Point alternatives

As you have probably read on Stop, Drop and Roll, WRT Soloman, the consultant tasked to study transit-oriented development options for Alameda, has produced their report on their current findings.   Of course the report loudly proclaims that it is a “DRAFT” just in case you didn’t catch the little stamp in red on practically every single page in that font that looks like it belongs on a cargo container. 

Basically the report boils down to three distinct plans, which you can read SDR’s summary here, but I will also repost because summarizing it for you helps me crystallize it in my own head.   For those of you who don’t care to read the report itself, feel free to skip all the narrative in the report and head straight to the pictures and graphs that start on page 32 of the reader.

Alternative 1: the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) plan.   This is the Measure A compliant plan aims for 1,800 units of housing (estimated population of 4,800) and 9,000 new jobs from 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial.

Alternative 2: the Transit Enhanced PDC plan.   This plan is not Measure A compliant and aims for 1,800 units of housing (estimated population of 4,140) and 9,000 new jobs from 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial.   Now you may be asking why there is the same number of housing units but a much smaller generation of the estimated population.   Because of the option to build a diversity of housing, including townhomes and stacked flats above retail, the assumption is that the average household will be smaller than the average household size that would result from a Measure A compliant only development.

Alternative 3: Transit-Plus Scenario.   This plan is not Measure A compliant and aims for 4,050 units of housing for an estimated population of 9,315 and 9,000 new jobs from 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial.  To keep this number in perspective, the current number of households on Bay Farm Island more than 5,300 and the current number of residences is around 14,070.

Interestingly enough, the only two plans that involve building a school out at Alameda Point are Alternatives 2 & 3, probably because of the additional space that would be available from being able to build more compactly. 

Those that like the idea of preserving as much of the historic character out at Alameda Point should find pages 51 - 55 worthwhile to take a look at.    The concerns of some of the preservation community regarding the elimination of many of the historic buildings like the Big Whites, Shop Buildings, and Bachelor Officer’s Quarters have been addressed on these pages and the rationale for not being able to preserve these buildings under the PDC and Measure A are:

Due to its restrictions on multi-family housing, Measure A effectively prohibits the adaptive reuse of historic structures at Alameda Point for residential uses. This, in turn, significantly reduces the financial feasibility of preserving key contributing structures such as the BEQ and BOQ.  

In addition, Measure A’s prohibition on multi-family housing requires that larger amounts of land are needed to accommodate a residential land use program that consists primarily of single family detached homes. This demand for residential land results in market pressures to remove buildings like the BEQ, BOQ and Big Whites.

This situation is further exacerbated by the relatively limited market demand for non-residential uses that are able to afford the cost of rehabilitation. Low intensity employment uses such as warehousing and light manufacturing are generally unable to invest the necessary capital to reuse many of the base’s structures.

Allowing multi-family mixed use development at Alameda Point would increase the potential viability of reusing more of the buildings within the district. It would also allow for a larger portion of the new housing and new construction to be located outside the boundaries of the NAS Historic District, where it would have less impact on the historic character of the district.

It’s also worthwhile to mention that while the two alternative plans to the PDC assumes that folks  will be using transit to help reduce the number of cars, before anyone starts shouting up and down that you can’t force people to take public transportation, it is the intention that any future residents of this area will pay for future transportation related funding.  (p. 17 of the reader)  As has already been approved for Alameda Landing, this Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan will levy an annual fee on businesses and residences to fund transportation improvements and operational costs.  I would imagine that much like the annual Community Facilities District fee that Bayport residents were informed that they would pay in addition to all other taxes, this would provide for a certain level of self-selection for future residents.  

This report is chock full of information and I’ve only scratched the surface.   But one thing that is notable is that for those that insist on commercial/industrial only and musing publically about why housing/residential is the only thing that our city leaders are concentrating on.   In all three plans there is the exact same number of proposed square footage for commercial/industrial development (3.5 million and 9,000 jobs).   The only thing different about the three alternatives are the housing/residential portion, which is probably why that is the reason why people concentrate on that apsect of the proposed future development.