The Alameda Journal reports that after being left on the sidelines for a spell, the Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment is now a “somebody.” This Monday, the amendment will come before the Planning Board, but you have all weekend to pore over the 61 page document in preparation. I see no one has figured out how to create a useable PDF in the city just yet. I am refraining from a virtual “wag of my finger.”
Some highlights from the Journal article:
Despite concerns that the views of a citizens’ committee on the development of the city’s northern waterfront were not adequately represented in a proposed general plan amendment, the planning board on Monday is scheduled to begin reviewing the issue.
Former waterfront committee member Jean Sweeney; and former City Councilwoman Barbara Kerr say that, among other things, the document does not entirely reflect how the committee voted.
…
The planning effort, which began seven years ago, would affect 110 acres of Alameda’s northern waterfront.
That includes the 235,000-square-foot brick Del Monte warehouse along Buena Vista Avenue; the 24-acre Encinal Terminal site being used for storage and cleaning of freight containers; and the Grand Marina area which includes the Alaska Packers building, the Alameda Animal Shelter and Corporation Yard and the Pennzoil warehouse.
…
While the planning amendment in its current form is encountering some public resistance, Peter Wang, the owner of much of the property along the northern waterfront, is in favor of the amendment.
In November, Wang was stymied in his effort to engage the city in negotiations for a subsidy for a Venice-style development north of Buena Vista Avenue, in part because some members of the council believed the planning amendment needed to be approved first.
…
Thomas acknowledged the document may have gone through further tweaking at a staff level to implement what the committee said it sought. But he believed it was a faithful representation of the committee’s desires. The minutes from the final 2003 meeting are also included in the city staff report.
“If you think there’s something in the proposal you’re not comfortable with, make your case,” he said. “That’s what the planning board is there for.”
It would be interesting to hear from other members of the citizen advisory committee to see what they think about the amendment as written. One thing that jumped out at me while skimming the document (other than the written comment by Jean Sweeney about the bat population, p. 56), was a statement by staff about work/live. On p. 11 she contends that “Work/Live is no longer legal.” to which they respond that it is conditionally permittted in certain zoned areas. I still don’t understand what all the fuss is about regarding Work/Live, it seems like a great way of reusing a lot of the old industrial buildings that have been left vacant for a long time (see Clamp Swing project).
Also, there was an interesting response about the need for a waterfront fire station. (p. 12). Did you know that the city has two fire boats? While on one hand Barbara Kerr is right that it will take up valuable waterfront space, it would be quite efficient if the fire boats could be easily accessible by fire department staff where they live and work. I don’t think this would be a terrible “misuse” of the waterfront, fire department staff live in the fire house and fire stations in general are a benefit to the city anywhere they are located.
I think it will be interesting to see who comes out to talk about the issue at the planning board, next to Alameda Point, this is probably the next largest area for development in Alameda.
Sort of off topic ( appologies in advance) but pertinent to this discussion is something I found on Wikipedia. Two things actually that I think Alamedans on both sides of the whole development issue should read prior to walking into a meeting where new developments are being proposed.Very interesting comparisons here.
Both of these came from Wikipedia by the way if you want to read more.
First article:NIMBY
NIMBY (an acronym of Not In My Back Yard) describes the phenomenon in which residents oppose a development as inappropriate for their local area, but by implication do not oppose such development in another’s.
NIMBY and its derivative terms NIMBYism, NIMBYs, and NIMBYists, refer implicitly to debates of development generally or a specific case, and as such their use is inherently contentious. Also, it is a relatively recent term, the first printed usage of which the Oxford English Dictionary identifies as being in 1980 in the Christian Science Monitor, and the nuances of which are still disputed. The term is usually applied to opponents by advocates of a development, implying that those opposing the debated development, or at least their viewpoint in such regards, is narrow, selfish, myopic, or otherwise limited. As such, its use is pejorative.
The term has been applied in debates over developments in various situations:
* when a government or private party advocates development of residential or commercial property
* when parties advocate infrastructure development such as highways, power plants, electrical transmission lines, wastewater treatment plants, landfills or prisons)
* when ventures such as wireless telephone companies petition local governments for permission to build new cellular transmission facilities near residential areas or schools, to improve coverage
* when parties build, operate, or advocate such of culturally unfamiliar functions, such as subsidized housing, cult-like or alternative lifestyle communes, or religious facilities[citation needed]
Second article:Smart growth
Smart growth refers to a set of policies governing transportation and planning that benefit communities and preserve the natural environment. Smart growth advocates land use patterns that are compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly, and include mixed-use development with a range of housing choices.(read that again) This philosophy keeps density concentrated in the center of a town or city, combating urban sprawl.
Proponents of smart growth advocate comprehensive planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize and build communities that: have a unique sense of community and place; preserve and enhance natural and cultural resources; equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development; expand the range of transportation, employment and housing choices; value long-range, regional considerations of sustainability over a short term focus; and promote public health and healthy communities.
Compact, livable urban neighborhoods attract more people and business. Creating such neighborhoods is a critical element of reducing urban sprawl and protecting the climate. Such a tactic includes adopting redevelopment strategies and zoning policies that channel housing and job growth into urban centers and neighborhood business districts to create compact, walkable, bike and transit friendly hubs. This sometimes requires local government bodies to implement code changes that allow increased height and density downtown and regulations that not only eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development, but establish a maximum number of allowed spaces. Other topics that fall under this concept include:
* mixed-use development
* inclusion of affordable housing
* restrictions or limitations on suburban design forms (e.g. detached houses on individual lots, strip malls and surface parking lots)
* inclusion of parks and recreation areas
Just in my opinion, smart growth just sounds a lot more appropriate and sensible in the case of this city. Then again, that’s just me.
Comment by edvard_sloan — February 23, 2007 @ 8:42 am
To me the “Clean Air Act” & the “Patriot Act” sound like things we should all support.
Comment by aquird groanagen — February 23, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Personally, I would love to see those old industrial building turned into live/work space. That area is the nastist part of town and Alameda can’t take care of the parks they have. Our full time care taker at Bayport park that we were promised…I don’t know if he/she has started yet but the part of the park where they planted grass unstead of sod is full of weeds a foot high, just about ready to bloom and spread seeds all over. Look at the open space before you go into the Webster tube…same thing. Before you add more, take care of what you have.
Comment by Joel — February 23, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
Joel – would you like to work and live in a post-industrial toxic building, or is this just what you would like to see, as long as others are doing it?
As far as the grass at our parks – we are having an early bloom, due to the weather. I’m not convinced winter is over – but I am sure that if the city rolled out the mowers that those tractors would be leaving ruts in the soft wet soil that would be much more difficult to deal with than the long grass. In fact most lawn care books say that “long grass is happy grass.” If you’re worried about weeds, just realize that when it is cut, it all looks the same when short and green. Perhaps before then you will see some wild flowers to enjoy.
Preserving open space now is the best way to insure that Alameda’s growing population will have access to the different kinds of waterfronts & activity space for recreation for generations to come.
Comment by D. Kirwin — February 23, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Dave K,
I lived is a loft before. Not all industrial properties are toxic.
It is not grass…mostly weeds..the grass is getting taken over…and not the nice wild flower type… it is those nasty flowers which after they die blow the seeds all over the neighborhood…(I live across from the park). The area I am referring to is not an area which you can’t really use tractor mowers, so that is not the problem. They will have to most likely use hand mowers. The main part of the park that is the problem (they mowed that several times), it is the area which they seeded instead of laying sod (3-5% of the park/School). The sod in the main part of the park killed most of the weeds. And as far as the grass being wet…we haven’t had much rain so the ground isn’t that soft and wet…especally at Bayport…the ground is rock hard. The HOA haven’t had any problems mowing our parking strips every week…even in the rain.
Comment by Joel — February 24, 2007 @ 7:15 am
During the seven year period of the NWSP process Peter Wang came up with a 68 unit work/live plan as part of rehab for Del Monte. Peter seems to be interested in anything that will work. The Murphy’s sued over Clamp Swing and Mr. Wang’s proposal disappeared. I still haven’t had time to take a look at his recent “Venice” proposal which was shot down.
Jean Sweeney and Barbara Kerr may have a couple good points about the final draft and it wouldn’t surprise me if some committee members weren’t happy. I know the process got so bogged down that the consultant quit and I lost track of it and stopped going to the meetings.
I’m mistrusting of Jean and Barbara’s general agenda for development. Barbara Kerr was on Council during that NWSP period or she may have ended up on the committee, her home is in the neighborhood.
DK- Joel is correct. I’ve lived in lofts too. The Dutch Boy paint factory On San Leandro Blvd. is probably a bad place to raise a child, but it’s been occupied for a long time and I haven’t heard of any cancer clusters from my friends in the Easy Bay work/live scene. Not allowing development of work/live on a presumption that any industrial site is toxic, is knee-jerk. I’m almost afraid to ask, but what would you have the owners do with the buildings when they aren’t economically viable for their original purpose?
Comment by Mark — February 24, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
No NIMBYism here nor am I a NIMBYist. I live in the homes (KB homes) next to the Del Monte factory and have to look a the towering oil tankers everyday. Everytime I drive by I’m dreaming of a day when the area would be developed. I just cringe everytime I watch the PB or Counicl meeting on cable. Everything going on in Alameda it seems are over ther heads…
Comment by AJ — February 26, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
I’ve watched a number of Planning Boards and Economic Development Commissions at work, as well as City Councils, and I would strongly disagree that this PB is somehow out of it’s league. Check the qualifications of the members. It’s fine if you don’t agree with them, but the material before them is hardly over their heads.
Comment by Mark — February 26, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Mark, I have to agree. Although I don’t know the backround of all of them, the 4 I do are VERY qualified. In fact I might not always agree but I would study up on a project twice as hard if I wanted to question them on a how they came to their conclusion.
In fact I would say that the PB is much more an “out of the box” thinking group than city staff and the council. (Please let me qualify it as a general statement and not about everybody in those 2 groups)
Comment by Barbara M — February 27, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
last night’s discussion of the NWSP was a little tedious but worth watching. The public speaking was interesting in terms of getting insight into the NWSP committee. The PB discussion was a challenge for them I think. They didn’t all seem in tip top form, but at the same time were grappling with some difficult concepts in terms of how to interpret their purview, how to define the role of a general plan versus zoning, how far to go in recommending things like height limitations, or not recommending them.
It increased my respect for Andrew Thomas’s ability. He has to field all the commentary, integrate it and prepare to come back on March 26 and do the whole thing again.
Comment by Mark — February 27, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
I would like to better understand our planning board. I look forward to our City’s Webcast Center posting the video made of the PB’s Special Meeting held 1-31-07 at the new library. This is the meeting where they were going to discuss their roles as members of our PB. I was not able to attend, the library has not yet received a copy of the video the way they normally would, but the library did inform me it was taped that night.
Please call the Planning dept and urge them to get it posted to the web site so we can all better understand the individual opinions of those citizens appointed to represent the public – or were they appointed to represent developers, or the city staff, or what? Curious minds want to know how our PB members answer these questions…
Comment by D. Kirwin — February 28, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
DK-
Some minds are so curious they can’t be satisfied by “no stinking tapes”.
I’m sure the entire PB is pre-selected and approved by Don Perata with help from De Silva, Catellus etc., aren’t you?
Comment by Mark — February 28, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
Mark – I don’t understand your comment – please explain what you are trying to say.
Comment by D. Kirwin — March 1, 2007 @ 6:33 am