Blogging Bayport Alameda

August 8, 2007

Finding your base

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Neighbors, Alameda Point, Development — Lauren Do @ 7:00 am

A while back, I think just plain dave, or someone else indicated that the majority of base closures resulted in land use of a mostly industrial nature. So I thought, that’s interesting…I wonder if it is correct. So over a few random days I searched though the list of base closures from the U.S. Department of Defense and then did a search on each site. Some I found information on, others were a lot more difficult. What struck me is that many were coverted into airports, a few are still being used by miltary, namely National Guards, but it seemed evenly spread over the type of land uses.

Regardless of the uses that some locations have chosen for these swaths of land, now that we have a (knock on wood) developer for Alameda Point we should start thinking about the types of uses we want to see.  I imagine that if SunCal stays true to form as they did for the Oak Knoll project, we should be seeing a number of community meetings soliciting our opinions on plans or what we want to see out at Alameda Point.  Oak Knoll had three according to their website, which means that Alameda Point, a much larger plot of land, should have a lot more meeting. 

The list starts after the jump…if you have information on any of the miltary facilities I could not find information for, please feel free to post it.

1995

1993

1991

1988

24 Comments »

  1. Here is more on Castle AFB:
    http://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123038781

    Comment by Alameda NayTiff — August 8, 2007 @ 9:51 am

  2. Here is the Wikipedia entry for Base Realignment and Closure that covers five rounds of closures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

    While it does not necessarily indicate what happened to the property it contains a number of links for many bases.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — August 8, 2007 @ 11:50 am

  3. I use to live on a run down, closed base in Michigan. I think it was called Kinross or Kinchelo, or something like that. It was 1982 I lived there and the barracks were falling down. I went back a few years ago to see my old neighborhood, but there were 5 prisons there instead. No more barracks.

    Comment by FacingTheSharks — August 8, 2007 @ 5:33 pm

  4. NPR Report on Glenview NAS
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4650611

    Comment by Alameda NayTiff — August 8, 2007 @ 6:18 pm

  5. “now that we have a … developer for Alameda Point we should start thinking about the types of uses we want to see”

    I realize that people who write here weren’t necessarily around then, but there was a community committee– my husband was on it– and they met for several YEARS in the 1990’s to develop a community land use plan for the base. The name of the group was the Land Use Subcommittee of the Base Reuse Advisory Group (B.R.A.G.). They came up with a plan, a good one–published as “Community Voices: Design Objectives for the Reuse of the Naval Air Station”. So now that it has taken years to get a developer, do we just throw all their work away and start over? It really seems a shame.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — August 8, 2007 @ 11:17 pm

  6. My understanding is that the PDC, (Preliminary Development Concept), which was so many years in the making, is still in effect and that was understood by all the new applicants who bid to replace APCP.

    Comment by David Kirwin — August 8, 2007 @ 11:26 pm

  7. Kevis,

    The BRAG plan is the vision document that was used to create the approved General Plan Amendment (GPA) that was adopted into the General Plan a few years back. The question then becomes, what is the specific plan that fulfills the goals of that plan. As discussions move forward about “planning” for the base, the BRAG/GPA are the guiding documents, but there is some disagreement as to what the language requires and even more disagreement, among the crew who disagree with everything, as to whether they should be moved forward at all.

    A case in point is the GPA goal of walkability. To Barbara Kerr and her elk, this appears to mean shoreline paths and parks (a.k.a. recreation). To others, it means a connected community in which residents are able to walk as a part of their daily lives with neighborhood retail and services (a.k.a. walking as more than just an exercise regime, and as an indicator to community “quality of life.”)

    The BRAG plan laid out a great vision. The contentious bits of the public discussion around fulfilling that plan are around paying lip-service to it, or actually making it a reality.

    Comment by johnknoxwhite — August 9, 2007 @ 8:21 am

  8. Re land use priorities at the point:

    I am concerned about the fate of the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge and would like to see some community focus on protecting it. –It appears that the Least Tern is truly in danger of becoming the “least among us”; a lesser priority than a resting place for the human dead. (The V.A. would like to build a hospital and columbarium-only national cemetery on the same site. See Alameda Sun article at http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1174&Itemid=10 )

    From the Bay Nature Newsletter July-September 2007
    http://www.baynature.com/v07n03/v07n03_etg.html

    “…The colony at the proposed Alameda National Wildlife Refuge is essential for the tern’s eventual recovery, says Murdock. It’s among the terns’ most productive breeding sites, and the northernmost colony (except for two small new ones near Grizzly Island and in Pittsburg). But the status of the Alameda refuge has remained in limbo for over a decade while the Navy and FWS negotiate long-term contamination clean-up. Recently, the Veteran’s Administration proposed to build on the site and Golden Gate Audubon is watching the proposal closely. They have future brooding chicks to protect.”

    The Golden Gate Audubon Society chapter has made securing the future of the refuge one of its top 6 priorities for 2006/2007.

    From “The Gull”, October, 2006
    http://www.goldengateaudubon.org/backup/html/thegull/current/TheGull1006.pdf

    Assessing Golden Gate Audubon’s
    Progress and Looking Ahead

    “…One key to our success is focusing our energies. To this end, we have identified six priorities for our conservation work in 2006–07. They include four places where birds are at risk due to threats such as habitat loss and human activities: reducing the illegal raptor kills at Altamont Pass; securing the future of the Alameda National Wildlife Refuge, critical nesting area for the endangered California Least Tern…”

    In addition, it would be great to see some focus on restoring wetland habitat at the point.
    Below is an interesting article from Stanford regarding the loss of tidal marshlands in the bay and the S.F. Bay estuary since 1850, and the effects of habitat loss and pollution on wildlife, and the criticality of preserving what is left. “…loss of the estuary’s wetlands has placed increased importance on the remaining 125 km of wetlands that continue to be threatened by development, erosion, pollution, and rising sea level.”

    http://west.stanford.edu/exploringthewest/pdf/WetlandsRestoration.pdf

    Comment by Susan — August 9, 2007 @ 9:59 am

  9. From all of the documentation on Alameda Point, the Wildlife Area with over 500 acres will not be touched by development and will be turned over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife agency. Here are there plans for the area:

    http://www.fws.gov/pacific/planning/alameda_ccp.htm

    Comment by Mike McMahon — August 9, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

  10. Re: #8, didn’t realize we had an ANWR in our backyard. Hope this won’t be as contentious as the other one.

    Comment by alameda — August 9, 2007 @ 5:17 pm

  11. John, thanks for the update on what happened to the land use plan that exists. I realize it is not a nuts and bolts sort of plan, but a conceptual one, but still, some of the statements are pretty strong guidelines as to what kind of development would be compatible and what would not– for example “the neighborhood should be no larger than allows for walking distance (approximately a quarter mile radius) to shops, work or mass transit.” Or “Most critical, is the idea of integration, as the rest of Alameda does so well, places for people of different levels of income.” I could go on and on, but the document is definitely not neutral about pedestrian oriented development, transit oriented development, mixed use neighborhoods, etc., and it seems as if discussion on the issue is starting from the point of a blank slate rather than going forward from the design concept.

    Comment by Kevis Brownson — August 10, 2007 @ 10:19 pm

  12. I am assuming that the GPA that JKW refers to above is: http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/planning/pdf/GPChap9.pdf
    Am I correct?

    While I see the strong desire to develop AP, I am concerned about vehicle impacts of the growing rate of development in Alameda, and more so for the region as a whole.
    The GP that I think is being referred to for the Point suggests 2,191 living units and 300 hotel rooms. Isn’t that like adding 2/3 of Bay Farm to the West End of Alameda?

    Resulting from Bay Farm development, Island Dr / Otis has the 2nd highest traffic density on the Island. It is one of only two Alameda spots at last survey with over 30,000 vehicles per day. It is second only to The Alameda side of the tube.
    I believe adding bus lanes and ‘ HOV queue jumpers’, and bike paths – the solutions the TC has come up with, merely “rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic”.

    I think everybody who needs to work off-island to pay mortgages and support families can tell you, traffic is getting denser, regular back-ups are starting earlier and lasting longer. This is not just a quality of life issue (unpaid work related hours away from home, and family) it is also an environmental hazard affecting air, water and surface pollution. The type of growth that the multinational development corporations are controlling also increases our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and the resulting wars.

    “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.” – Major General Smedley Butler.

    Comment by David Kirwin — August 11, 2007 @ 10:32 am

  13. DK, do you have any specific solutions or is that too much to ask? Your rambling posts are delusional.

    Comment by Roberto — August 11, 2007 @ 10:37 am

  14. I used to use the tube semi regularly in the morning after a west end school drop off but I have now been doing the Park Street end of town for the last three. My transit was really peak at about 8 a.m. It’s always annoying because I really hate that kind of driving, but I figured a couple sneaky moves to get to the bridge more quickly than if I got on Park at Clinton.

    We used Oak to Buena Vista and then crossed park and came down to Blanding a block past park. Since the theater construction, I started getting on Park at Encinal and dog legging at Buena Vista as before.

    The theater obstruction is really annoying, but I have to assume that once the lot is built the traffic won’t be any worse, and frankly I’m amazed at how well traffic has adjusted. That doesn’t mean I will want to transit Oak at peak usage of the new lot.

    Some mornings the traffic on Park seemed really terrible to the point I had a hard time imagining we could handle significant increases. But if you commute at 7, 7:30, 8, 8:30 and 9 a.m., you get the sense that there is only about 90 minutes of really rotten traffic. It may have taken me 7 minutes to sneak to the bridge and up to 15 or a little more on the worse days or when I chose to sit on Park the whole way.

    Comment by Mark — August 11, 2007 @ 11:20 am

  15. Part II. I hit submit inadvertently. Pardon another rambling post, but here goes…

    To conclude, the point of this detailed commuting anecdote above is that like DK, I’m also very anxious about the limits of our ability to absorb additional automobile traffic. We live a block from Towne Centre three doors from Otis.

    Despite all this foreboding about traffic and degrading quality of life, I’m trying to be as objective as possible and to be realistic. I don’t feel that given the overall infrastructure and economic system that already dominates that we can expect to stop all additional development. I also put these local changes in the context of the global situation and feel that we must make radical changes at every level of our culture in order for the planet to remain survivable, basically to stave off apocalypse both politically an environmentally.

    Those radical changes are centered around consumerism, but the solution is to curb consumption which converting to sustainable econmies, not simply say we don’t want the distribution centers too close, OR too far from where we live. (Perhaps I’ll refer to DK as Goldie Locks since he seems to require everything “just right” for his comfort zone.)

    I’m not all sanguine about Smart Growth, or New Urbanism, or whatever alternatives to the status quo which may be emerging, but I have hope. People like Jack Boeger can make fun of “save the world types”, but I want to know what solutions they have to offer, or do they actually think we’re not all in really deep shit?

    Some might say yeah, we are in deep, and it’s the parking garage, bus stops, Bayport, Towne Centre, traffic, traffic traffic! But that’s myopic.

    Comment by Mark — August 11, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

  16. Robert (re #13) – Could you be more specific? Which of the development based problems are you wanting solutions for?

    Just as most people would suggest if a hole is too deep – “Stop digging”; with traffic getting so bad, stop making it worse until there is a solution. One suggestion I would like to see our representatives take up is to re-evaluate how our local, state and federal tax dollars get spent to help finance private developers building for non-public use. In CA alone, 100’s of billions are being squandered this way. I think a better use of our CA tax dollars would be to improve our transportation options, including public transit, to improve education, to create more solar power incentives and alternative fuel vehicle credits.
    But basically the first and primary solution is just to stop adding to the problem.

    Does that sound reasonable?

    Mark – Don’t “misintwerpret” my concerns for our society, and the way we are forced to see our pubic money spent, as self-centered concerns for my personal comfort zone. As a resident of Bay Farm Island, the coming traffic cluster f***at the tube will have a smaller impact on our neighborhood than those west of Park St.

    To be sure, you can consider that if I was not in a ‘zone of comfort’ I would not have left the film industry for job in a school district, nor would I be spending any time offering my opinions on this site.

    Comment by David Kirwin — August 11, 2007 @ 10:12 pm

  17. To be honest you live in a city, so during commute hours traffic is going to be worse, if you expect less you are unreal. I find the commute in Alameda very good when I drive. (try driving from Dublin, Walnut Creek) Most of the time I take the Fairy…try it out (it is actually getting more and more crowded which is a good thing)…and build more housing close to the Fairy terminals

    Comment by Joel — August 12, 2007 @ 6:05 pm

  18. DK,
    I know there are people coming and going all day off the Island but 30,000 a day off the Otis bridge where there are only approx 70,000 people who live here and the tube has more traffic and you are saying the tube has more traffic…doesn’t sound correct although I could be wrong. I figure 30-40% or are children who are not leaving, other are stat at home dads,or moms, and a lot of retired who don’t leave the island every day…..it sort of just doesn’t add up.

    Comment by Joel — August 12, 2007 @ 6:25 pm

  19. I was stationed at McCord AFB in Tacoma Washington, the base was meticulous. It is a shame how some of theses base have gone down hill in recent years.

    Comment by Joel — August 12, 2007 @ 7:19 pm

  20. Joel,
    While we may be in agreement about the assumed correctness,(or incorrectness), of the figures, they are the figures the JKW’s commission,(AKA the Transportation Commission), is using as part of its foundation of the new transportation element and the need for reclassification of all Alameda streets.

    I will also state I myself made 8 trips on that stretch of road today, but that is twice my average.

    Comment by David Kirwin — August 12, 2007 @ 7:26 pm

  21. so DK most of the traffic is due to you (8 trips on that bridge). I usually drive once to Home Depot on the weekend, 2 or 3 times to get groceries, and to the fairy….I have 35,000 on my car 10 years? You? It is not a contest, but there are a lot of other ways to travel….and were the one who gave me grief for my big house? So maybe the whole solution is you and a few other start planning your trips better or using public transit….8 trips across that bridge isn’t normal, and when I am not entertaining only heat half the house.

    Comment by Joel — August 12, 2007 @ 7:58 pm

  22. Joel- to understand traffic concerns in Alameda you must begin to realize the demands of shuttling our children. Parents more clearly understand the utter nonsense of the perceived traffic mediations alluded (deluded) to by MK, JKW, HOMES et al. ‘Transit Hubs,’ (by which they mean 4 -6 story residential blocks and high rise luxury condo buildings, not ‘transit centers’) may slightly increase public transit ridership for commuting, but parents know the majority of vehicle trips, even by mass transit commuters, will be by private vehicles. Besides the school drop-offs and pick-ups there is driving for play dates, extra-curricular activities, sports, and birthday parties – I can’t begin to describe how often primary school age children go to parties. And there seems to be many other ‘new needs’ for children that I don’t think existed during my childhood. Believe me, you will see if you do become a parent – 4 round trips is not at all uncommon in any given day. In fact today was a light driving day, with one car being repaired; half of my trips on that stretch of road were transporting my wife back and forth to work. Few businesses or commercial rentals have showers, making bicycles less practical for a majority of potential riders.

    Additionally future Point tenants, when faced with a need to go shopping, or to a doctor, or out to dinner, are far more likily to get behind a wheel than wait to work the AC bus system as it exisits. Have you ever heard of anyone going to pick up a baby sitter by bus, or request that the babysitter use AC instead of driving to pick the sitter up?

    Yup, I admit it Joel, families with young children drive a lot of local trips.

    Comment by David Kirwin — August 13, 2007 @ 12:04 am

  23. Regarding # 12- 15

    You only notice how bad the traffic is when you are part of the traffic. While only government can solve the bigger issues like adding more transit or ferries, we can all try to eliminate one car trip out of ten. That may not sound like a lot, but reducing traffic ten percent would really help — especially during commute hours. Can you drive to do your shopping during non-commute hours? Can you walk or bike instead? Can you combine car trips to closely related destinations? The government has its role, but we all, as individuals, can control our own behavior. Really, it is possible.

    http://tinylink.com/?t43wB0u6NW

    Comment by Alameda NayTiff — August 13, 2007 @ 6:44 am

  24. The governments role should be to listen to the people that support it, then to do the bidding of the voters.

    Comment by David Kirwin — August 13, 2007 @ 2:19 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.