Collins IV: A New Hope
Did everyone catch the article in the Alameda Journal about the much litigated Collins project aka Boatworks? Highlights:
The city and the owner 9.4 acres of land near the Park Street Bridge may be coming closer to an agreement over what kind of housing development may work on the land, which could include a new city park.
Greg Harper, the attorney for Sonoma-based property owner Francis Collins, said he has met with city officials about what kind of development may work there. He said a new development application that he believes would be accepted by elected officials may be submitted within the next two weeks.
…
According to city attorney Terry Highsmith, the lawsuit was filed after the planning board turned down the project in 2006 and prior to Collins appealing the decision to the City Council, which also turned down the proposal in early 2007.
The council went a step further and rezoned the northern half of the property for open space, with the hope that it one day can become a city park.
…
The first and third lawsuits have been ruled in favor of the city. The second suit, known as Collins 2, will be the subject of the March 24 case management conference.
“If out of all of this,” Harper said, “we’re still at loggerheads four or five months from now, there would still be a Collins 4.”
You have to give it to this guy, he is one persistent man. It will be interesting to see what the latest iteration of this development looks like that seems to pass initial muster. If I recall correctly, the last one was a mix of really tiny and larger units in order to meet the requirements of Measure A. Maybe he’ll just scrap all plans of building housing there and instead build light industrial or commercial, which seems to be the rallying cry these days for what we should be considering for Alameda Point. How do you think exisiting residents around the Collins project would endorse that new plan? Zoned currently at MU-5 and since Mixed Use according to the General Plan allows for:
…The purpose of the Mixed-Use District is to encourage the development of a compatible mixture of land uses which may include residential, retail, offices, recreational, entertainment, research oriented light industrial, water oriented or other related uses… [emphasis added]
I’m certain that the residences around the property would much prefer to see an office park than homes being built. And as Stop, Drop and Roll wrote in a post last week:
…Perhaps we can change the city’s motto from “City of Homes and Beaches” to “City of low lying office parks and business condos.” It’s catchy!
There was a new commercial building built on Blanding just near the site. Across Park St. next to Video Station an old lot which was home to a nursery was bought by a sail maker who built a metal building which houses their business and another. Demand for commercial use is not dead.
That is how it’s zoned, so what’s wrong with not building housing units, except Collins would make much more money with the latter?
Comment by Mark I — February 14, 2008 @ 7:57 am
An important point of correction about the article.
The City did not rezone the northern half of the property for Open Space.
Mr. Collins requested that the City rezone his entire property to be in conformance with the City’s General Plan - either to Residential or Mixed Use. The City rezoned only half of the property to R-2 (Residential) leaving the estuary half of it zoned its current designation of M-2.
M-2 General Industrial/Manufacturing differs from M-X which is Mixed Use.
The current M-2 zoning of the site is not in conformance with any element of the City’s General Plan – particularly the Housing Element which shows housing over the entire area.
The City’s refusal to rezone all of his property per the General Plan is one of the points of contention in the lawsuits.
Comment by Robert McGillis — February 14, 2008 @ 9:49 am
it seems that the city needs to start considering how it wants commercial to develop. There are still lots of commercial vacancies in our existing commercial districts, but there is also something to be said for building commercial wisely in areas that can support it.
As to the housing issue, I thing McGillis hit the nail on the head, the city’s current zoning, which is suppose to guide planning, is not in compliance with the General Plan’s housing element (what that means for the lawsuit, I have no idea).
Comment by Johnknoxwhite — February 14, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Thanks Robert. That clarification is pretty important. I did not realize the general plan called for the rezoning to residential and that in part that has occurred. I’m sure I did know and had forgotten the whole scenario. Obviously the dynamic changes from what I was thinking.
I probably don’t know enough of the big picture with regard to what has driven these proposed changes, but I still think it reasonable to continue light industrial uses along that area. Time to re-read the G-plan.
To me, open space is a separate issue from the adjacent zoning. There are existing residences and industrial uses. Having a place to eat lunch while working in an industrial setting all day is a as legitimate as wanting a park near to ones home.
Comment by Mark I — February 14, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
A basic goal stated in the Housing Element is providing needed housing (duh). It employs ABAG projections which cite peak population in Alameda at about 79,000 in 1994. It projects population increases reaching about 77,000 by 2020. At a glance it was not clear to me how integrating bumps from developments like Bayport are allowed for. One immediate question I had is, if we had housing for 79,000 in 1994, why do we need to build more before 2020? It’s quite conceivable Dave Kirwin or somebody else has already raised this very question to help justify no development at all, anywhere, ever.
Affordable stock is obviously an ongoing concern. One would assume that any existing stock in 1994 will be relatively more affordable than any new housing built between now and 2020, excepting subsidized units in new development.
My blood sugar wouldn’t allow for more thorough reading at the moment, but in the Housing Element Chapter II on implementation,I got to item B, 1, f. which states a goal of rezoning industrial for residential, “where appropriate”. I had hoped to ferret out where “appropriate” is defined and hopefully applied to specific areas such as Collin’s lot, but I had to eat.
When faced with redevelopment of large areas such as FISC, I don’t have a fundamental objection to more residential units, or more of anything, if the impacts are adequately evaluated and presumably mitigated. At FISC and the Point we have an ongoing debate on those issues. But for the North Waterfront in an area such as where the Collins and Fox lots are, I am confused why there was a perceived priority to rezone residential.
In the case of the nursery lot on Blanding near Broadway, a new building was built to house new light manufacturing uses. The Historic Advisory Board has recently heard two cases where buildings on Clement near Broadway are undergoing substantial renovation for commercial use. One is a cabinet and mill work shop and the other is world headquarters for Buested Construction.
I have no idea what the merits of the Collins current suit may be. I do recall that on Collins 1 or maybe 2, the plan seemed to be to build as many Measure A compliant units as possible and make as much money as possible. I specifically recall, then PB member Marie Gilmore telling Collins that while it was clear what Alameda could do for him, it was not at all apparent how Alameda was supposed to benefit. Apologies to Marie if that paraphrase falls short.
Comment by Mark I — February 14, 2008 @ 7:26 pm