We have a strong belief that we have a case against AUSD, in regards to Measure H in the context of not being “uniformly” as defined in California Government Code Section 50079 - B or “Out of Town Owner” representation. At this point we are looking for, and interviewing attorneys.

So if they are using the idea that because property owners that live outside of Alameda were unable to have a say in the election, the name "Alamedans for Fair Taxation" rings a little bit hollow.  So either they have decided to abandoned that legal line of thinking or they simply like the irony of the name with the legal issue.  

One question that has been asked and asked consistently is, who is behind this group?   It's a lot more shadowly than the folks behind Measure H (considering that the folks behind Measure H were never shadowy yet came immediately under a cloud of suspicion) ever were and I have yet to hear some of our more curious residents beating the drum to find out who it is that is funding this effort to not only take money away from our schools and children that a supermajority of voters in Alameda voted for as well as money that will come in the form of defending this lawsuit.

Of course, this is not a done deal yet as the lawsuit has not yet been filed, perhaps it would be a good time to appeal to the better nature of the folks who are seriously contemplating this move.   Rob Siltanen has a good anaylsis on this issue, highlights:

...Those who are organizing/considering the legal challenge include businesses that benefit greatly from our tax dollars when they receive local government assistance. (As just one example, how much has Alameda given to PSBA, etc. in the form of grants and subsidies?).

...When a huge majority of the community says yes to something like Measure H, even those who disagree with it should accept it rather than pursue something that would be so very divisive and that would so clearly leave all of us worse off. Arguing against a parcel tax during a campaign is one thing. Trying to overturn/throw out an election result after the fact is another...

In the end, of course, no one except Alameda for Fair Taxation can decide whether to file suit. If they do, I think they’ll find that businesses that turn their backs on the clear will of the community by participating in an effort to overturn the popular results of an election will also have the community turn their backs on them.

While I won't call for a straight out boycott of the businesses that are supporting Alamedans for Fair Taxation either in spirit or monetarily, I do want to know -- on the flip side -- who IS supporting our schools and kids by not supporting AFT.   That way I can make the very decisive choice of spending my dollars at businesses that support issues that I feel are important.   So, I have created this map to track businesses that are supporting our schools and children.   If you know of any businesses that should be added to this list, you can email me or leave it in the comments section and I'll update the map.   It's really important to remember that even though some Alameda businesses are funding this effort, last I heard they had raised $100K for legal fees, there are businesses out there that still do support our schools and they deserve our support and to not be lumped together.   So far, I only have some Park Street businesses and would love to round it out with businesses Citywide.

The big question is, these "Alamedans for Fair Taxation" has a similiar opportunity to get organized before the last election too, to raise $100K to fight the parcel tax, wouldn't that have been a better use of everyone's elses time and money rather than sitting back on a wing and a prayer that the Measure wouldn't meet the very difficult 2/3 threshold?   According to rumors I have heard, the lawyer taking on this case (freshly graduated from law school in 2002 2004) has deemed this a "slam dunk" case.  While the details are fuzzy and few about what legal argument AFT will be using, I can't imagine that any case that would require overturning the political will of 2/3 of the voting public will be a "slam dunk" in any court of law.

In order to cover up his clear lack of following the bouncing ball on the Alameda Point process, Doug deHaan quickly backtracks and says that since Lehman Brothers owns a "invested portion of their operations," whatever the hell that means, the two companies are pretty much interchangable.  Like Catellus and Warmington Homes, I would guess.   But then he goes back to not understanding that Lehman Brothers were never involved in the process because SunCal had been self-financing up until this point because he says that people won't understand that we have a new financial arrangement because "Lehman Brothers still really is a part of this just because of their share in it."   "It" being D.E. Shaw, I would assume.

Then Doug deHaan wants to know where D.E. Shaw gets its investors from, and how they make up their assets.   And then you wish that the Council dias has access to wikipedia to avoid such questions.

And just to make sure that everyone in the audience got it, the Mayor clarified that Lehman Brothers has never been part of the Alameda Point process and that SunCal has been self-funding up until this point.  Then, David Brandt, assistant City Manager informs the audience and question asker that because D.E. is a private hedge fund, the identities of the majority of their investors is confidential.  That statement then results in a brief uncomfortable silence until the Mayor calls on Marie Gilmore to speak.

Did I mention this was approved unanimously?

Oh, and while Doug deHaan is correct that Lehman Brothers has a minority stake (20%) in D.E. Shaw, the NY Times is reporting that they might be auctioning off some of their assets, but probably not D.E. Shaw.

In other Wednesday news, today is the Grand Opening ceremony for the new affordable homes on Buena Vista avenue that have been built by Habitat for Humanity through a partnership with Alameda Development Corporation and the City of Alameda.   If you have a chance, stop by a take a look at them, they are really quite nice.  The Grand Opening kicks off at 5:30 p.m. today.

For those who have been underground for the past week or so, they candidates are, in alphabetical order:

• Doug deHaan, incumbent
• Marie Gilmore, incumbent
• Justin Harrison, challenger
• Tracy Jensen, challenger

So, what does this mean?  We have been hearing a lot from a certain segment of Alameda, as we always do, that the populace at large is unhappy with the direction the City is moving toward and that we need a change.  So what happened?   Why is it that, ostensibly, we only have one challenger for each incumbent.   Could it be that the large majority of folks are happy with the realtive direction of the City?  

Stop, Drop, and Roll has an insightful commentary about the weeks leading up to the filing deadline where certain members of our community had decided to do into attack mode against Marie Gilmore in regional publications, but not local ones like the Sun or the Journal.   Let's put to the side that the issues that they were going after her on went unchallenged by fellow Councilperson, Doug deHaan, who made the same votes as she did.   The only reason why they would go after her so viciously is if they were going to run their own opposition candidate in order to unseat her.   After all, that would make logical sense, but instead we have a pretty small field of candidates. 

Also very telling are the candidate statement submitted by the four hopefuls, which I hope to parse down in greater detail some other day, but here they are.

Doug deHaan:

As your Councilmember for the past four years, I have had numerous accomplishments to be proud of such as the renovation of: Park and Webster Streets, Bridgeside, Towne Centre, Alameda Theater and development of Harbor Bay Business Park, while strving for open and inclusive governent. Alameda is now at an unprecedented junction in its history. Do [sic] to the country's major economic downturn, Alameda is facing its own budget crisis with a decrease in revenue, while trying to maintan quality services: Fire, Police, Parks, Library, Schools and Public Works. My challenge is to continue to meet quaity of life needs for Alamedans, without compromising needs for present or future generations (fiscal and environmental sustainabilty). Alameda continues to be engaged in large development/redevelopment opportunties. We must avoid past oversights, such as serious traffic problems that are currently impacting our island. As we continue to develop our city, I am proud to say that I have never, nor will I ever take funding from developers. I ask for your vote once again to continue my work. I will provide the leadership required to offer every Alamedan an equal voice in maitaining Alameda quality of life as we continue to build upon our future.

Marie Gilmore:

I am proud to have served Alameda for 15 years, as a Recreation Commssioner, a Planning Board member, and for the last five yeas, as your Councilmember. With my fellow Councilmembers, I have worked hard to improve our community and increase city revenues. We recently restored the historic Alameda Theatre, providing residents with a major local movie theatre for the first time in over 25 years. We have a brand new library, enhanced street landscaping on Park and Webster streets, new local businesses and restaurants, a renovated Alameda Towne Centre, including the new Nine West and Borders Bookstore, which will aid Alameda's economic revitalization.

But we still face serious chalenges. We must balance our budget while maintaining public safety services, preserve open space, appropriately redevelop Alameda Point, and reduce traffic congestion. We must address these critical issues without sacrificing the culture and character that make our community so special. Issues like these require leadership, experience and creativity. As your Councilmember, I will continue to be accessible to you and continue to provide thoughtful leadership to keep Alameda prospering.

I graduated from Stanford University and received my law degree from Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley).

Justin Harrison:

Born in Alameda , I'm a life-long resident of the West End. I bring a deep knowledge of our town and a commitment to establishing positive solutions that address current financial, educational and residential problems facing Alameda. A graduate of Encinal High School and former "Youth of the Year," I earned an AA from Feather River Community College, a B.A. from New College and am currently pursuing a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at Argosy University with a focus on Community Psychology. I am a member of the Alameda Democratic Club, Alameda Rotary Club, Vice President of the Board of Directors for Alternatives in Action, Founder and member of On The Verge-Leadership Development Program, and a member of the Alameda Youth Collaborative. I have worked with and consulted for the Boys & Girls Club, the McCullum Youth Court, Community One Financial as well as the City of San Francisco. I have always been dedicated to the process of reinvigorating Alameda Point. Several major projects on Alameda Point that I've been involved in include building of the City View Skate Park, creation of the Community Garden and renovation of 2750 Todd Street, from a former Officer s Club, into a thriving educational center.

Tracy Jensen:

Alameda voters have twice elected me to the school board. I'm proud of my contributions to Alameda public schools. We're competitive and efficient. During my 6 years as a School Board Member I've been inspired by Alameda's familes - both longtime residents and the families that recently moved here.

I grew up here, attended local schools and then moved to Washington to work in the Clinton administration. But when it came time to begin my own family, I came home.

I came home because my family and I value what Alameda offers: good schools, safe streets, open space and a family friendly atmosphere. Our grandparents, parents and children make Alameda a special place.

Now it is time for Alameda' s City Council leaders to make a commitment to support our community's family oriented character. That is why I'm running for the City Council - because I have a family myself. And I have the experience and the integrity to move Alameda forward.

I would like your vote.

A few thoughts off the top of my head, (1) if you are going to submit your candidate statement, as least have someone, or several someones proof your statement.  Seriously.  (2) It appears that Doug deHaan also knows which side the proverbial bread is buttered on and is now listing the opening of the Alameda Theatre as part of his "accomplishments" while sitting on the City Council.   And more surprisingly, the "development of Harbor Bay Business Park" considering the last Harbor Bay Business Park development that came before the Council he decided to abstain on.

It's really fascinating how each candidate approached these statements.   The incumbents taking the "here's what I've done to make Alameda better" point of view.   Marie Gilmore did it better in my opinion.   And the two challengers taking diametrically opposing routes to one another.   Tracy Jensen with the heartfelt, "here's why I love Alameda and why you should choose me."  And Justin Harrison with going the resume route, probably because he is an unknown entity and has something to prove against three folks who have name recognition in the City.

I'll be adding an "Election 2008 Roundup" page to my sidebar to keep track of all Election related materials, so keep an eye out for it.

...my wife and I have been talking more about elementary school options for our older son. Our most likely choice involves driving him from our East Oakland home to Alameda every day, where he can attend public schools because my wife is a teacher in that district. We'll also apply to one of the better Oakland schools in a less "transitional" neighborhood, or possibly consider a local Catholic school...

I recall that Jack Richard had posted a link to a really great piece in the Atlantic Monthly by Sandra Tsing Loh that talked about her interactions with her local public school and how she had given up on trying to convince parents like the Peter Hartlaubs of the world to take another look at their local neighborhood school.  I thought I had written about the article, but somehow I can't find it so, you'll have to plunge the depths of your memories to remember what it was about.

Skimming through some of the comments they range from "do what's best for your kid" and "the schools will never be any better if parents like you pull your kids out."  Of course this goes back to the age old question of what determines how successful a child will be in school.   Is it the school alone or the preparation and involvement of the parent(s)?  Now, I don't want to judge Peter Hartlaub and his decisions, but I will anyway.   If he is basing his desire to not send his kids to the neighborhood schools in Oakland because of API scores alone, it would appear that he is using that as an excuse to not send his kids to Oakland schools.  I would think that a reporter would do a better job of investigating how good the schools are rather than just use one source of measurement. 

But, the takeaway from this article, for me, is a lot less cerebral than that, it's more of a yay Alameda sort of feeling, that despite the budget problems and perceptions that we may have internally about the quality of our schools, folks outside (and inside) Alameda understand that are schools are pretty damned good.  

Also, I wonder if the people that were decrying the influx of Oakland kids into our Alameda school system would point to children of parents like Peter Hartlaub and say the same thing. 

In other school related news, the Alameda Democratic Club voted yesterday to endorse in the School Board Race incumbents Janet Gibson and David Forbes as well as Ron Mooney.

it was amazing! A more descriptive post to follow!

So, the first question I can remember being asked by, I believe it was Jack B., was who was going to pay for the PRT infrastructure if SunCal decides that they can make it work of Alameda Point.   I just wanted to remind folks, or let people know for the first time, that during the presentation it was made very clear that SunCal was not committed to PRT the way that UWI had committed itself to CyberTran.   This was simply an option that they were looking at to mitigate the additional impacts of automobile traffic if they were to go to the next level.   However, in Plan A they will be insitituting exisiting, real-world transportation alternatives to help mitigate traffic such as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit, already a reality in the Bay Area and through AC Transit), increased ferry services, car sharing, and of course the big one is that any development out at Alameda Point will insitute a Transportation Demand Management program which would anticipate that new residents would be required to opt-in to the program, pay a fee and receive transit passes in return.  That's sort of the CliffNotes version, I'm sure that someone like John KW or Michael K. could explain it in a lot more detail.

But back to the answer, SunCal did say that they would pay for the initial rollout of PRT (or other major transportation solution) for Alameda Point.   As PRT (or whatever transportation solution that they would select if they decided to move from Plan A to Plan B) would be scalable, PRT could eventually be scaled to the rest of Alameda, but I don't think they had intentions to pay for that build out.  There is a really good discussion happening on Stop, Drop, and Roll about PRT.   Someone from the ULTra company has posted some information about what is going on at Heathrow Airport (photos) and provided some detail about the technology as well.  Starts here.

Someone else, I believe ET, asked who would own the land after it was conveyed to the Navy.   Since the City chose many many years ago when this process first started to go the private master developer route rather than opting for the City to be the master developer, technically SunCal would own the land after conveyance, which would first be conveyed to the City (sitting as the ARRA board) and then to SunCal.   SunCal, as they explained a long long time ago, if folks remember back to the RFQ days and the additional questions and answers requested by the ARRA to help decide who would get chosen as Master Developer the second time around.  SunCal is does not build their own "vertical development," but rather they sell off those plots to homebuilders, etc...  only recently have they created their own homebuilding arm, but I haven't heard much about development from Mosiac Homes other than the fact that the unit was being created about a year ago.

As to why the City couldn't just do it themselves without a private master developer through a land trust or something else like that , Richard Bangert summed it up pretty succicently on SDR from an older post:

...The whole reason why the city decided to partner with a master developer in the first place is because Alameda does not have the financial strength to float $100 million in infrastructure bonds. If we did, then the city could be its own master developer and forget about “profit-sharing.”...

Not to mention the purchase price, currently standing at $108 million for the land alone.   For those wondering about the viability of going back to the no-cost Economic Development Conveyance that you sometimes hear being bandies about.   Personally, given the state of the Federal economy, I don't think this would fly, and according to this document, recently there have been increased restrictions to these "no-cost EDCs":

...Under section 2905(b) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, the broad discretion of the Secretary of Defense to authorize reduced or no consideration economic development conveyances has been replaced by what is arguably a more restrictive scheme. The law now states: "the transfer of property of a military installation. . . may be without consideration" but only when the transferee agrees to specified terms... These terms include a requirement that a transferee use the proceeds from certain future sales or leases of the acquired property to support economic redevelopment at the former installation. Further, under the new legislation, while no consideration transfers remain a possibility as described above, the Secretary is also now required to "seek to obtain consideration in connection with any transfer . . . in an amount equal to the fair market... [emphasis added]

And certainly even if Alameda were to able to secure a no-cost EDC, which it would not be able to as these were generally reserved for military installations closed in highly rural areas and for first round base closures, it still does not address Richard B.'s concerns about the infrastructure costs.  In fact, this paper about inistutional controls at BRAC sites says:

...Many former military facilities were transferred or conveyed via a “No Cost” Economic Development Agreement (EDC). But as we all know, there is no such thing as free. At the former McClellan Air Force Base (McClellan) in Sacramento, CA, the “no cost” EDC that was entered into in August of 1998, will ultimately cost the County of Sacramento and the master developer, McClellan Business Park, LLC., close to $185 million dollars for infrastructure improvements and replacement. That is a big investment for a “no cost” EDC. However, in light of the next round of base closures, DoD now sees “no cost” EDCs as a thing of the past and is currently promoting the idea of selling these properties for fair market value. In DoD’s opinion, the way property values are skyrocketing across the nation, they may be able to actually make money on the sale of surplus military base real estate, depending on their environmental condition of course...

Since then I have found out a bit more of the backstory on the case.  Turns out, neither the individual arrested nor the victim were residents in the Esperanza Housing Complex where the shooting actually occured.   From all accounts the two young men were friends and the police believe that the incident was a personal dispute that erupted over a young woman who lived at Esperanza Housing Complex.  APD believe that there is someone else also involved in the shooting and the investigation is on-going.

The Alameda Housing Authority has sent notices to residents of the Esperanza Housing Complex with a phone number in case someone requires grief counseling and the Boys and Girls Club which runs a summer program at the site has also offered counseling services to youth, who seem greatly affected by this incident.

Apparently the young woman who might possibly be involved (or the catalyst for the dispute) will be relocating with her family.   There has also been a memorial set up for Troy Lancaster and police have been monitoring the site as there have been people drinking alcohol around the memorial itself to ensure that nothing gets out of hand. 

From accounts of residents in the complex, the individual who was arrested and the victim appeared to be friends and spent a lot of time at the Esperanza Housing Complex as they were famliar to many of the residents.  

So, it appears that the situation is a little more than the "usual suspects" committing the usual senseless act of violence.   It appears that ANT wasn't off the mark when s/he posted:

...The next most likely culprit besides yourself is a family member or someone you know. For women, the most likely murderer is her husband or boyfriend... [emphasis added]

Troy Lancaster's funeral was held on Monday and according to CBS, Michael James Edgar was arraigned yesterday as well.

Brief digression, I've never signed an iPetitions petition before, but it appears that it must be very tricky to do so since there are a lot of people who "signed" multiple times.   I'm not going to sign one to see what happens when one signs it, but it's quite odd to see the same name come up multiple times.

It's interesting that the language used to advertise this petition on Alameda Daily News about a week ago differs slightly from the one on the petition.  This however, has to be my favorite change though.   On ADN this was written:

...We – the citizens who pay your salaries – demand the City Council and City Planning Board adopt an open, transparent process when analyzing all proposed developments on Alameda Island. We demand a process that places citizens squarely at the center of every development debate; that recognizes the very purpose of city government is to respond to the concerns of its citizens; and that emphasizes the “public” in the term “public servant.”... [emphasis added]

But then this is what shows up on the iPetitions site:

...We - the citizens who elected you - demand the City Council and City Planning Board adopt an open, transparent process when analyzing all proposed developments on Alameda Island...  [emphasis added]

There's the bit about the "process that places citizens..." as well on the petition site, but it's a new paragraph.   So first of all, I know that the City Council received a stipend for each meeting its members attend, but it's so piddling I would hardly call it a "salary" that is deserving of holding over someone's head.   I don't know if the Planning Board draws a stipend for the meetings its members attend, but I imagine that it is even more piddling than that of the City Council.   As for the election, while it's true that the City Council is elected (only four candidates this time?  really?  we'll talk about what that means some other time) the PB is not an elected body, but rather one that is appointed, so the second outraged statement is a bit of a stretch as well.

What I do find rather puzzling is the line that says "We demand a process that places citizens squarely at the center of every development debate..." as though that is not the case right now.   After all, who is our Planning Board if not citizens of Alameda?  Who is our City Council if not citizens of Alameda either.   Who managed to get an item continued simply because they said, we haven't had time to properly review the EIR, but a handful of citizens of Alameda?    Just because things may not be heading the way that you want it doesn't mean that the process is working against you.   There are lots of ways to stay up-to-date with what's happening in Alameda government and it doesn't need to be spoon fed to you.

I did enjoy that the petition language noted that the problems with ATC/South Shore began right from the start when they decided to locate ATC/South Shore where they did instead of on the estuary side.  That's sort of just filler language that has absolutely no impact on whether the the EIR and Development Amendments are approved.  

No more continuances, just hear the damned thing already.   If the PB members are prepared, then move forward with it.   Government should not stop because one person is on vacation and there are alternatives, like submitting written comments, if you just can't make it to a meeting.   There are lots of meetings that I would like to go to that I simply don't have the ability to go to, should I request a continuance for every agenda item I am interested in until it is convenient for me?  In fact, one of the only two pieces of correspondance about this agenda item was from Harsch asking that it not be continued as the concerned citizens of Alameda have already had two months to review the EIR and other materials.

Also on the agenda for those who care is the approval of street names for the Grand Marina project.  By the way, the list of available names for streets is pretty interesting to read through.  I'm not sure how you get your name on the list or what the criteria is, but it's fascinating nonetheless.   And the owner of former site of Chevy's is requesting to change the usage from restaurant to office space.

Where to begin, ah yes, how about my first impression as I walked in.   I was a little late, only 10 minutes or so but all 20 tables (of about 9 - 10 people) were packed with folks standing in the back as well and milling around the appetizer display.  Of course, no one can resist free food right?   The representative from SunCal was standing in front of a massive American flag and the first thought that popped through my head was, "did I walk into a political rally?"  In fact, when it was time for Peter Calthrope to take the stage he expressed similar thoughts about feeling as though he was launching his political career.   

So after Pat Keliher, VP of Operations for SunCal finished speaking he handed the microphone over the Peter Calthorpe who began his portion of the presentation which began with the goals of his design company and a reminder of what he tries to accomplish with each project he works on.  Then he began talking about the need for new development to be sustainable for the future, here is where he might have lost a couple of people that probably were not "with him" anyway from the start as the rest of the presentation was predicated on the notion that (1) you believe that there is a climate change crisis and (2) that it is the onus of everyone to do something to help stem the tide.   Of course, you could go into not buying into point one or two and still be a wee bit impressed with the numbers that were being presented. 

There were two options that Peter Calthorpe talked about in vague terms at first a Sun Cal plan A and plan B.   He used a traditional suburban development that would happen, say out in Tracy or Livermore as a baseline, then a Bay Area Infill development as comparison, then Plan A, and Plan B to show the savings in things like carbon emissions, vehicle miles traveled per household etc...  What was impressive was to see how, if SunCal is able to build what they want to build, how they have attempted to seriously reduce the environmental impact of this development for Alameda and regionally.

He then talks about the two plans in a little more detail, Plan A is the one they want to go for, but if they are able to offer a more comprehensive transit alternative, they will push toward Plan B.   He then presented the transit alternative they were looking at, PRT (Personal Rapid Transit).   Of course, he mentioned, that they were not completely committed to the idea, but rather that it would serve the purposes to offer another method of transit that would, ostensibly, also get folks on and off the island without having to use their cars.   So what is PRT, you may be asking, I'm glad you did, because thanks to the folks at Alameda Currents*, you can check out the video that was shown last night:

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604100180910044365&hl=en]

For those having visions of the Jetsons and visceral reactions that this is just too space age for us, remember that any development at Alameda Point is at least 15 years out and by then hopefully there will have been a lot more applications for transit technology to choose from.   And, the interesting thing is that this technology has been around since 1950 without any real world application.  But for a real live working example, you'll have to head over to London's Heathrow airport in a few years, as they are working on installing the PRT system for use.  A few questions you might have that I'll try to answer, the PRT is an elevated system, so there will be no competition for street space.   It's run on electricity, so no competition for precious gas.   The rail it runs on is apparently pretty inexpensive (inexpensive in terms of transportation systems) to install.

So that was the only major flashback to UWI I think folks had last night.

But down to the nitty gritty, there are two plans that are pretty much the same, only the Plan B would only be able to roll out IF SunCal can come up with an alternative tranportation solution like the PRT to get folks out of their cars and on to transportation.  Otherwise the two plans are pretty much the same.  Same acreage of open space, two school sites (one close to Encinal High school, so I think we could be seeing a long deserved high school makeover), same square footage of commercial space, etc...   The only difference is the density of the two plans.   But first, let me say, neither of the plans are Measure A compliant.

Yep, you read that right.

Neither of the plans offered by SunCal are Measure A compliant, which, if you believe the hard core Measure A supporters in town, would have sent folks off into a tizzy with fainting people left and right, but honestly, while there was some under the breath mumbling from some people, no one started screaming or yelling as one would expect.

In fact, a lot of the tables, with the exception of four (as reported by Stop Drop and Roll) were really supportive of the plans, and Plan B, the higher density one.  One of the four tables that didn't like either plan, during the report out was a bit confused as to who was actually master developing the property, blaming it yet again on Catellus, even though the word "SunCal" was emblazoned on every single powerpoint slide and documentation in front of her.  

So bottom line, the big difference between Plan A and Plan B are:

• Plan B would have a PRT or other transportation option
• A solar powered generator thingie (okay so I didn't write down what it was called, I'm doing this all from memory) that would pipe the heat generated from the solar power to heat the homes
• Plan A would have 4000 units of housing
• Plan B would have 6000 units of housing

What I liked about SunCal, they didn't pussyfoot around the whole, let's try out the PDC plan thing.   Apparently at the last meeting, the majority of folks did not like the PDC plan, so they scrapped it.  Right now for SunCal it's go big or go home for them and a lot of this will hinge on whether they can get a Measure A exemption on the ballot (probably not for this November) and get 50% + 1 to say, this could work.  

I'll probably talk more about the SunCal plans once they have some visuals up, but that's all that rose to the top of my head this morning.

Speaking of elections, today is the last day to file for City Council, City Treasurer and City Auditor.  It looks like we may only have a four person race, unless someone pulls a miracle and pulls papers and manages to file in the next 8 hours.

_____________________________________

*"This video was made available by Alameda Currents - TV for Alameda, Produced by Alamedans.
View the full SunCal presentation next Thursday, August 14, 2008 7:30 p.m. on AP&T Channel 31 or www.tvalameda.com."

The story revolves around a frustrated novelist who takes a group of restaurant diners and staff hostage. Alameda resident Leonard Bael is one of the film's actors. Lead actors include Tony Mathews of Pleasanton, who plays writer Harvey Templeton, and Mark McGrath, an Alameda native now living in San Francisco, who plays restaurateur Rick Delano.

On a related note, check out the list of movies filmed in Alameda!

One great thing about the Alameda Police Department is they certainly know how to close a case, which we all as residents should be thankful of.

Previously, the most design that folks have been exposed to were the rough zones carved out within the Transit Oriented Development Alternatives plan.  So tonight's meeting should be very important in terms of seeing what direction SunCal is heading in for future development of Alameda Point.   Cue responses from folks about what they do or do not want to see at Alameda Point now.

In other news, the Transportation Element Draft Environmental Impact Report is out and ready for review, if you are interested in slogging through 876 pages of document.  Yes, that's right 876 pages.  You have a little more than two weeks to review it before the first round of comments will be accepted at a joint meeting of the Planning Board and Transportation Commission.

Thinking ahead to future affordable housing development projects and considering that the City Council recently adopted Green Building Guidelines for residential developments, perhaps we should step back a bit and talk about expectations from our civic leaders on the policy directions they want to move to.

Personally, I would like to see the City make a stronger commitment toward building sustainably, particularly when it comes to multi-family affordable housing.   Shinsei Gardens, which has recently broken ground on the West End near the future site of Alameda Landing is a good first start with the incorporation of several green elements.   Of course, we'll put to the side for now issue of the high concentration of affordable housing on the West End for now, because that is an issue for another time.

When we talk about available sites like Island High, the Northern Waterfront (including the Wang and Collins properties), potentially the Alameda Federal Center site, we are going to be running into the issue of inclusionary housing once again.   While Island High is a smaller site, both the Wang and Collins properties will have a lot more inclusionary housing units to be built in conjunction with whatever their residential plans are.  These two sites are good opportunities to show that the City of Alameda is committed to creating attractive and sustainable residences for inclusionary housing units. 

While I'm not suggesting that they all strive for LEED ratings, but attractive and sustainable developments should be the rule and not the exception.  And sometimes sustainable buildings can help keep its resident's utility costs down.  For example, the Folsom/Dore apartments in San Francisco, its residents pay in utilities approximately for electricity:

Studio: $18/month

One Bedroom: $19/month

Two Bedroom: $23/month

Due to the addition of solar panels and energy efficient design.  Some other interesting "green" affordable housing developments in the Bay Area and California include:

• Acalanes Court in Walnut Creek:  17 units on less than half an acre
• Northgate Apartments in Oakland: 42 units on less than half an acre
• Nueva Vista Family Apartments in Santa Cruz: 48 units
• Colorado Court in Santa Monica: 42 units

Considering now that Warmington will have to keep the inclusionary housing units at the Grand Marina site and it probably will not be financially viable to make them into rentals, here's a source story from the Boston Globe which talks about a developer building very-low and low income for-sale units in infill lots making them attractive to prospective homeowners by adding high grade touches and design into their units to make them more attractive.

But quickly to touch back on the Island High school site, I'll probably revisit this issue after I get a chance to listen to all the public comments because I have to say that I was uncomfortable listening to some of the comments made by folks, but all in all, good decision by the Council sitting as the CIC tonight, not because they stopped the Island High proposal as some folks may be applauding this morning, but rather because the made a clear policy decision that the tenets of the inclusionary housing ordinance is important to the City of Alameda.

So cheer him on when you see his event and pray that he gets gold!

The timeline is as follows:

Demo/Construction Begins - August 2008 (looks like there is a notation that it might begin in September as opposed to August)
Marketing to Begin - January 2009
Demo/Construction Complete - March 2009
Estimated Conveyance Date - July 2009

I am assuming that the "Marketing to Begin" is when the auctioning will occur, if you are interested, you can keep checking the Office of Property Disposal to see when it will come on-line.   According to Tay Tay (who should be credited with sending the information), unlike the Coast Guard housing parcel which the City and County can get first dibs on if there is a public benefit conveyance or housing for formerly homeless individuals is provided, this will be a straight auction to the highest bidder.

Word on the street is that several developers have surveyed the site (et tu Warmington Homes?) and will be in the running for this 3.95 acres of land.   And, can you blame them, that look at location!

So you might be wondering what is actually housed at the Alameda Federal Center, well if Google is to believed then it is home to an entemological (insects) laboratory (p.4 on the reader) and Savings Bonds marketing offices.

It appears that the Island High project seems to have taken a life of its own now what with petitions being circulated and the Planning Board meeting being stormed by upset neighbors.   There appears to be some confusion about what the Planning Board actually did when the Grand Marina swap was heard and at what point in the approval process this project is actually in.  The easiest way to figure it out is to read the minutes from the meeting which fleshes out what was actually done at the meeting and also reviewing the staff report which outlines the course of action.

First, the Planning Board was not necessarily making a decision on the issue, rather the actions that they were taking was making a recommendation to the City Council, who will be the final arbiter of whether this swap would be okay. (p. 10 on the reader)   So even though folks seem to think that the Planning Board gave the go ahead, even tacitly, for the 36-unit plan, they did not.   Further, according to the minutes from the meeting, discussion starts on page 12 on the reader, the following recommendations were made for City Council sitting as the CIC's consideration:

1. The Planning Board recommended to City Council to consider that some moderate-income housing and some low- and very low-income housing move off-site and some stay on-site;

2. If Warmington Homes pursues another market-rate project at some other location, the suitability of the Island High site as the off-site location for that project should have to return to the Planning Board for the same finding that is being examined for the Grand Marina site.

So basically, all the PB did was make a recommendation to the CIC with caveats that would allow Warmington Homes to move forward with the phasing for their main development.   At any point in time the negotiations -- if there are any occuring -- with the school district could possibly break down and the Island High site wouldn't even be available for the 36-units.   

As this has not yet been heard in front of the CIC, but will be on Tuesday evening (staff report), the meeting that occured at the library was simply a test of the waters to see what threshhold of units the neighborhood would probably be comfortable with.  As was mentioned by another commenter, it appeared that someone at Warmington Homes severely dropped the ball on this issue, making sure they had little to almost no support across the political spectrum by surprising a whole lot of folks with a development sized way beyond what was initially discussed at the PB meeting.  Warmington Homes was probably trying to start high and "negotiate" down to a number that wasn't so high, but probably wouldn't have flown prior to the introduction of 36 units.  But instead they just managed to alienate a whole lot of folks.

After reading the staff report, while I understand the reasoning behind the insistence on the units all being rentals (financing available for affordable housing construction), staff failed to address one of the key issues in the PB amendment which was the consideration to move some of the moderate income units offsite as well.

But one thing to note from the staff report before more people assume that the plans they saw at the library was a done deal what the CIC is approving on Tuesday night is the Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and Warmington and:

...Approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement in no way implies approval of any specific development project at the Island High Site... (p. 2 on the reader) [emphasis added]

Another major point of clairfication that should be made is that Catellus is not involved in this project at all.   The property is either owned or leased by Peter Wang (see Del Monte building and surrounding warehouses) and Warmington Homes was either selected or solicited to build on the parcel that will now be known as Grand Marina.  Just because it's sexier to try to tie everything to Catellus doesn't mean that they actually have their fingers in every development pudding in Alameda.   But it's important that the minor details as well as the major ones are correct because if one is going to speak as an authority on the issue, it's imperitive that there is a basic understanding of who are the parties involved and not who we assume are the parties involved.

However, when all is said and done, I am still uncomfortable with this project in its current form.  While I might be supportive of some project at the Island High site, I'm still not 100% convinced that this is the right project considering that it would move what is supposed to be inclusionary housing units from one project to another with the justification that more units would be built and that will make the project more feasible.   According to the City ordinance if a developer wants to move units offsite, they will have to build more units than if it were to stay at the orginial site, that is why the staff insists that more affordable housing units would be built under this plan than if the units were to stay put at Grand Marina.  So this whole calculation of possible units built at the site vs. units at Grand Marina vs. which generates the most affordable housing just serves to further confuse the matter.  

What this boils down to is a policy issue for the CIC to determine.   Is it in the best interest of the City to move forward with this plan in order to further affordable housing goals in Alameda by saying that when it comes to inclusionary housing, more units, even offsite units, is a higher goal than the stated purpose of inclusionary housing (also see Findings)?   My answer would be, "no."

[edited to add]

Warmington Homes has now released a statement about the proposed Island High development as well:

We would like to clarify some of the incorrect information that is currently in the news regarding the former Island High School site.
 
It’s been reported that if below-market rate housing were to be developed on the site, 36 units would be built. The accurate information is that the specific number of units has not been determined.  We are not locked into 36 units and the number built could be significantly lower. The design of these residential units has not yet been determined. If the project moves forward, the community will be involved in the design process.
 
This housing is intended to be housing for working people with preference for school district employees and people that currently live and work in Alameda.
 
Also, Catellus Development is not involved in this project.
 
-David Day
Project Manager
Northern California Division, Warmington Homes California

Can someone alert the folks over at Action Alameda who sponsored the petition entitled Help Stop Another Catellus Land Grab?

The company said the rise was partly due to strong growth in its grocery and wholesale business. Peet's has been expanding by selling its coffee in more grocery stores around the country. Grocery sales jumped 27 percent. Revenue at its retail stores, meanwhile, rose 13 percent, mainly from sales at new locations.

And in other Peet's related news:

Peet's new roastery in Alameda, on the bay's shore right at the northern tip of the main Oakland Airport runway, was awarded LEED gold certification, an unusual honor for a factory.

• Formulation and implementation of operating programs, business plans, and budgets.
• Starter services, course marshaling services, and tee time reservations.
• Pro shop operations and cart rentals.
• Maintenance of buildings, grounds, and the golf course to mutually agreed upon specifications.
• Collection and accounting of all revenues in a timely and secure manner.
• Golf course security.
• Potential operators will be encouraged to interview and utilize existing staff.

But according to the RFP the City would still be able to control things like setting fees and policies for the course.   From the Sun article:

...The city is seeking a private company to take over the course largely due to disputed financial findings. City officials contend that the complex is hemorrhaging funds, but supporters of continued public operation maintain that the losses exist only on paper. Opponents of privatization say the lions' share of the deficit is created by the city's practice of essentially assessing property tax on the municipal facility. City officials say that as a municipally owned company, the complex, like the city's utility, must be charged...

As I'm sure we all recall, we have heard the number $1 million tossed around as how much the golf course is "subsidizing" the City.   Recently, Stop, Drop, and Roll has broken down the real amount transferred from the Golf Course to the City, highlights:

...The first thing you will notice is that there is no $1 million. The number this year is $778K. $1 million may have happened in better times, but it 33% higher than reality today.

The next thing is that of the $778K, $283K is “cost allocation.” This is hardly “money off the top” as it is consistently portrayed. It’s the Golf Courses share of the administrative costs it uses. Employees get paychecks, insurance, the course gets legal advice, etc. This number is evaluated every other year to make sure that it’s as accurate as it can be, and it’s the amount that the golf course “owes.” AP&T and the sewers also pay this. This is standard accounting 101. Nothing fancy, no Enron accounting, just the city making sure the costs are covered.

So already, the diverted amount is under $500K.

The next biggest charge is the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). This is a 1% charge for public entities that don’t pay property taxes. If the course was a private golf course, the city would be collecting property taxes on it. This charge emulates it. It exists in order to support the ancilliary services that the general fund supports and which benefit the golf complex (and rest of the island). Service such as police, fire, roads, traffic signals, etc. That’s another $200K.

Next is the surcharge: $171K which is a per round assessment instituted in 1991. It’s $1 for residents and $4 for non-residents. It was instituted to generate money for the city and goes up and down based on the number of rounds played.

Lastly, there’s almost $100K in Return on Investment. This was instituted in 2004 at a rate of 1%, but has already dropped to .43%. If there’s a gripe to be had, this would be the payment, and it’s 10% of what everyone’s yelling about...

The piece goes on to explain that even though the bulk of the amount transferred to the City in the form of cost allocations and PILOT, even though those monies are used to directly fund expenses incurred by the golf course, they have been recently reviewed as a subsidy to the City's coffers.   The amount that staff had recently suggested be returned to the Golf Course so that they could balance their budget is the total of the surcharge based on rounds played and the Return on Investment, which I suppose would be "fair," but in the end the right decisions was made for the City to keep the money and keep a fire station open.

The interim management company idea is a good one, it will only last a year and we can see how the Golf Course flourishes or fails under private management at the end of the day.   But business as usual for the golf course certainly isn't going to work.   Prolonging the shuttering of the MIf Albright course (the only course irrigated by potable water apparently and during these drought times must look like crap) isn't going to do much good either.

• Installing efficient lighting that reduced electricity usage by 40 percent
• Recycling 75 percent of the construction debris
• Putting in low-water landscaping and things like "bioswales" -- depressed grassy strips to capture rain runoff and let it percolate into the ground
• Building locker rooms and showers to encourage employees to bike to work.
• Choosing carpets and furniture with low or no VOCs (volatile organic compounds -- that "new carpet smell").

But that is something that most any big business can do these days, the biggie that pushed them over the edge appears to be:

...The company has four coffee roasters, which reach temperatures of up to 550 degrees for roasting and 1650 degrees for burning off gases and aromas created by roasting.

Peet's designed the two biggest roasters to capture and reuse some of the heat that's typically wasted during the roasting process. That managed to slash the company's use of natural gas by a whopping 40 percent...

Also, they have been using the skin from the roasted coffee beans (mixed with bark and cocoa shells) to form a mulch for their landscaping.   I'm sure they have a lot more of the coffee bean chaff than they have use for mulch in their own landscaping, perhaps Peet's should offer the excess chaff to some of our Alameda gardeners -- I know there are quite a few out there -- the way that Starbucks offers for free those bags of used coffee grinds for local gardening.

...The area in front of the Alameda Theatre, full of cars and traffic, makes it difficult to create a venue that coordinates the surrounding area's shops and restaurants unto a unique theater experience that will generate growing patronage. A plaza in front of the theater extending through the existing parking lot to the Alameda Museum would allow patrons easy access while giving continuity to surrounding businesses.

Central Avenue has been partially closed during construction without causing any real inconvenience and Alameda Avenue is not essential to traffic.

The potential site could become gardens, a venue for outdoor activities such as a café (or) expanded exhibition area for the museum. Vehicle access could be availablefor first responders, delivery trucks and special event theater traffic.

The idea could be tried on a test basis to see problems and possibilities. I am sure others have ideas and that the city could get some good feedback with a town meeting.

Personally, I think it's a wonderful idea, at last week's Art and Wine Festival on Park Street traffic on Central was pretty sparse and folks were crossing the street and making use of all the space.   I could see a case where a plaza was designed for Central spanning from the surface parking lot (as described by the writer) to Park Street, a drop off section could be constructed at the west end of the plaza and finally some real bike parking could be incorporated around the theatre itself.   On Saturday evening when we were trying out Burgermeister (yum!, but still a few glitches) and Alameda Wine Co. (not me, but the husband) and, of course, going to catch a movie, there were so many bikes secured to light poles and street signs, it was a bit embarassing that there are no bike racks within 50 feet of the theatre. 

Speaking of the Alameda Theatre, the East Bay Express has a story about the union picketing issue, although when I was there Saturday night at the 7:00 p.m. showing of the Dark Knight (good movie, really violent though, a bit longer than I had expected I thought it was going to end several times before it actually did) everything was fine, highlights:

...Will Viharo, programmer and publicity director at Speakeasy Theaters, said the Alameda has been gaining a reputation for "butchering" first-run prints and turning off some filmgoers. "As an Alamedan, I love the new theater, but as someone who is also in the business, I can both sympathize with their problems and also recognize that they are unnecessary and easily solved," he said. Viharo believes that they "need some professionalism in their projection" or will run the risk of sacrificing "a lot of goodwill with customers. And also, I don't think the studios will put up with getting their prints returned like that." The competitor said he takes no side in the union dispute, but added that his theaters employ union projectionists because "if you want a job done well you hire people who know how to do it."

...

Viharo caught The Dark Knight twice on opening weekend. Projection was "stellar," he said, except for a serious DVD glitch before the credits rolled. Likewise, patrons leaving the 12:30 matinee on July 19 were wildly enthusiastic about the movie and the service. "Everything was fine," said Ruth Brown of Oakland, though she reported that the previous week she did wait 45 minutes when Hancock was delayed by "projection problems." Patron John Fagan, on the other hand, hasn't had any problems. Picking up his ticket on Saturday, he said that no amount of picketing would discourage him. "The historic theater looks awesome. And it's so convenient. I can walk here."...

As for my own personal experience with the theatre, our showing of the Dark Knight ran beautifully and we have previously gone to see two other movies (one in the Main Theatre, one in the Cineplex portion) and both ran fine without any problems.   In fact, our audience seemed particularly excited to be at the theatre, applauding not only at the end of the movie, but also at the end of the showing of the documentary about the theatre which ran prior to the movie starting.   That, I found a little odd, but just assumed that the audience was really very happy to be there.  Maybe they had all been sampling a little too much at the Art and Wine Fair prior to picking up their tickets.   Not only that, we were told when we entered the theatre that the balcony, which I had heard was often closed, was open for the night so that we could opt to sit on the main floor or the balcony, we chose the main floor.

Personally, I'm not turned off by the fact that the theatre doesn't have union projectionists, in fact there was one lone picketer outside the theatre that night, yet there were lots of people seeing movies as well.  I'm not going to schlep out to Jack London Square or Emeryville in order to see a movie when I can see one in my own city.   I have always viewed movie theatre jobs as being held by the stereotypical pimply high school kid with the cracking voice and not by skilled laborers.   More from the article:

...Conner said he wanted to see copies of IATSE's contracts with other area theaters. "It's not an unreasonable request to look at some contracts before I have discussions with them further. They're not entitled to what they're asking for. I don't know for sure what they're asking for until I see these contracts."

IATSE has contracts with theaters throughout the East Bay, including AMC Bay Street 16 in Emeryville, the Oaks and Elmwood in Berkeley, and the four area Landmark theaters, among others. They are currently in negotiations with United Artists/Regal, the largest chain in the country, but do not have a contract with the Century chain.

Conner said he is waiting on receiving contracts from Landmark and North American Cinemas, for whom he once worked as a general manager when they owned the Elmwood Theatre in Berkeley and the South Shore in Alameda. "I had hoped to further the discussions this week, but I'm still waiting to get the information," he said. "I'm still waiting to get them. I don't care, send me a blank contract. Send me anything so that I can review what they're asking for."

Mottley said Conner has not made good-faith contact regarding the status of those contracts. He says Conner is welcome to locate them, but claims they are irrelevant to any future negotiations, both because one of the contracts is for jobs unlike those at the Alameda and because "even if nobody else had union contractors, this is about the jewel of the bay. They should be setting the standard."

I guess what would be interesting to know is if Century is contracted with some other union (is there another union?) and if not, whether IATSE is picketing the Century Theatres around the Bay Area as well.

While I don't disagree with the neighbors that this was a bad idea from the get go, in fact, I believe I said that I was really uncomfortable with the notion that Warmington would suggest and be allowed to shift only their very-low and low income units offsite.   I have to say I do disagree with some of the arguments that have been raised by the neighbors in order to say that they don't want this.  I think the only argument that is necessary is one that was concentrated on by one neighbor, I believe he was the one that told the anecdote about being driven around the City by a realtor who said that it didn't seem appropriate that units required by inclusionary housing laws to be built within the development be moved offsite.   

The whole point of inclusionary housing is that it is included in the market rate development itself.  If there are options of in-lieu fees or moving the units offsite then it should be at such a financial cost to the developer that it is still more financially attractive to build the units where they belong, in the development itself.

Some of the arguments I found a bit disingenous about not wanting more renters, not wanting to further overcrowd Edison Elementary, street parking issues.   I particularly found the argument proferred to be pretty weak that there are more owner-occupied low-income households in the East End than on the West End, which may be true, but when we talk about the low and very-low income units that are built in the City it is almost always as rental housing, which the West End shoulders, by large, a disporportionate burden.  

Some of the arguments tread on very dangerous ground for the City or the Planning Board to accept as a reason to not approve the development when and if it comes before them.   Such as the argument of concentrating so many low and very low income units into one area.  Let's not forget that Shinsei Gardens recently broke ground on the West End, which is not just very-low or low income housing, but supportive housing for formerly homeless families to the tune of 39 units.

So while this project should be scrapped, as I mentioned before until the Park Street North of Lincoln plans have been fully fleshed out, the message should be a simple one that doesn't stink slightly of classism and that message is: inclusionary housing should be built in the development itself, that is the purpose and spirit of the inclusionary housing laws.

Turns out, it appears that Peter Wang, the owner of the Del Monte building site and surrounding property has hired a commercial brokerage firm, GD Commercial, to begin leasing out space for the site which is now being called "Encinal Marina Foods."   The full package listing, I assume this is for potential leasees, is here.  But here is the two-pager which outlines what sort of businesses they are looking for, which includes a:

• Grocery Store (40K sq ft)
• Restaurant (6K sq ft)
• Sushi Bar (866 sq ft)
• Salad Bar (216 sq ft)
• Ramen Bar (518 sq ft)
• Bakery (833 sq ft)
• Dessert Stand (195 sq ft)

Just a note from the Sushi Bar on, those would be included in some type of "food court", which according to this diagram includes a juice bar which was not included on the list.   I am assuming that the "dessert stand" and "ice cream shop" are interchangable as "ice cream shop" is not specifically listed on the 2 pager of businesses wanted. 

Another business missing is the "bookstore" at 730 sq ft, which means they probably already have an interested tenant.

So, if the term "international marketplace" had not tipped you off yet.  Nor did the Ramen bar, nor did the specs of the grocery store (p.6 on the reader, enlarge and navigate) which included a "live fish tank" in the Seafood section or the entire shelving section devoted to rice.  Yes, Alameda, if all goes to plan, we are getting our own Asian grocery store and marketplace.    Squeee!!

Highlights from a recent article about GD Commercial from the San Jose Business Journal:

Developers trying to lure shoppers to their centers are turning to a Milpitas commercial brokerage that offers a different retail palette — all Asian, all the time.

GD Commercial, in operation since 2003, has become a go-to real estate company for developers who want an alternative to the well-known bigbox stores that fill Bay Area shopping centers.

John Luk, a veteran broker with GD, has one word to describe most of these malls: “Boring.” He knows that developers and city officials value well-known retailers for their credit-worthiness and ability to draw shoppers, but he says the market is oversaturated.

“It’s the same thing again and again and again: Applebee’s, Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl’s,” Luk says...

Luk and the 25 brokers at GD mine the Asian business community to find retailers who serve the growing Asian population. They know the people and, more importantly, they know what’s on their shopping list and work to bring those businesses into the shopping centers.

As Luk puts it, “Every Asian wants to buy live fish.”

...

“My vision is if the demographic is strong enough — more than 20 to 30 percent Asian — and it’s the right land use in the right location with a willing developer, then come to me. We offer
certainty,” he says.

Firmly entrenched in the South Bay, GD Commercial has branched into Alameda, where the company is working on Encinal Del Monte, a 70,000-squarefoot indoor international market located near the water.

While I would disagree with Mr. Luk that EVERY Asian person wants to buy live fish, I would say that a lot of us would like to buy fresh fish and have the grocery store butcher and deep fry it for us (which is a service offered at many large Asian grocery stores, but not at the tiny rinky dink ones in Oakland Chinatown).  

It would appear though the Mr. Luk must have already lured the potential grocery store tenant to the site already, otherwise why name the development "Encinal Marina Foods"?   Marina Foods, for those that do not know, is an Asian grocery store chain, the closest one to Alameda is in Union City/Fremont.   If they were still trying to lure an anchor like a 99 Ranch or Lion, they certainly wouldn't be naming the marketplace after one of their main competitors.   

I have to say that I am super excited about this project.  Sometimes there are just some things that you cannot get at your Lucky's, Safeway, Trader Joes, or Nob Hill for asian cooking.   Rather than refrigerated cases being full of frozen pizzas and lean cuisine, they'll be full of things like mochi and chive cakes.   Or instead of produce sections filled with bagged and pre-washed lettuce and apples, you'll find things like taro root, daikon, and durian.  And most importantly you'll find in the meat section an assortment of bones essential for making soup stock for staples like pho.   Did I mention the fresh noodles as well?

According to the Planning Department, this has not yet gone to the Planning Board for conditional use permit (30K threshhold) because apparently Conditional Use Permits, once given, is only valid for one year so if the project is still a few years out, they'll wait until they are ready to rehabilitate the interior before putting in an application.

Luego andan preguntando porque se enferma la gente o por que se tapan las coladeras y en tiempos de lluvia se inundan las calles. Si esto pasa en la Alameda que esta a la vista de todos, como estarán los barrios mas escondidos?

Las fotos fueron tomadas el viernes 25 de Julio en la tarde.