say, "Thanks for visiting! (now you can speed up and drive more than 25 mph)"

But on a serious note, I'm not sure if signage will necessarily bring the goal that Eric K. is looking for to have us "all be welcome in Alameda."  To have that, we'll have to stop telling people that they should move somewhere else if you don't like what they have to say.  Or stop denegrating people's neighborhoods (and thereby the people in those neighborhoods) because you don't like how it looks.  We need to stop treating certain areas in Alameda as the "ugly stepchild" and start listening to what all people have to say rather than try to marginalize them and the impacts of what they have brought to the community.  Maybe then we will all be and feel welcome in Alameda, signage or not.

Photo submitted by David K...as referenced by just plain Dave, click on photo to enlarge.

Now, I just wanted to preface this by saying that I understand the concerns of the neighbors not wanting a sun-blocking, out of scale two story addition amongst their 50s ranch homes, but on the other hand I could not help but feel sorry for the homeowner who really has been very patient and very accomodating going through revision after revision with her architect to lessen the impact on her immediate neighbor.   Basically after an hour of excruiating talk about shade and times when the shade hits the neighbors house, I wanted to shout out, "stop jerking her around already, approve it or don't."  But, I didn't think that would fall under the category of "appropriate" under Robert's Rules of Order.   The only councilperson that was being moderately practical about this project was Councilmember Gilmore who pretty much said that two story additions are allowed under the current design rules, to send it back just on that merit alone would pretty much be saying that we are going to effectively "downzone" R-1 areas.   The orginial applicant was very subdued when the Council asked her to come to the podium to speak.  Personally I would not have been so reasonable as she was when she mentioned that she was willing to continue working with the City and the neighbors.  So that goes back to the Planning Board and I hope it's not another 15 months for that homeowner.

So, finally the Landing project comes up and the staff presentation is going by so slowly that Mayor Johnson interrupts to basically ask them to speed it up because there are around 50 speaker slips.  After some quick calculation 3 minutes times 50 speakers, my neighbors and I realized that we would be there well over 2.5 hours listening to people ramble on and on.  Thank goodness when it was actually time, Mayor Johnson asked everyone to stick to 2 minutes so that we could all get home at a reasonable hour.  Fortunately, the majority of folks, probably sensitive to the lateness of the hour, kept their comments short.  The vast majority of speakers spoke in favor of the project, I think there were only 2 that were outright opposing the project and another 2 that cautioned about the type of tenants so that local small businesses would not be burdened by "category killer" competition.  I was shocked that there were not more people opposing the project after the call to arms by Action Alameda on Alameda Daily News.

The most compelling speakers were the first two, Nicholas and Jaime.  Nicholas asked the council to approve the project because one component of the project would be the Miracle League Field, the first in Northern California for differently abled children.  I hope that not only will the Miracle Field be built, but also that a playground specifically designed for differently abled children will be built on Alameda Landing.   The Miracle League Field component is more exciting that any number of shops or commercial tenants that Alameda Landing is able to attract.  After Nicholas spoke, I don't know if there was a dry eye in the whole room.

The second speaker was Jaime, a young person living in the West End who asked the council to approve the project because it would bring entry level job opportunities for him and other youth in the West End, so that they could continue to go to school but have a job within walking distance from home.  He added that transportation for youth is a luxury and the ability to walk to work would help him out.

I left shortly after I spoke (Pleasesupporttheprojectthankyou) and have just finished watching the end of the meeting.  Councilmember Daysog was fixated on the idea of an Alameda Gateway off the Webster Tube, which I think is a good idea, but I wasn't sure if it was an appropriate time to bring it up.  However, considering that this was his last meeting, I'll cut him some slack.   Councilmember DeHaan wanted to cap all retail stores at 50K, I think to avoid the "Big Box" dilemma, but considering that one of the major retail leakage items is Housewares and Furniture, that probably is a bad idea, which I commend Councilmember Daysog for saying.  He brought it up using Kohl's as an example of a good retailer that we might want in Alameda that would require more than 50K sq ft. 

But the end result was, even after all the clarifications and discussion, the elements of the project were approved by all city council members and Alameda Landing is moving forward.  And as a speaker mentioned last night, let's make Alameda an "Isle of Style."

Thanks to Tony Daysog for his 10 years of service to Alameda as a Councilmember!

Just in case you haven't had your morning cup o' Don Roberts just yet, Action Alameda has put out the talking points for the City Council meeting tonight in regards to Alameda Landing.  Highlights:

Action Alameda urges Alameda citizens to appear at the City Council meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, to ask the Council to defer approval of the new proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for Alameda Landing until both citizens and the City Council have had sufficient time to review this new agreement.

...

Action Alameda also announced some specific concerns related to the proposal itself, including:

- - The City has plans to develop Alameda Point, which will rely on the same traffic corridor and access point as Alameda Landing. Alameda Landing traffic may consume much of the available capacity leaving little for Alameda Point.

- - The original proposal called for Catellus to provide a "Tinker Avenue" connection to their development which would route traffic more efficiently to and from island access points. The current proposal calls for Catellus to pay "in lieu fees." Instead of "in lieu fees" the developer should pay for this infrastructure upgrade to Tinker Avenue.

- - The current “revised configuration" includes 300 new homes with increased retail space and reduced commercial office space. The newly proposed retail mix includes potential for several big-box-type stores which tend to bring mostly minimum wage job opportunities. Commercial space would bring higher paying jobs that would allow more Alameda residents to live and work on the island, reducing traffic pressure on our access points.

To me, bullets one and two pretty much address the same issue, but I guess three bullets just looks more important than only two.  Regarding the Tinker Avenue extension project, here is what the Alameda Journal reports about that issue:

The feasibility of the Tinker project will depend on acquiring permits from Caltrans and acquisition of three acres of open space just north of the College of Alameda and owned by the Peralta Community College District. Neither of those negotiations have been settled.

If the Tinker project is unworkable, Catellus and the city will need to agree on a number of other traffic mitigation alternatives that have not been fleshed out, city Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager Debbie Potter said.

If those traffic alternatives don't come together, Catellus will pay the city in-lieu fees intended to reduce the number of vehicle trips. The fees will be based on a formula related to the profitability of the development.

The least Action Alameda could have done was given their people all the information, so that when they parrot the party line at the podium at least they sound like they understand what's going on.  The "in lieu fees" are plan C if plans A and B don't work out.  Not an alternative to an established plan A.   Maybe Action Alameda can direct the energy of their membership to putting some pressure on Caltrans and the College district to move plan A forward, rather than expecting the worse case sceanrio of Catellus not being able to do plan A or B and having to pay up instead.

Finally, the old "oh no there is going to be BIG BOX STORES" spectre.  Since there is a glut of commercial space still unleased in Marina Village and on Harbor Bay, I don't know what purpose it would serve to have more commercial space that would sit around unleased, since Action Alameda seems to think that the modification of less commercial more retail was unwise.  I know I have harped on this a few times before, but at the community meetings I attended regarding Alameda Landing, the common theme among the attendees was "less commercial, more retail" citing the unleased commercial space as evidence.  Of course, the one thing that the developer ignored (or perhaps didn't find economically feasible) was the attendees desires to see parking garages rather than rows upon rows of parking lots.

And you know what would "allow more Alameda residents to live and work on the island, reducing traffic pressure on our access points"?  Live/work lofts. 

Stop, Drop, and Roll has good analysis about the traffic issues surrounding the project, check it out.

With a special City Council meeting scheduled for Dec 5th, the Chronicle has an article on Alameda Landing. Having been to one of the early workshops, it is clear that a significant amount of planning and community input has gone into the proposed design. Alameda Landing is expected to eventually contribute nearly $5m in annual property and sales taxes. The city could definitely use this extra income.

Some highlights from the article:

Alameda Landing is described as a tribute to environmentally friendly design. Nearly all the buildings would be constructed from recycled, reused and nontoxic materials. Bike and pedestrian paths would weave past East Coast-style walk-up duplexes, outdoor restaurants and rehabilitated warehouses.

Catellus has made a number of concessions to the city, such as agreeing to clean up the contaminated soil, build the infrastructure and help promote local businesses that might be adversely affected by the influx of retail. The company also agreed to set aside 25 percent of residential units as affordable housing and to design the development to blend with its surroundings by extending streets and using matching streetlights, signs and other features.

"We got everything we asked for, certainly," said David Brandt, Alameda's assistant city manager. "We think it'll bring more people and activities to the waterfront, and we're happy about that."

The article also mentions that traffic mitigation still remains an important issue.

The Alameda Journal reports:

...Catellus Development Group moved to revise its proposed redevelopment project at the former Navy Fleet Industrial Supply Center, now dubbed Alameda Landing.

The new plan reduced the amount of office space and created a greater mixture of uses that will include a waterfront park, several hundred thousand square feet of retail and office space and up to 300 homes.

The project and the $27 million subsidy sought from the city's Redevelopment Agency will be considered by the City Council, acting as the City Improvement Commission, on Dec. 5.

...A revised development agreement reduced the office space to 400,000 square feet, and now proposes 300,000 square feet of retail space, a 20,000-square-foot health club and up to 300 homes.

In addition, the new development agreement reduces the subsidy sought from the city, from $40 million to $27 million, which will be spent on public infrastructure including roads, utility lines and open space.

In another change, Catellus now pledges that it will be responsible for any infrastructure improvements that run above that dollar amount. Previously, the city had been saddled with the entire cost of the project's "backbone infrastructure."

...

Under the plan, shops, restaurants and entertainment will be oriented toward the water, said Catellus vice president Bruce Knopf, and the plan will include a waterfront promenade and a small boat launch.

There will be four "anchor retailers" of between 15,000 and 40,000 square feet dedicated to clothing, housewares and home electronics. The balance in square footage would be made up by "smaller retailers."

The retail space could generate as much as $1 million a year in sales tax, a significant figure, given that revenue from the biggest tax generators in the city -- car dealerships -- is being cut by half in the next two years.

 Before someone complains that 300K square feet is too much retail, I was at a few of the community meetings about Alameda Landing, and I was at the public workshop where they divided everyone into groups and we got to play around with the maps and the placement of the buildings to show what kind of mix we wanted to see.  The common theme was less office, more retail.  Also to bring a very nebulous 300K sq ft amount into perspective, Bay Street in Emeryville is 400K sq ft and the Ikea next door is 274K sq ft.  So when we have this sort of statement being made:

City Councilman Doug deHaan said the anchor tenants were essentially "big box" stores -- though not as large as a Wal-Mart or Target -- and is concerned about the potential traffic impacts from people coming from off the Island to shop.

It feels like we are back at square one throwing around terms that are specifically used to raise people's defenses and adds nothing to a constructive debate.  These days in Alameda, "big box" is synonymous with panda hating and throwing puppies in the middle of freeways, it just gets people into knee jerk mode.   

And, I have here in my hot little hands, a fact sheet for Alameda Landing, one interesting thing is the proposed Master Plan map of the Landing.  It looks like the developers have decided to reuse two exisiting warehouses on the property (I believe Clif Bar already called dibs on one of them), there is a Little League Field proposed where there was supposed to be more office space and it looks like there is a considerable bit of open space.  Some more interesting factoids that I hope come to fruition:

• Partnership with Marina Village, WABA, Mariner Square, Alameda Point, and College of Alameda to operate a shuttle system to BART;
• Water shuttle linkage to Jack London Square;
• Encourage bike usage and walking with wide bike lanes and sidewalks and employee showers in all office building (after all there is only so much stank deodorant can cover);
• Creating a position of Transportation Systems Manager to coordinate, monitor, and implement transportation projects such as ride sharing, shuttles, etc...;
• Partnership with WABA with ideas such as joining Alameda Landing and Webster through walking and bike paths, shuttle, joint marketing;
• Waterfront plaza with 50K sq ft of retail along or near waterfront (probably restaurants).

The Chronicle reports:

...Alameda Landing is described as a tribute to environmentally friendly design. Nearly all the buildings would be constructed from recycled, reused and nontoxic materials. Bike and pedestrian paths would weave past East Coast-style walk-up duplexes, outdoor restaurants and rehabilitated warehouses.

A ball field with spectacular views of San Francisco would be adapted for children in wheelchairs. A boat would shuttle bicyclists and pedestrians across the Oakland Estuary to Jack London Square. The landscaped waterfront would be lined by the Bay Trail.

 ...

The project's anchor tenant is Clif Bar, which announced last summer that it would relocate its headquarters from Berkeley. The 200-employee energy-bar company plans to move in 2008.

Catellus has made a number of concessions to the city, such as agreeing to clean up the contaminated soil, build the infrastructure and help promote local businesses that might be adversely affected by the influx of retail. The company also agreed to set aside 25 percent of residential units as affordable housing and to design the development to blend with its surroundings by extending streets and using matching streetlights, signs and other features.

...

The cost of building the infrastructure and cleaning up the soil will be about $100 million, although the City Council will consider on Dec. 5 chipping in $27 million in tax breaks.

The rest of the project, which is expected to be completed by 2013, will cost more than $400 million, Knopf said.

But once finished, Alameda Landing will be a cash cow for the city, generating about $4.6 million annually in property and sales taxes, according to the developer's projections.

...

The West Alameda Business Association endorsed the plan after Catellus agreed to help promote local businesses.

"I think it'll really enhance an area that's been underused," said Ed Clark, owner of the 80-year-old Webster Pharmacy. "It'll be a big improvement for West Alameda and make it a more attractive place to be, which should benefit everyone."

So if you have any interest in this project at all, I urge you to get out to the Tuesday, December 5 City Council meeting.  I'm hoping that I'll be able to go, but I always feel a little awkward knowing that I'll just go up and say "Isupporttheproject,pleaseapproveitthankyou."  I suspect a lot of folks feel the same way I do about waiting around for 4 hours just to say less than 10 words, but the City Council has to know that in addition to the folks that will miss a night of Law and Order to come out to oppose whatever it is they are opposing, that those of us that support it should be willing to PVR SVU and Criminal Intent as well.

I hope we get a bank and a bakery.  And a Jamba Juice.

First they start off by talking about how much Pat Bail spent on the last election, Don Roberts threw her a nice softball question by saying, "I never understood why people were unhappy that you spent your own money in the campaign, do you want to comment on that?"  Wow, really hard hitting journalism there...so of course Pat Bail counters with the tidbit that it was actually more than $100K.  I wish I had $100K to throw around like it was monopoly money.  She says the point in her using her own money instead of fundraising for it so that she would, "maintain her own independence."  Then she takes a pot shot at, I assume Beverly Johnson, by saying that she (Pat Bail) didn't have to be bailed out by a developer at the very end or delay reporting expenditures.  Although according to the article posted by NIMBY, it wasn't just Beverly Johnson that benefited: Tony Daysog, Frank Matarrese, David Forbes, Tracy Jensen, and Dolores Jacquez...but I don't see anyone pointing fingers at them (well maybe at Frank Matarrese) and calling then "developer-backed."

She sort of rambles on and on about delaying paying invoices, blah blah blah...and says that she plans on doing the same thing that she did last time...which is not take donations from developers (must be easy since they probably wouldn't have offered anyway). Then she starts the smearing without naming names again and says that she (and her slate mates will be above that) "unlike some city council candidates who make it their career of taking donations from developers and special interest groups."  And then she goes on to state that she didn't take any money and self-financed her campaign so that she could "make the very best decisions [she] could and not owing anybody anything...for the community, for the people [she] would represent."  I wonder who those people are...

She says that she thought that she spent her money wisely in the campaign and that it got her a lot of name recognition. (no kidding...$100K will buy you a lot of "name recognition")  She then goes back to the "Slate" and how it's great that they are all together and it sends a more powerful message and then she begins hitting on the "agenda" issues, which has been refuted by John W.  And she says that their agenda issues with help maintain the "quality of life" in Alameda, yet not stifle improvement.  Okay, can somebody name one thing that Pat Bail has been for that could be considered "improvement" in Alameda.  Anybody?  Anybody?  Bueller?  Bueller?

She talks about the closed sessions again...but again John W. saves the day and has this to say about the nonsense over closed sessions. 

And now...Pat Bail wants, for every development, to "put it on the ballot" so that the voters can vote on it, so that they will have a "voice."  And then she starts the finger pointing again, saying that it's all Jim Flint and this council's fault.  That they have allowed the city staff to "be in charge" and not the city council.  So, Pat Bail...are you telling us that it is a City Councilperson's job to micromanage the staff as though they were unable to handle their job?  If so, we need to make the city councilperson's job a full time position and start compensating them appropriately, because they cannot run the city on a part-time basis. 

And then she complains that Alameda doesn't have a traffic plan and that we keep developing with out having a plan for traffic.  But a few commenters on this blog have said that information is untrue.  So either Pat Bail is bending the truth to make her poistion better or just uninformed.

She then moves on retail developments: Target, South Shore (aka Alameda Towne Centre), and Alameda Landing...saying that they will affect the retail on Park and Webster streets and Marina Village.  But she then hones in on Alameda Landing, saying that 300K sq ft of retail is too much and that "100K is "unexplained" and she thinks it will be "big box" stores and "do we really want big box stores in Alameda."  You knew she was going to have to fit in the "big box store" specter in somewhere.  If it wasn't going to be high density, sky scrapers to the moon, it was going to be "big box stores."

And the she talks about Beverly Johnson "going back to 1940" to justify more development, she says it is "not a realistic look-back, you have to look to the future."  Yes, Pat, we do have to look to the future, so why are you so insistent that we stay entrenched in in 1970s and cling on to Measure A?  She also says "We can't compare Alameda in 1940 to Alameda in 2006, or what Alameda is going to be in 2066."   

When asked about the Oak to Ninth proposal and Alameda decided to not sue, she blames it on the political aspirations of the city councilpeople and that they would not want to jeopardize their possible political relationships or records by doing so.  Now, is she including her slatemate Doug DeHaan in this category?  What about Tony Daysog?

Pat Bail says that in order to halt the development at Alameda Point, she hopes that the developer cannot come up with the money to buy the land from the Navy.  So instead of putting the land to use, we'll just let it sit there.  And the residents already out there...phooey on them, they don't need better bus service or a place to buy their food.  Clearly they are not the community that Pat Bail speaks for either.   She wants to go back to the drawing board on the Alameda Point issue and get input from the community, even though, from what I understand, that is how the preliminary development plans were all created.  Until Alameda Point is what Pat Bail envisions for it, it will never be what is "right" for Alameda.

She wants instead of housing and retail and business space...industrial and a deep water port.  [Nope, she said PORT, not dock, as in competition with the Port of Oakland, PORT.] She says that this use will give jobs to people who live in Alameda.  Funny, but I didn't realize there was a whole population of people in Alameda out of work that are desperate for industrial jobs.  So this is Pat Bail's vision for Alameda Point in a nutshell: (1) industrial uses and (2) recreation areas.  No homes, retail, mixed uses...nothing.  Just a place for her to go on the weekends to see her grandkids play soccer or whatever, then leave.  So basically, what she wants is to turn the Point in to her backyard. 

Oh...and let me not forget to mention that now Pat Bail is in charge of dictating where people get to work.  Bruce Knopf used to work for the city and now works for Catellus....bad.  His wife, used to work for the city and now works for WABA...bad.  Because stuff like that never happens, you know...government officials or staff going and working for private industries...oh wait a second...does that smell fishy to you too, Pat?

So this is who Pat Bail is looking out for..."The average person who is trying to live their life, go to work, raise their family, watch tv a little bit, and drink a couple of Coors."  These Coors drinking, tv watching, family raising simple folk who do not have the time or the "inclination" to follow all the intricacies of local government are who Pat Bail is looking out for.  She claims it is her duty to educate these simple simple people because she has the knowledge...and it is her "task" to "impart" this knowledge to everyone.  

Then Don Roberts makes sure to pimp out the campaign signs which have gone up and lets Pat Bail remind everyone that they will be having their campaign kick off on the 16th at...Alameda Point. 

Then Don Roberts talks about HOMES and says that they want to build 4 and 5 story apartment buildings on the Point which is contrary to Measure A.  (You don't say, Don!) And then Pat Bail responds that, "they've made it no secret that they want to do away with Measure A."   Pat Bail must have the inside track on that, because I have only ever heard/read HOMES saying that they wanted to AMEND Measure A for Alameda Point and only Alameda Point.

So, that's about it.  Other than Don Roberts mispronouncing Eugenie Thomson's name at the very end and needing to correct himself.

Cue cheesy music and credits of all the behind the scenes people...

Also, if anyone did, by chance, go to campaign kick off for "The Slate," I would love an update on how it went.  I wanted to go, since it was just down the street, but didn't think that I would be welcome. 

So why is it that these proponents cling on to Measure A as though it were some magical wand that will transform all development in Alameda as conforming to some ideal Alameda that they have in their heads and hearts.  At first the buzz word was preservation...but now it is density.  Proponents of Measure A would have us all believing that without Measure A, developers would go crazy, building skyscrapers on Fernside and Central Avenue.  I don't know of anyone who would approve of that nonsense.  The only discussion about Measure A is around the issue of Alameda Point and I've seen reference of it for Alameda Landing. 

The proposal is to amend Measure A for Alameda Point and Alameda Point only.  So no worries, Gold Coast residents.  You won't see a ten story condo tower being built next to your perfectly preserved million dollar home.  The proponents like to scare all the folks who have yet to make an educated decision on the matter by whispering "high-density development" in their ears with hopes that people think about the gleaming buildings that get built in major cities like Oakland or San Francisco.   Or maybe what they are really trying to evoke is masses upon masses of "those people" horning in on Alameda resources and taking up precious space on Alameda's 25 mph streets.

Whatever the reason is...proponents seem to think they are in the majority of Alameda residents.  That they have tapped into the pulse of Alameda and are channelling that message to the rest of us.  Here are a few letters to the editor (Alameda Sun), that offer up a different perspective:

Diane Lichtenstein, August 18:

Beth Bourland’s letter (“Why just two extremes at Point,” Aug. 10) sets out so clearly the choices we have in developing Alameda Point: neither all “stucco monster homes” nor all multiple residential units...

Beth Bourland, August 11:

Current debate?seems to imply that there are just two choices for development at Alameda Point: either a sea of beige mini-mansions with big garages, or high-density high-rises the likes of Emeryville. Neither extreme is desirable.

Will Jefferson, July 21:

Thanks for the great article on Measure A (“Measure A Debate Dominates Planning Board Meeting,” July 13). I wanted to add a few things. As a younger married man making a decent middle-income salary, my wife and I face the same problem that most people in our age and income bracket face here in Alameda: affordability...

Rev. Edward E. Thompson , July 21:

At the HOMES (Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense) forum this past Sunday at Christ Church, something miraculous and long-overdue happened. After the presentation and questions regarding an alternative plan for Alameda Point redevelopment, people on various sides of the issue stayed to talk...

Helen Sause, July 21:

Several letters and comments around the issue of a Measure A initiative for Alameda Point have raised the question of why the city council is being asked to put this initiative on the ballot, rather than having it be qualified via the petition (signature gathering) process...

William J. Smith, July 21

Environmentalists have cleaned our air and water and protected our nation’s open space by thinking globally and acting locally. For Alameda Point, thinking globally and acting locally means development that promotes healthy lifestyles, energy efficiency and conservation of open space...

Mark Irons, June 29

I put a high premium on housing affordability, but don’t want to pay for it with severe negative impacts to the current quality of life in Alameda. Conversely, I can’t turn a blind eye to housing needs in favor of trying to maintain our quality of life at a certain threshold for perpetuity, as if we can suspend time...

Melinda Hayes, June 29

I am responding to the June 15 letter from Art and Gretchen Lipow (“Measure A keeps Alameda residential”) because I believe it would benefit our entire community to have an open and thoughtful discussion on the future of Alameda Point and how it is affected by the 1973 Charter Amendment, Measure A...

And that's as far as the archives go on the Alameda Sun website.

And, I wanted to leave readers with this nugget to chew on regarding Smart Growth care of Smart Growth America.  The discussion about development should be about quality of life, but let us define this quality of life and for whom are we trying to preserve it for.  For families, Smart Growth America had this to say: 

Smart Growth communities are...[a] return to development with a mix of housing and commercial uses – a pattern of development that was once the norm for centuries -- has recreated active and inviting streets and neighborhoods filled with sidewalk cafes, restaurants, shops and other activities that draw people out of their homes, on to Main Street, and into the community. 

...

[O]ne of the key features that make these communities attractive to young professionals, also makes them extremely attractive to families – that factor is convenience.

...

In the 1990s, American drove 88 percent farther than in 1969 to go shopping and 137 percent farther to accomplish family and personal errands. 

...

Driving, particularly under stressful, time-crunched conditions, is hardly quality time for parents and children. In many ways, middle and upper class kids are the lucky ones because their parents have the means to drive them to activities in out [sic] auto-dependent neighborhoods.  Lower-income families, with one or fewer cars, are not able to haul children to sports, music or other activities.  When walking, biking or transit are not viable options, kids just miss out.

Smart Growth communities – in urban, suburban and rural areas -- are designed in such a way as to provide families with more choices and more convenience. 

...

Transportation choices give parents the option to drive, use transit, bicycle or walk, and when necessary, switch modes to avoid an accident, construction or other causes of congestion...  Housing choices allow families to choose between a townhouse, apartment or single family home and offer a range of prices that enables teachers and firefighters to live in the same communities in which they work.

To be continued...

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Alameda pulled out all the stops and offered many incentives for Clif Bar. As reported in the Chronicle:

In addition, Alameda lured Clif Bar with its access to renewable energy, ample parking and public transit, and a building big enough to accommodate an extensive solar-panel system. Workers will also be able to send their children to Alameda public schools, even if the parents don't live in Alameda.

I am not sure how the city is going to handle the logisitics of (non-Alameda resident) Clif Bar employees sending their kids to Alameda public schools. I reckon the school district will have this all figured out in due course :-)

Clif Bar (annual revenue: $150m; 150 employees) will relocate to Alameda Landing in 2008.