The noise from the plane stays mainly under the plane flight path

Even though the city of Alameda has settled with Harbor Bay Isle Associates clarifying the EIR terms for a proposed future project on Bay Farm, one group in Alameda is seeking to nullify that settlement, from the Journal:

…The group, Citizens’ League for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS), said it will take on both the city of Alameda and Harbor Bay Isle Associates as officers and attorneys jointly informed the group at their annual public meeting last week, Nov. 7. The group’s current lawsuit seeks to nullify a city environmental impact report (EIR) agreement with the developers of the proposed “Project 6.” The site, at the Harbor Bay Business Park, is close to Oakland International Airport’s runway 29/11.

The city’s response was swift and confident. “They have in fact fielded a writ of mandate seeking to set aside the settlement agreement between the city of Alameda and Harbor Bay Isle Associates,” said Alameda City Attorney Terri Highsmith. Highsmith said the litigants might have jumped the gun. “Challenging the settlement agreement was premature, I believe … that agreement while it settled a lawsuit it did not create any project approvals,” she said.

…

Baby mama (and daddy) drama

It certainly would be Alameda if an issue did not get resolved without a little side drama.    What issue am I referring to?   Why none other than the Kindergarten roundup.  The School Board on Tuesday night voted to go ahead with the random selection/lottery for individual schools if there are more prospective students than slots and they can’t figure out a way to increase capacity at the site.    However, evidently that night a few Edison parents and a member of the PTA took issue with School Board member Tracy Jensen’s participation in this episode of Alameda Currents in which the issue was featured.

Across the estuary

Oak to 9th (or Ninth), whichever, has passed a substantial hurdle recently which is a lawsuit filed over Oakland City Attorney John Russo’s decision to invalidate a petition collected by a coalition of Oaklanders to put the project to a public vote, has now been dropped.   Phew.   Hopefully that made sense, or you are all up to speed on the drama over this project.    Details from A Better Oakland blog:

…This means that the development will never come before the voters. But the project isn’t in the clear just yet. Two lawsuits dealing with the Environmental Impact Report are still pending.

Ultimately, the group was simply unable to raise the funds needed to continue fighting. Stuart Flashman, attorney for the referendum committee, told Novometro’s Alex Gronke “If we were all billionaires, we’d still be in court.”…

The entire Press Release from the Oakland City Attorney’s Office is reprinted at A Better Oakland, but here are some excerpts:

Bubble bubble toil and trouble

Well bubble or not, the School Board will be making a decision on whether or not to change from the current method of “first come first serve” if there is a situation of more kids than slots available, and there is not sufficient capacity to add classes at oversubscribed schools.    From the Alameda Journal:

…What concerns district officials is that the increased number of kindergartners will now create an enrollment “bubble” as the students become older and pass through the district.

As a way to deal with it, trustees also will hear tonight from a task force that has been looking at overall elementary school enrollment, along with what’s available for classrooms and other space in the district…

And I have to say that I thought the new Alameda Journal editor, Connie Rux’s commentary on Friday on the subject was very insightful, highlights:

…while a lottery may not be the ideal solution, it seems to be the most fair to everyone. There are no easy answers when a school faces overcrowding.

…

PinPoint a Vision

Alameda Point: we all have an opinion on it, we all have a general idea of what we want to see there and what we don’t.   Whether it’s mixed use, community land trusts, light industrial, deep water port, cruise ship terminal, or do nothing, we all have an opinion and a vision of what Alameda Point should be.   But it appears that rather than be proactive about furthering a vision, some folks get a little caught up in who the messenger is that what the message is, which is fine and understandable if there was some reason why that messenger has betrayed one’s trust.   

A coalition of Alamedans has come up with a working draft of a vision for Alameda Point that has points that I think, in general, folks can get behind regardless of where they stand on the issue of Measure A.   Considering the quick timeline that SunCal is operating under for the planning process for Alameda Point, Alameda as a community needs to be able to express in as many ways as possible what they want to see at Alameda Point.    Some of us do not necessarily have the time to get out to every single weekday evening meeting that SunCal is planning to give feedback on what they want to see at Alameda Point, this vision group is just another mechanism (like Kitchen Democracy, I suppose, only actually initiated by Alamedans) to communicate to SunCal what it is that is important to Alamedans.   It may not be all that specific and it may be “fluffy” as one commenter on Alameda Daily News pegged it as, and some of the questions may elicit a “duh” answer, but until those “duh” vision statements are communicated to SunCal, then maybe it isn’t so self-evident after all?

Lease on extended life

The Alameda Journal has a story about the Alameda Naval Museum and the five year lease that was given to the organization, highlights:

…Museum leaders say the lease will give them leverage to go after greater fund-raising opportunities.

“I’ve been told that if we have a five-year lease, different organizations we would apply to for grants would be willing to comply or give us money,” museum president Marilyn York said this week. “They won’t give you money if there’s no assurance the building will not be there or if you’re not going to occupy it.”

The museum is packed with genuine war artifacts, including aircraft engine parts, uniforms, newspaper clippings and a World War II flying simulator. It includes a film-screening room, a gift shop and a 150-seat banquet hall. One room has been set aside for archival interviews.

Museum leaders say their biggest priority is transforming the third floor of Building 77 — the air terminal of the former Naval Air Station Alameda — into a research library. That floor currently is being used for storage.

Parlimentary Funkadelic

Whoa!

For a person who says that he is not interested in higher office tried to pull some funky parlimentary manuevers.  Last night was the ARRA meeting and one of the agenda items was to clairfy the Alameda Point Task Force’s roles and responsibilities.   First Councilmember deHaan pulled the meeting minutes from the consent calendar for discussion, which was fine because there was some corrections.  After the minutes were clarified, which evidently Councilmember deHaan felt as though those clairfications in the agenda solidified his perception of what the direction from the entire council was, he attempted to pull the item off the agenda to allow the full Council to discuss what their intention was.   Councilmember deHaan contended that because he was the one who initiated the agenda item and that he was the one that asked for discussion and that because he was satisified purely from the corrections of the minutes that there was no longer a need for discussion. 

So Taxing

Even though there was nothing to vote on in Alameda, election day was yesterday and the results are in for several measures around the Bay Area, of particular interest are the cities who have willingly taxed themselves in order to provide more funding for schools.   From the SF Chronicle:

…Victory was notched firmly for the biggest school tax on the ballot, a new annual parcel tax of $319 in the Reed Union School District, which serves residents of East Corte Madera, Belvedere and Tiburon in Marin County. Measure A will now fund services such as small classes and teacher training.

A similar parcel tax also scored big in the Lafayette School District, in Contra Costa County. Measure J will now impose a yearly parcel tax of $313 on homeowners to help make up for a $700,000 operating deficit in the district.

…

Heading toward success, however, was Measure A, which would improve aging buildings in the Burlingame Elementary School District…

And with the potential deficit that the State of California is facing next year, I don’t think the prospects of getting any more money from the state for our schools is looking very good.   It looks like we are going to be in pretty much the same position that we were in earlier this year with the AUSD budget, unless community members are willing to step up and come up with some “creative” solutions…and by “creative solutions” I mean a parcel tax, we might be considering cuts galore again for the next budget cycle, and this time around there might not be the wiggle room to keep the additional counselors or JROTC program or prevent consolidation of middle schools, etc…

I know that some folks are now crowing about the downturn in the housing market, but the impacts could be devestating on varying programs throughout the state.

May the Task Force be with you

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. 

Alameda foodies rejoice!

According to the agenda for the City Council sitting as the CIC the retail spaces for the historic theater are going to be leased, if approved by the CIC of course.   As part of the consent calendar two businesses will occupy the retail spaces.  The first was totally called by Jeff Cambra in the Pork post:

I just received word that the City has selected Karen Ulrich and her wine bar concept as one of the possible businesses to occupy the retail spaces at the Ciniplex. There are still many steps before her dream will become a reality. She will be discussing lease terms with the City over the next few weeks. I will keep you posted as more information becomes available.

Because item 2-C is to approve a lease with Alameda Wine Company.  The space they are occupying is the smaller of the two at 700 sq ft.  This is how the business is described:

…Alameda Wine Company, LLC , proposes to use 2315 Central Avenue as a combination wine bar and retail store, with a menu that includes wines, microbrewed beers nonalcoholic beverages, wine-friendly small plates, and desserts. The Alameda Wine Company offers a unique, upscale addition to the Park Street Business District compatible with a theater and entertainment district. In addition the use combines with other late evening Park Street tenants to offer opportunities for Theater patrons and shoppers to extend their day in the business district. The design will include quality finishes in keeping with the Art Deco style of the theater…