In addition to hearing about the leases for the Historic Alameda Theater storefronts, before the City Council will be two appeals of items relating to Alameda Landing. The first is an appeal by the owner of Mariner Square Athletic Club, the best that I can gather from the staff report is that the appeal is based on the argument that there is an need for supplemental or subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) since the waterfront portion of the project has been revised due to the discovery of the disrepair of the pilings on the waterfront. The city, of course, says that a supplemental EIR is not necessary since the EIR has already been certified and the law allows for addedums to be made since none of the elements to trigger a subsequent or supplemental EIR has been met. Sounds vaguely familiar.
The next appeal is, of course, Catellus’s appeal of the Planning Board’s decision to insist on a sidewalk to be part of the north – south driveway in the Alameda Landing retail area. But rather than be petulant about it and simply appeal the decision, Catellus has proferred up an alternative Plan #4, which I think is better than any of the previous plans. It has sidewalks on both sides, but unlike the other Plan with sidewalks on both side, it allows for better East West access down the aisles of parking rather than dead ending at the sidewalk. Everyone wins! Yay! But the strangest thing is why Catellus didn’t just come up with the Plan 4 in the first place. I think they were more than aware of the Planning Board’s insistence on sidewalks, they should have just planned it in to begin with and then there wouldn’t have to be yet another meeting on this topic.
And on the topic of yet another wasted meeting , the City Council has to hold a “special” meeting on Wednesday to talk about the roles and reponsibilities of the Alameda Point Task Force because of confusion. I noticed that there wasn’t any items attached to that agenda, but I hope at the very least that the City Council would be given a transcript ahead of time so that they all can recall (at least on paper) what was said and who proposed what and what does “assisting and advising” really mean?
The appeal that was filed by the owner of Mariner Square Athletic Club was withdrawn, and a condition in the Master Demolition Grading & Infrastructure Plan was removed making way for Catellus to demolish the warehouse on the wharf and any other buildings that get in the way of this big box development.
Catellus and the council discussed a “compromise plan” and sent the sidewalk issue back to the Planning Board for review which the Planning board will review sometime before the month is over.
So we’re down to two final approvals for Alameda Landing by the Planning Board —- the sidewalks and design approval of the large format buildings.
My fear is that Alameda will end up with a retail power center at Alameda Landing instead of the lifesytle center we were promised.
A retail power center has more discount stores and a lifesyle center is more upscale. These are just a few of the big box tenants at Catellus’s power center in Fremont:
Lowe’s
Costco
Circuit City
Kohl’s
The massive size of these proposed buildings at Alameda Landing and the debate over the sidewalks is a big flag !!!!!
Which leads to me wonder why I was the only one at the City Council expressing concerns over the direction of this project??
Comment by Karen B — November 9, 2007 @ 6:17 am