Tonight’s Planning Board meeting has a one major item that I think will be of interest to folks, and one item that I think is really interesting, may not be of interest of folks, but really something that is necessary for development projects moving forward.
For the one that folks will be interested in the Ballena Bay area will be undergoing a Study Session to review preliminary plans for residential construction. The Ballena Bay area for those who will remember had a sweet deal negotiated with the city for a land lease for a long time. The lease was currently renegotiated with the sitting City Council and now the lease holder/developer, Mission Valley Properties, wants to move forward with developing a portion of the land into open space and homes. According to the staff report, they are looking at building 60 units of housing with 10 as affordable and there is a community meeting scheduled at the Ballena Yacht Club tomorrow. Also according to the staff report, they have already presented their plans to varying community groups already and this power point is illustrative of the location and approximate layout of the homes. From the slides that show the “architectural character” it appears that the developer is trying to establish an East Coast oceanside town sort of feel, which I suppose would be appropriate for an area like that. I imagine that the location of this development will mean that these homes being built will be on the pricier side, I wonder if these developers are going to try to consider an inclusionary housing swap.
For the maybe interest, may be boring topic, the Planning Board will also be undergoing a Study Session to talk more about form based zoning (also known as form based codes). This was something that was brought up during the Measure A forum by Alameda resident David Burton and definitely something that is worth exploring. Basically form based codes does not tell you what you cannot do, but rather what you can do as a developer that the community has already agreed that they want in their community. So while talking about things like higher density is frightening to people in theory (as in, ohmigod we are going to get more Soviet style brutalist block housing) form based code would have pictoral representation of what the community is comfortable with and actually what the community wants in terms of design in their community. It would control things like types of materials that could be used, what landscaping is appropriate, etc… A much more refined tool to controlling how the City is shaped in the future. I think this is an exciting step forward for Alameda to consider, particularly when we develop out commercial corridors like the Gateway District as well as for larger projects like Alameda Point and Alameda Landing.
It looks nice
Do they intend on connecting their trail to the rest of the Bay Trail? It would be great if we could get one biking/walking trail to encircle the Island without having to ride/walk on the street.
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — September 8, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I’m glad someone was paying attention at the Measure A forum and remembers the discussion! It has seemed to me what many people object to (when thinking of new development) is the height and bulk of development and not multi-family housing itself. What a form based code can do is insure that new construction is consistent witht the Alameda that we all love, yet accommodate the types of households that predominate in the Bay Area.
More to the subject of your piece – I have to say I’m disappointed in the “character” images shown for Ballena Bay. I love old East Coast shingle style architecture, but what does that have to do with life in the Bay Area? I’d rather see something more responsive to our climate and building history, or something really adventerous.
And, I agree with Jeff that a comprehensive network of bike trails on the Island would be ideal and all new development should be looked at to see how it can contribute to furthering that goal.
Comment by david burton — September 8, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
Are these single family homes or duplexes?
Every project looks great in an artist’s rendering. If I could only live my life as a rendering…
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 8, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
ANT – of the 60 homes, 10 are duplexes. The duplexes face the marina and seem to be on the street connecting the cul-de-sacs. Though not discussed at the presentation, I think it’s obvious that these are the 10 lower income homes. It was also not brought up that there is a higher % requirement for the lower income housing. The stated goal of the development is to pay for marina improvements, (owned by city?) and to build and maintain the open space / trails.
The plan reminded me of a golf course outside of Boulder Creek in the Santa Cruz hills. I wondered how such a course could be sustained out in the middle of such an unpopulated area. Then I noticed what appeared to be a row of housing seemingly right on the course, and figured that was how they financed it. Of course that is nothing like the Chuck Corica Complex situation.
db – Breath deep – The “East Coast” look is just a photo of a house to show that the homes will be of high quality, and “timeless” in design. The designer, who also works for BCDC (doing design review), said the Ballena homes have not been designed.
From the presentation it looks like they would build trails to then-current Bay Trail standards, but their portion of the trail is obviously limited to that piece of land. Certainly any hiker or cyclist could transport them selves to the next portion of the trail which hopefully will soon go around Alameda Point.
They would like to get approval for the project in about two years time, but between the fact that they should be required to get an EIR, and that it is all ‘landfill’, I wouldn’t wager too much on it ever getting built.
I think the PB should get input on just how much vehicle load our gateways can effectively handle so they actually PLAN. During the earlier presentation Ian Ross explained that our island can only absorb so much retail, and the PB should plan where it should go, how it should be “spread”, but not allow more than can be sustained. I think the same could be said for residences. This is not novel thinking, but where are the guestimates (stats) for our little island? The city staff just seems to want to keep putting in more, and more, a what ever else any dreamer wants to add. In reality we can easily build until easy mobility is just and old dream of “how it used to be”. The PB needs to learn where the practical limits are so they can PLAN where they should be built and how.
That said, Ballena is such a nice spit with a view that I can see allowing less affordable housing there, and build the balance of the requirement at the Landing.
By the way it is looking like Catellus will be coming back to the PB for some changes to the retail buildings so the Target can be the Big retail anchor for the Landing.
Comment by David Kirwin — September 9, 2008 @ 12:36 am
#2 “all new development should be looked at to see how it can contribute to furthering that goal.”
Genius idea!
I guess that’s why the BCDC requires a 40′ easement on all waterfront developments to allow the trail to continue.
Bygod, could it be that the government did something right?
Comment by EJK — September 9, 2008 @ 7:13 am
DK #4: “I can see allowing less affordable housing there, and build the balance of the requirement at the Landing.” Really. We wouldn’t want to be too inclusionary now, would we. It will spoil the views.
Comment by notadave — September 9, 2008 @ 8:23 am
“We wouldn’t want to be too inclusionary now, would we. It will spoil the views.”
Come on now … there is nothing wrong with graffiti and trash strewn all over the place. It will give Ballena Shores that warm Alameda inclusionary feel. Plus, think of all the wonderful bass thumpin’ music you will get to listen to from anywhere in the neighborhood at midnight on a Thursday. If you are really lucky, someone will put a couch out on the sidewalk with a sign on it that says “Free” … mmmm, love that ghetto flavor
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — September 9, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
JRT, Post a picture of a house in Alameda that falls within the inclusionary designation, and meets your description. Can’t find one? I didn’t think so. Oh wait, do you even live in Alameda?
Comment by notadave — September 9, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Nad – are you also offended that the affordable housing lacks the views of the bay and might be ’stuck’ with a marina view? If an area is going to be developed that is so beautiful and rare, it may not be affordable “by nature”.
Perhaps to maintain ‘affordability, (as opposed to ’subsidized’) part of the acreage should be reserved for a mobile home park? Of course my son would say to build “earthships” for environmental sustainability, but I don’t think they are cheaper to build, just close to ‘carbon free’ to live in, and I doubt that is the desire of the developer.
However if they are willing to design affordable homes that do not require a subsidy and will be approved by the city, then I encourage the exclusionary housing to be held at the 25% level. Personally I have some doubts about the soil stability, so maybe a mobil home park would be a better fit, eh?
Comment by David Kirwin — September 9, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
“Oh wait, do you even live in Alameda?”
Alameda??? I thought this was the Altadena blog …
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — September 9, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
“I encourage the exclusionary housing” Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud….
Comment by notadave — September 9, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Post # 7
Just the “TROLL” making another racist comment.
Comment by john piziali — September 9, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
#12 … Once again, john piziali fails to bring anything to the discussion except anger and name calling. Just one more example of why his political aspirations are over in Alameda. Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out john
Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — September 10, 2008 @ 9:43 am
I’m going to run on the anti-racist ticket, will you back me TROLL?. You don’t really love that Ghetto flavor do you Troll.
Comment by John Pizaili — September 10, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
# 9 How can an “affordable house” be built without a subsidy? Anytime market rate houses cannot be built in lieu of an “affordable” mandate, not only are the rest of the market rate home buyers in the development subsidizing the “affordable house” because the builder must attempt recoup his loss on below market houses by either paying less for the land or charging more for the market rate houses.
The laws of supply and demand are skewed by any mandate that restricts overall sale profits and results in either reduced supply because of less profit or higher market rate prices. If the higher market rate prices cannot be sustained the builder will vote with his tools and find somewhere else to build.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 10, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
DK, thinks the City is paying the subsidy for these houses…low and behold I believe Jack is correct it is the others who buy market rate homes who subsidies the affordable houses. They build both the affordable homes and market rate homes and set the prices accordingly in order to recoup their expenses and make some profit…if they can’t they won’t build. And that is also why some market rate homes are out of the reach for those in the middle.
Comment by Joel — September 10, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
#15,16
The developer will set the market rate homes at what the market will bear. The below market rate homes cut into the developer’s profit, not into increased price for market rate homes. Market rate means market rate. If the homes are priced above market rate, the buyer will go elsewhere. If the developer still wants to go through with the development after calculating the cost of providing below market rate homes, then the developer has concluded that the project provides sufficient profit.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 10, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
One way to bring down the cost of housing is to drop non-safety related housing requirements such as minimum lot size and parking spaces. Building codes should protect the health and safety of the community and stay away from lifestyle issues that only add to the cost of homeownership.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 10, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
# 17 “If the homes are priced above market rate, the buyer will go elsewhere”, that’s roughly what happens but also, if an attractive municipality which requires affordable housing competes with an equally attractive municipality that doesn’t require affordable housing, guess which one will attract the builder? The options for the builder squeeze towards the more profitable area. Why would a builder or a landowner or a buyer voluntarily subsidize non-market rate housing?
Another side issue with affordable housing mandates is the method of selecting the anointed candidates who ultimately gain residence. Aside from the very real administrative costs associated with the selection process (which also must be built into the process), is that the “cream” of the “market rate poor” buyers are skimmed from the top of (usually poor) neighborhoods and are artificially transported out of these communities leaving an area where they could arguably do the most good for the neighborhoods they leave.
Admittedly, this argument has its limitations since the real amount of affordable housing built in the Bay Area is laughable. Proving (to me at least) that this whole scheme has more to do with feel good politics than addressing issues of building housing for low income citizens.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 10, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
I am a resident of Ballena Bay and I attended this community meeting 2 weeks ago. This was actually the first true “community” meeting for those of us that this will mostly affect. This project is horrible. It will destroy the trees and disrupt the wildlife that is currently out there. There already is “open space” there. There is not a need to cram 60 homes into this small area of space. We were told that the HOA of the new homes will be responsible for the upkeep of the new bay trail, the new road and the pathetically small amount of open space. This is a ridiculous concept with no way to ensure that anything ever gets done. Once the developers build their homes and the City of Alameda is happy to get their tax revenue from the new residents, the developers and the city will wash their hands of the project. There is no guarantee that the marina will ever get the money that is needed for the docks. There is no guarantee that the then reduced “open space,” road, lighting, and bay path will be properly maintained by the new HOA. This project is all about making money (for the developers and the city) and big promises that have no guarantees. It is a terrible proposal that needs revising and needs to take into account the affect that it will have on the current residents.
Comment by Ballena Isle Girl — September 17, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
Sorry, correction to the timing of the community meeting that I mentioned in the last comment. The community meeting was only last week (Sept. 9). It just seems like a long time ago, since it has been bothering me ever since.
Comment by Ballena Isle Girl — September 17, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
As a resident of the marina, I have been researching this project. By examining the City Council archives, I have learned that the whole spit is owned by the City of Alameda. In 1979, the whole thing was leased by Ballena Isle LP for 25 years. It turns out Ballena Isle LP is in fact Almar – the operator of the marina. The lease was renewed in the last few years and I believe it expires in something like 2024. The terms of the lease are a mystery as these sorts of things are done in closed council sessions. Recently the lessor has negotiated with the City to break the lease into three parts, one for the marina, one for the commercial bldgs, and one for this proposed new development – Ballena Shores – all of it is still owned by Almar.
As a resident of the marina, my own particular concern is that the existing parking and restrooms provided by the marina have somehow disappeared in Ballena Shore’s powerpoint slides. Not good if you live here.
To me, the housing density seems excessive for such a small piece of land and I wonder how you sell a home to someone when the land under it is leased by the City. Or maybe not – for all I know, the city may have sold this portion in the latest splitting up of the lease.
As for the Homeowners Association maintaining their open spaces – I wouldn’t worry about it. There is no way to get any guarantee, but it will certainly be in their interest to do a good job. Look at how well Harbor Bay Isle is maintained.
The whole point of any residential development is to make as much money as possible for the developer(duh), so there is no reason to expect this proposal to be any different. It’s up to the community to help shape the future.
Eventually this project will have to go the the City’s planning board, and that will be the time for everyone to make their concerns known.
Comment by Ballena Liveaboard — October 2, 2008 @ 11:14 am