Clif Bar and Alameda
So, I guess it is official that Clif Bar is leaving its Berkeley based offices to relocate to Alameda when the Landing is completed. Which means that the Landing should be completed by 2008 (wow!) or at least the office space portion that Clif Bar is leasing. And that it would be difficult for Alameda to not approve the project when it comes up for approval at the City Council meeting. Although I am not a big energy bar fan, for those of you who do like energy bars, I say forget about the Power Bar (evidently they have decided to relocate to Southern California), it’s all about the Clif Bar.
The Sf Chronicle has an interesting story about the move from Berkeley to Alameda:
Clif Bar plans to move to an existing one-story building at the Navy’s former Fleet Industrial Supply Center across the estuary from Jack London Square. Clif Bar’s office will anchor a massive redevelopment project that features 300 homes, 300,000 square feet of retail and 400,000 square feet of office space.
“We are extremely enthusiastic and excited at the prospect of bringing Clif Bar to Alameda,” said Debbie Potter, Alameda’s base reuse and community development manager. “It’s a very nice fit. We share a lot of the same green, progressive values as Clif Bar.”
Alameda’s City Council is scheduled to vote on the development at its Sept. 5 meeting.
Clif Bar employees will have many of the amenities they enjoyed in Berkeley: a child care center, rock-climbing wall, gymnasium, salon, laundry facility, auditorium for speakers and live music, personal trainers, yoga and massage.
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.
“They loved being in Berkeley and really enjoy the community, but they had maxed out their building,” said Trevor. “In Alameda, they’ll be able to better follow their environmental mission.”
Wow, child care, rock-climbing wall, gym, salon, personal trainers? Where can I sign up for a job with Clif Bar.
Although what is the deal with Clif Bar employees getting to send their kids to Alameda Public Schools even if they don’t live in Alameda? When was that approved? How is that even going to work? Do Clif Bar employees’ kids get to pick which school they want to send their children to or are they assigned certain schools? If that is the case, how many kids are we talking about? I guess the school district is in such dire need for attendance dollars in the lagging West End enrollment that they made this offer to Clif Bar.
I wonder how much of the 400,000 sq ft of office space will be used by Clif Bar and how do we get more companies like Clif Bar and Peets to relocate to Alameda?
See? Here’s a perfect example. Measure A opponents like to say that we need high-density housing on Alameda Point so that people who work in Alameda can live in Alameda.
Clif Bar is a perfect example of Alameda workers expressly not moving to Alameda, but remaining where they are, namely, Berkeley. So, they’ll bring their kids to school with them, and then go back home to Berkeley at the end of the day. See? Just because there is housing and jobs in Alameda, it doesn’t mean everybody working in Alameda lives in Alameda. That’s a nice fairy tale idea, but it doesn’t happen in practice.
Measure A opponents talk about developing housing at Alameda Point so that all the people that work in Alameda can live in Alameda. This is farcical!
There are currently about 75,000 people living in Alameda, with Alameda Point developed, we can anticipate, say, another 10,000.
Are there 85,000 jobs in Alameda? No! Of course not! Ok, ok, not all of those people are working adults, so here’s a stat from the City of Alameda web site:
Jobs
Among its labor force of 38,240, approximately 37,000 Alamedans are currently employed. The unemployment rate, city-wide, is a low 3.1%.
From US Census Data, the median family income for Alameda is over $75,000 per year. So are there 37,000 jobs in Alameda that support a median family income of over $75,000 per year? No! So these people aren’t working in Alameda, they’re working elsewhere.
The more high-density housing we build on the island, the more people will have to get OFF the island to get to work each day. Although they may use mass transit if their job is in San Francisco, they will generate automobile trips if their job is elsewhere, and they will use their car for other purposes.
The suggestion that we need high-density development for Alameda Point to house people working in Alameda is a fallacy.
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 10:17 am
David, repeating the same (flawed) points ad nauseam isn’t exactly helping your cause. The opposition to Measure A is based on the exisiting infrastructure. You (and the rest of Alameda’s NIMBY proponents) are conveniently ignoring the proposed transportation strategies for Alameda Point that are being considered to mitigate and avoid traffic.
Comment by alameda — August 9, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Unmask thyself! Afraid to speak under your own name?
It’s the HOMES proposal that is flawed. The reality is that high-density homes will bring high-density cars, plain and simple. You and your ilk speak platitudes that don’t hold up to even a cursory examination, such as how many jobs are in Alameda for people to work at.
I brought it up here because the comments about Clif Bar employees and their kids speaks directly to what I wrote in the Alameda Sun.
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
According to Appendix B of the Draft EIR for the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, there were 30,360 jobs and 34,800 employed residents in Alameda in 2005. This represents a fairly balanced jobs/housing ratio of 0.87.
I don’t think HOMES or anyone else has claimed that maintaining a jobs/housing ratio of 1.0 guarantees that commuter traffic will be eliminated. For example, the draft EIR I mentioned above contains the following disclaimer:
“However, a balance between jobs and housing in a given place may still not be an accurate indicator of commuting rates. For instance, an area with a jobs/housing ratio of 1.0, but with little affordable housing may host a large day population of workers commuting from areas with more affordable housing. Thus jobs/housing evaluations are more useful in examining the potential for ’self-containment’: the ability of an area’s population to live and work in the same place.”
One thing is certain, though: A drastic jobs/housing imbalance guarantees that many people will have to commute. Keeping the jobs/housing ratio near 1.0 at least makes it possible for people to live near their workplaces, provided enough housing is available in the right price ranges. So a jobs/housing balance may not be a cure-all, but neither is it a “fallacy.”
As for the issue of allowing non-resident Clif Bar employees’ children to attend Alameda schools, this does seem like a questionable move to me. I understand the City’s enthusiasm for a good tenant like Clif Bar, but shouldn’t we be encouraging people to cut their commutes by moving to Alameda? Wouldn’t it be better if those children could walk or bike to a neighborhood school instead of becoming young commuters? I agree that we shouldn’t get so carried away with economic development prospects that we lose all sight of our other goals.
My job at Wind River is what brought me to Alameda, and I appreciate how much a short commute can add to one’s quality of life. I ride my bike whenever the weather allows (at least 90% of the time, it seems!), and I also have the options of driving, taking the bus (yes, I do take the bus within Alameda!), and walking. The City should be doing everything it can to encourage other Alameda workers to discover the benefits of not hitting the freeways every day.
Comment by Michael Krueger — August 9, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
According to Appendix B of the Draft EIR for the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, there were 30,360 jobs and 34,800 employed residents in Alameda in 2005. This represents a fairly balanced jobs/housing ratio of 0.87.
What’s the breakdown of those jobs? Of those 30,000 jobs, how many are occupied by people living in Alameda? A jobs/housing ratio of 1:1 doesn’t mean everybody is living and working in the same city.
Your data validates my point - there are already more people in Alameda than there are jobs for them to work out. People are using cars to leave the island today. High-density housing in Alameda Point will create MORE of this, not less.
I don’t think HOMES or anyone else has claimed that maintaining a jobs/housing ratio of 1.0 guarantees that commuter traffic will be eliminated.
No, they don’t offer a guarantee, but they preach this theme as an excuse for over-crowding Alameda Point.
I think it’s great you ride your bike to work. For the first six months I lived in Alameda, I rode my bike 7 miles to work every day, including in the rain. The provisions to encourage more of this are all present without exempting Alameda Point from Measure A.
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
From the general plan amendment:
c. Housing
There were 31,644 housing units in the City of Alameda in 2000.5 Of these, about 40 percent were detached single-family units, 10 percent were attached single-family units, and 50 percent were multi-family units. There were 19 mobile homes. The homeownership rate is approximately 48 percent.
As of year 2000, only 40 percent of Alameda homes are detached SFH. 50 percent are multi-family. 50 percent! Why does HOMES insist on further increasing the proportion of high-density housing in Alameda?
Overcrowding isn’t only about automobile traffic, it’s about crime, land use, quality of life for residents (how crowded are the parks, shops, theatres, etc.), air pollution and a host of other issues.
How many of you Measure A opponents live in detached SFH versus multi-family dwellings?
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
David Howard’s comment about the type of housing stock in which proponents of a Measure A revision live really hits a nerve with me in how political talk surrounding Measure A seems to play out.
I was at a City Council meeting a few year’s back when the Council was considering allocating funds for a study on the impact of Measure A. The comments made by some of my fellow citizens about not wanting to attract more people from “Oakland” and the misrepresentation of apartment dwellers as criminals was appalling. It was not too tough to read between the lines of the comments that were made that night.
Non-homeowners are stakeholders in this community too; we certainly care about the quality of life of this Island. I don’t like crime. I like good schools. I try to spend as many dollars as possible on this Island to support our Island economy.
Measure A applied to Alameda Point is such an affront to people who are trying to save for that first down payment and make just enough money to be homeowners in California. Long-term renters, people who might never own a home, should also be able to benefit from new housing stock.
I think that if my local government would like to develop such a large chunk of land in the middle of the San Francisco Bay, it should do it such a way in a way in which the broadest number of its current and future residents can benefit.
Comment by Michael Kusiak — August 9, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
>Long-term renters, people who might >never own a home, should also be able >to benefit from new housing stock.
Within the bounds of Measure A, there will be “affordable” housing built.
But this is a fallacy anyway - is a $1M condo more “affordable” to long-term renters than a $1.5M freestanding home? Just because it’s relatively less expensive?
Because if you give the developers increased density, you can be sure you’re going to get a lot more condos that the market will drive beyond the range of affordability for the people you’re trying to help. So we get all the problems of over-crowding without the benefits of the “affordable” housing you are looking for.
The fact that this chunk of land is in the middle of San Francisco Bay is going to ensure that ALL the housing is going to be expensive. 1700 acres on the San Francisco Bay with a view of the city is a ridiculous location to try to build affordable housing - the geography of the tract, along with the demand for housing in the entire Bay area, will drive up prices, and the developers will use an exemption to Measure A as a way to maximize profits, quality of life, crime and traffic be-damned.
As for crime, simply look at the crime stats comparing Alameda to Pleasanton, or Livermore, or Oakland or San Francisco.
http://alameda.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Alameda&s1=CA&c2=San+Francisco&s2=CA
High-density areas have higher crime rates. Chalk it up to whatever your favorite demon may be - “oakland” people, poor people, your least favorite race, whatever.
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
As for me, I support Measure A, I OPPOSE the exemption, and I live in Alameda in a duplex on a street full of multi-family units.
I risk mine and my family’s life everytime I pull out of the driveway between the SUV’s parked on the street on either side of my driveway.
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
David, we would’ve never guessed that you support Measure A! Thanks for the heads-up
Comment by alameda — August 9, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
Michael K’s comments suggested he wasn’t clear on the issue.
As for you - why don’t you use your real name??
Comment by David Howard — August 9, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
Rather than blaming “your least favorite race” or some other “demon” for high crime rates, perhaps one should look at the results of criminological research into the causes of crime.
Consider the results of this University of Texas study, “The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime”:
“A widely held belief is that high-density land use is intimately associated with high crime rate. . . . However, results of GIS [Geographic Information Systems] analysis show that high crime rate is not necessarily linked to high-density development, but more to the low socioeconomic status of the delinquents. . . . The results of this study also imply that housing and land-use policies stressing low density should be reconsidered, and crime prevention should not neglect the importance of social policies aimed at improving education attainment and social and economic equity.”
The results of the study are hardly surprising. For example, imagine two high-density developments, an exclusive luxury condominium project and an all-low-income housing project, both with exactly the same density and total number of residents. Would one really expect to observe the same crime rate in both projects just because the density is the same?
If Mr. Howard is certain that “ALL the housing is going to be expensive” at Alameda Point, then his fears of crime are unfounded, no matter what the density is. However, I believe it is wrong to assume that all the housing at the Point must be expensive, given the amount of leverage the City will be able to exert as the plans are drawn up.
Research confirms the widely held belief that exclusively low-income neighborhoods tend to have high crime rates; however, contrary to popular belief, the solution to crime is not to build neighborhoods exclusively for the rich. The safest neighborhoods are those that have a broad mix of incomes, as demonstrated in the Loyola University study, “Crime in economically diverse neighborhoods”:
“To our question whether mixed-income neighborhoods are safe, we can safely reply that there are less occurrences of crime there than in other neighborhoods, including those that are predominantly inhabited by high-income residents.”
Thus, it is in everyone’s interest for cities to do what they can to ensure that new neighborhoods have housing opportunities for people of all incomes. Unfortunately, current policies tend to produce developments in which the middle rungs of the “ladder of housing” are all missing. There are often a relatively small number of below-market-rate units for the poor and large single-family homes for the rich, with nothing in between.
Comment by Michael Krueger — August 10, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
Shall I respond like our host?
Irving, TX = Apples.
Alameda, CA = Oranges.
I’m merely advocating building out Alameda Point in compliance with Measure A. It will provide a mix of structure types, and range of prices (all of which, ultimately, will be expensive, just like the rest of the Bay area.)
Measure A opponents are advocating higher-density for the purpose of including more people at the bottom end of the socio-economic ladder. If your study is true, and I’m wrong about housing prices, then Alameda Point will be filled with people from the bottom of the ladder (because it’s cheap to live) who are more likely to commit crimes (because UT says so.) No thank-you.
David Howard
P.S. Doesn’t “low socioeconomic status of the delinquents” = “poor people” ???
Comment by keepmeasurea — August 10, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
David,
did you actually read the last post? you’re arguing again a false-statement (again). No one has claimed that there should be housing only for “poor people.”
The argument was the exact opposite, that crime is lowest when housing includes a mix of various incomes.
Per your question about Antioch on another thread, I don’t have a problem with Antioch, but I live in Alameda precisely because of what it offers differently than Antioch.
Antioch exists for people who want to live in Antioch–walled off housing separated from commercial and retail uses, and totally car-dependent. It’s odd to me how people screaming to “save” alameda from development then want to turn around and change it into antioch-style suburb which it isn’t. (Bay farm not withstanding).
Comment by John Knox White — August 11, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Did you read my post?
High-density brings a number of problems with it, regardless of whether or not those problems are directly due to high-density in and of itself.
Those problems come in the form of crime, traffic congestion, air pollution, quality of life issues and so on.
As for crime, all you have to do is take a look at the crime statistics. The cities you like to villify - Livermore, Pleasanton, etc, have better crime rates than Alameda, San Francisco and Oakland.
What Measure A opponents are advocating is San Francisco style density and mix - and San Francisco has higher crime than Alameda, and I don’t want that.
And again, the rationale you use to increase the mix of housing is to allow more housing for people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder (i.e. “poor people”
- but those are the people responsible for crime, according to your UT study! Why do you want to bring into Alameda Point a high concentration of people that are more prone to crime?
There is a mix of housing proscribed in the current Measure A-compliant plan. 50% of the housing in Alameda is already multi-family. If anything, the balance is already tipped too far towards a domination of multi-family units.
Comment by keepmeasurea — August 11, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Wow, most of these comments really had anything to do with Cliff Bar.
I am all for Cliff Bar, with the exception of sending them to our schools and I am not certian about the location. It sounds like they might be using one of the old buildings across from Jack London which I thought was suppose to be torn down and replaced with restaurants and a waterfront park?
Also in my opinion, not one of those buildings are architecally worth keeping tear them all down and start over, with a building designed for the purpose it was build for. The old hospital is the only one with any design and it is falling down.
I hate to see them cut corners just to accommodate getting someone in there quickly.
Comment by Joe — August 15, 2006 @ 4:00 am
All folks who work in Alameda can send their children to Alameda public schools. This is not just for Cliff bar employees and is not new.
Comment by Laura — March 7, 2008 @ 2:07 pm