With all the election excitement, I didn’t have time to post about the Chipman/DelMonte/Encinal “Vision 2010” that came before the Planning Board a few weeks go. Some lucky folks got to tour the actual Del Monte building itself before the Planning Board meeting. So here is the Powerpoint that was presented that night. The file is very very large, so you have been warned.
I did pull out a few slides so that folks that don’t want to wade through the larger document can get a snapshot of what is being proposed for the site.
So first off the consultants said that they would be breaking up the plan into three sections, the Del Monte Building (obvious), the Chipman Warehouses (the beigish buildings on Buena Vista), and Encinal Terminals (all the stuff behind it where the big containers used to be stored). For the Chipman site, this was the proposed plan:
This is how the consultant described the plan for the Chipman site:
The idea here is to extend the fabric of the Marina Cove neighborhood with single family homes or duplexes on that first block, duplexes are what are shown here. Then transitioning up to a little bit higher density of townhouses and then finally two or three story mixed use building opposite the Del Monte warehouse on what is currently the entrance road.
…
In the red building we propose ground floor retail with the parking behind.
For the Del Monte building, the intent is to keep the building (surprise!) and then to use the outside of the building, in the graphic below (click to enlarge) it’s the portion on the right, for live/work (or in Alameda’s case work/live — because we’d rather have people work here, than live).
The “live” portion of the live/work would face the brick wall (and therefore the outside) but the work space of the live/work would face the interior of the building which is the “clear story” at least I think that’s what he’s saying. That bluish building on the left would be more work space.
The next set of photos is what the live/work lofts would look like. The first two are a two story loft. The next two is a loft with a bottom floor work space and the living space on the second floor. And the last of this set is two bedroom configuration.
Essentially the units are “modular” and can be dropped into place depending on what people want. He also talks about having stacked flats as an option, but those aren’t shown in slide form.
The next slide is a view from between two of the modular live.work units looking toward the larger open space in the back. That space, as mentioned before would have work units (modular, of course) and wouldn’t have any residential component there.
And then this is a view of the workspace only (proposed retail or whatever).
And for the Encinal Terminal space, this is how the plan for that space is described:
The strategy we’re proposing for this site is completely different than the other two sites and it is a flexible, incremental, organic approach to redeveloping this site. You can see the open space network that we talked about before which would be a series of courtyards and paseos and multipurpose paths that link together this site and open space at the edge.
The proposal is to keep the existing warehouse building at the center and then build around it with the restriction that the building in the center because there are Tidesland restrictions, can’t have residential. The inspiration for the eventual development of this parcel is Granville Island in Vancouver.
And here is the overview of the parcels all sited together.
For those totally confused by all this, no worries, there are plans on presenting the vision a few more times for input so these are no where near final. Although I am getting a sense, based on the plan to “extend the fabric of the Marina Cove neighborhood with single family homes or duplexes” that the plan might just be to sell off that portion of land to a friendly local developer (coughwarmingtonhomescough) to develop. Possibly why so many for sale signs have been cropping up all around the site lately. It would certainly give Peter Wang and his partners the needed upfront cash to develop the other portions of the site that would be more expensive like the Del Monte building.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
MORE HOUSING? That means there will be… omg… MORE PEOPLE!!!! AHHHH.
I believe the NIMBYs will connect this to suncal/minorities somehow and rally against it. “WE LIKE OUR ABANDONED FACTORIES TO STAY THAT WAY!!”
Comment by E — November 5, 2010 @ 7:51 am
Very beautiful drawings, nothing exceptional in the architecture, but we can assume modern without much personality or character, like Queen Annes and Craftsman Cottage, for example.
The question that never gets addressed in these proposals, at least adequately, is traffic mitigation. A few thousand more automobiles, perhaps, on those funky little streets? No trolleys, no busses, no shuttles to BART? Access and egress, a problem all over Alameda — from Harbor Bay to Marina Village to the High Street Bridge.
Perhaps a ferry terminal, and ferries down and out the estuary and across the Bay? Those who support more housing, and even density, consistently fail to address the consequences of adding thousands of autos to the morning and evening commute. Traffic is so heavy now on Broadway and High and Park that it’s almost impossible to make a left turn before the green light turns red again.
At the same time, the whole driving culture has become so uncivil, drivers on their cells, tailgating, cutting in, failing to use their turn signals, that the increase in traffic over the past ten years has had even greater negative impact.
So a couple of thousand more cars on Buena Vista, across. Marina Village and out through the tubes is going to become impossible to navigate sanely.
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 7:53 am
Dennis: the consultant spoke about the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), but the idea is that since the majority of the residential in the Del Monte Building itself will be work/live, that there should be minimal impact on the commute because the “work” should be happening on site.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 5, 2010 @ 8:05 am
A higher-density residential development – especially on the Chipman site- would make transit more viable and help balance out the transportation effects of this development.
AC Transit’s budget cuts – a result of defunding by Sacramento as much as the declining sales tax revenues locally – are decreasing our transit service. This is just the opposite of what we need to take more cars off of the streets for many reasons, including lowering our output of greenhouse gases as well as mitigating our much-needed additional development.
The advantage of having deep-pockets developers doing the redeveloping of sites like the Del Monte and AP is that they can and will fund the transit services needed to eliminate the traffic increases.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 5, 2010 @ 8:26 am
Andrew Thomas presented what I thought was a great stratety to move forward with this project.
The developer plans to divide the project in three phases and entitle the Chipman Warehouse first. Marketing the project now is a good strategy so developers can start planning and perhaps work with the city during the entitlement process to come up with a viable plan.
The City also has plans to streamline the approval process after the property is entitled and maybe offer incentives to developers like they did with VF Outdoors. I just looked up Granville Island and I think this is a great model for this project.
As far as “friendly developers” – I think it speaks volumes about a developer who knows how to partner and build relationships with a city and are welcomed back to develop future projects.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 5, 2010 @ 8:37 am
This looks like a wonderful plan but, I wonder aloud, where, pray tell, do the containers trucks that are stacked right now at the Wang project go? To Alameda Point?
Comment by Tony Daysog — November 5, 2010 @ 9:38 am
I once worked on a project with Ron Cowan to develop land along the estuary, on both sides, including that owned by the Port of Oakland. They were letting APL park their trucks along the Oakland side of the estuary, and now most of them are parked at the Port Depot. And the Port has built a few condos along their land, near, for example, the embers of Tiki Tom’s. But at the time we tried, it was very controversial,with a lot of resistance from APL.
I have nothing against more people, so long as they can’t drive. Quadraplegics, the totally blind, do the disable a housing service. And as for work-live, that was the theory of Harbor Bay and the biz park, that most of the residents would work in the Park and walk to work. Funny… Ost of them work in S.F., and only a few ride the ferry.
So transit remains largely a myth. But I have a business card that reads, “Green’s Myth Repair, No Job Too Big!”
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 9:48 am
Tony,
Just wondering what your thoughts are about the various industrial buildings within the city.
After seeing Warmington’s desire to purchase some of the industrial properties that are adjacent to their Grand Marina development, I realized how much more efficient it would be to move and consolidate all of these industrial type buildings away from our residential neighborhoods and to one area of the Island where they can be managed — perhaps where residential development is unlikely.
I would imagine that the land where the container trucks are is not the highest and best use for industrial uses.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 5, 2010 @ 11:22 am
Writing quickly here: it’s not the ‘industrial building’ that concern me. Specifically, it’s the cargoe container trucks that have always parked at the Wang property. With redevelopment of that property, where will these go, an important question in light of the city’s recent strategizing to emphasize distribution/logistics at AP, i.e. cargo container.
AP is a big area. But there is one area at AP that is next to an existing residential area, i.e. 100 and 200 blocks of Central and Santa Clara Avenues. That part of AP is known as as the “Inner Harbor” area. I made it a Point (so to speak) to make sure that future uses there are consistent with the immediately surrounding residential and Encinal High School. That’s why the EBRP’s RV Park(ing) lot never came to be, and was replaced by EBRP instead with great plans for an active space green area, including soccer fields for kids (there is an existing temporary soccer space in place now, which would also be in close proximity).
Also: if you’re paying $800,000 a pop to live in nearby Bayport, I think this ought to be a concern as well, **if** the idea is to move the container trucks and park them at the Inner Harbor, since basically Appezzato Way/Atlantic Avenue and Stargell Way would be the future route for these cargo container trucks.
I guess it comes to down to this: if we’re talking about shifting stacked container cargoes from one neighborhood to another, the thing I’d encourage is that, when it comes to these uses, “not in ‘anyone’s’ backyard.” Let’s revitalize the Wang property, but let’s make sure to do so in a way that doesn’t shift the container trucks from one area to another.
Comment by Tony Daysog — November 5, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Tony, I agree. Seems to me we have an opportunity to have some input on this subject as we discuss the way forward.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 5, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
The other thing is that, I just saw the post by Diane Lichtenstein re: the Calthorpe Plan. A very good post (http://bit.ly/djNnRz). **But** … if we’re not careful and **if** we don’t plan how the cargo containers at Wang’s property right now are dealt with, then, **if** they’re moved to AP, those can canoodle the Calthorpe Plan (or perhaps some variant of that). I’m confident Marie, Rob, Bev, Doug and Lena will plan accordingly and carefully . . . but I am very sure many will be watching this closely.
Comment by Tony Daysog — November 5, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
On a final note (for now), I am very sure there are solutions where **everyone** comes out winners. So, let’s make sure to gather information we need and pursue those win-win-win solutions.
Comment by Tony Daysog — November 5, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
Tony, as you may know I am very sensitive to anything SunCal, and the Peter Calthorpe Plan spells SunCal to me. While I like Peter Calthorpe personally, it’s unfortunate that his association with SunCal has tainted his plan in my view.
I like the idea that we have pressed the reset button and the community gets to create their own plan. Andrew Thomas described this process as an opportunity to take ideas from the various plans and create our own plan.
That said, I agree we need to watch this aspect of the plan very closely.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 5, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
I’d also like to say how important it is for our new council to represent all of Alameda, and not just the people that voted for them. If ever a time where we need to come together — that time is now! During the election season I got an opportunity to meet new people by going to different forums and listening to a variety of concerns coming from various areas of the community. I also attended the forum presented by the Alameda Preservation Society and really liked some of the ideas presented in that forum.
My hope is that we can use the “lessons learned” workshops to create a wonderful development that we can all be proud of.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 5, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
I wonder if any of you could tell me how many units have been built in Alameda since,let’s say, 1991. How many more are in the works? And, how many more are planned in the future? With these questions could you please tell me how traffic has been addressed?
Comment by J.E.A. — November 5, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
15. I think you can get the info on housing units via Access Alameda.
Comment by alameda — November 5, 2010 @ 1:46 pm
#16
Access Alameda is a website for Transportation Services for Seniors & People with Disabilities. Are you trying to be funny or did you just type the wrong info in?
Comment by J.E.A. — November 5, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
BORRRRRING!
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 2:55 pm
Not sure what search engine you are using. The very first link in google has:
https://clients.comcate.com/newrequest.php?id=25
Comment by alameda — November 5, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Kinda makes you miss Adam, doesn’t it?
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 5, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
#18. WTF….I was just asking a question.
#19 thanks, but that site does not give me the info I am looking for. The first time I typed in AccessAlameda.com and AccessAlameda.org and it brought me to the senior site.
Comment by J.E.A. — November 5, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Hi JEA:
The information you are looking for is probably in the Housing Element. You can scan though and look for the tables that should have information about previously built units and proposed units. It won’t go as far back at 1991, but I know it does go back to 1999.
The City has separate Transportation Master Plan to deal with traffic issues.
Just a caveat that these are both draft documents.
Hope that helps!
Comment by Lauren Do — November 5, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
E – that was funny….
Well let’s go a little deeper into the car issue…Based on the conversation so far in this blog, if the bottom line to any development in Alameda now is – we can’t put one more car on the street because it detracts from the “high” quality of life we have here, then how many cars do we have here? Why that number? I doubt if the people in Harbor Bay are happy about their commute over the Bay Farm Island Bridge, or the traffic backup every day. Why not a lower number? Should we really allow people to own more than one car? Oh and let’s not forget that we have to drive a certain “kind” of car to minimize our carbon “footprint.” Why don’t we then give tax credits to bike owners or underwrite transit costs in these new developments if this is the most important issue of development? Is it just me, or are most of the businesses already vacant in the business development adjacent to this planned site?
Comment by Hot R — November 5, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
21. Select Planning > General Plan and submit your question. Somebody from the city will reply (they are usually very responsive).
Comment by alameda — November 5, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
Thanks…22 and 24
Comment by J.E.A. — November 5, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Post #20.
NO.
Comment by John piziali — November 5, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Point of correction, the Transporation Master Plan was adopted by the Council into the City Charter as the Transportation Element. No longer draft.
That said, it won’t tell you how traffic has historically been addressed. On the west end, there’s the TCMP (Tube capacity mitigation program?) that requires development that increases traffic inthe tube more than x amount (3% maybe? my memory is fuzzy) has to pay for mitigations.
On the other hand, Alameda Landing will pay $375K (again hazy memory, could be a little lower) in annual mitigation costs to fund shuttles and other mitigations. They will be monitored and adjusted as the project moves forward to make sure that the money is spent as effectively as possible.
Historically, the city has made sure that there is plenty of parking by requiring minimums, ensuring even more cars, and then increased the roadway capacity to accommodate the new traffic. (see webster/atlantic, changes to)
have a nice weekend.
Comment by John Knox White — November 5, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
None of you policy wonks, bloviators or blogsters who have never actually WORKED in the field of real estate development know how detailed, routine and BORING it really is. You just tinker around the edges. Fine, but don’t expect your expectations to have any real force when City managers do their thing.
It isn’t the cars per se, or the Bayport Blogs, or even the proposals for the Point still pushing the Calthorpe Plan, endorsed and promoted only by SunCal, and Jon Spangler, who has posted many scurrilous emails on this site, such as the ones referenced by Michele Ma Belle on her blog. No one with any experience has critiqued Calthorpe’s design on this site. Maybe it sucks pond water, maybe it’s great, but none of you amateurs would know the difference!
Get real.
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 5:02 pm
9. Tony-
Cargo container trucks parked here because there were container related businesses at the site (container leasing). Once that business is gone (is it already?) the leasing may go to Alameda Point, but more likely to somewhere closer to the Port of Oakland such as the former Oakland Army Base or– who knows? The container leasing was there when there were active ships coming to Alameda where Wind River is now at Encinal Terminals. There are already cargo containers coming to West Alameda at Bobac Warehouse behind Marina Village Parkway. Not sure if you call this Alameda Point or not. In any case, Alameda Point is a fairly remote place for people to pick up and deliver containers except for the area I just mentioned, so I don’t think it is likely to have any impact in that way.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 5, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
On the plan– it looks great! now I have to think of a business I can be in to buy one of those lofts.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 5, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
26. Ditto … NO!
btw, glad to finally see a thoughtful discussion — despite attempts at derailing this thread!
Comment by alameda — November 5, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
Thoughtful, except for JKW and “alameda.”
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Btw, you can’t derail a thread that’s so disingenuous.
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
We all simplify. You call us “Nimbies” and we call you “Newbies” or even worse, “Yuppies.” None of these labels are true, but the simpletons, including me, trade in them all the time, and on this site we don’t really give a shit for the truth, so all of you very earnest and amateur bloggers can’t make a dent. Whether you’ve actually done enough homework to make that dent is still up for grabs. I haven’t read anything here yet to convince me.
Development? Boring! Life or death? Perhaps not, no matter how bad it gets. Any of us who don’t like it can simply move somewhere else, taking advantage of that real estate pricing bubble of the past 20 years!
Comment by Dennis Green — November 5, 2010 @ 5:32 pm
13, 14:
Karen, The City now owns the Peter Calthorpe plan, and it should be considered independently and on its own merits quite apart from SunCal.
The beauty of the Peter Calthorpe plan is that it is scalable from about 3000 – 6000 residential units and will work almost equally well at any residential density point on that continuum. Transportation mitigations are, of course, the major key to its success.
With a major developer who has deep pockets to pay for the transportation mitigations laid out by Jim Daisa, who in the spring put together the latest and best transportation strategies plan ever for AP. Daisa’s strategies almost zero out the transportation effects of the Peter Calthorpe plan.
In addition, Daisa’s plan did NOT include the water shuttle across the estuary that Alameda Landing’s plans include. With the additional non-auto transportation capacity of a regular water shuttle (and eventually a bike-ped bridge) across the estuary we can build about 5000 housing units plus commercial development at AP – AND not have significant traffic impacts on the island.
There will need to be changes in our transportation patterns and habits to do this, but significantly increasing the availability and convenience of transit options WILL make these changes easy and desirable.
If we move the Coast Guard to AP from Coast Guard Island building another bridge becomes much more feasible, BTW. That would open up CGI to more residential development that ought to be very attractive to potential buyers.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 5, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
22. 24:
JEA,
The Housing Element, which was I believe approved in 2007 or 2008, will not have up-to-date numbers since its adoption.
I suggest that the fastest way to get the information you seek is to call, email, or go in and see Andrew Thomas or one of the other Planners at Planning and Building:
PH 747-6881
E AThomas@ci.alameda.ca.us
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 5, 2010 @ 6:19 pm
Sorry Dennis the election is over and so are you and Adam.
Comment by John piziali — November 5, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Thanks, Kevis, for your #29 . . . but there is one overlooked problem: one critical part of the three community meetings being held right now involves an economic strategy in which “warehouse / distribution / logistics” will (perhaps) play a key role at AP. This is another way of saying cargo containers. Even as this discussion gets underway, let’s not forget that the foreign trade zone adopted for AP owned by the Port of Oakland and will be managed by the trucking company, Matson. But, like I said, there’s ways for everybody to come out winners — but we will need to take the time and effort to talk things through with all. Thanks.
Comment by Tony Daysog — November 5, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Kevis and Tony, I think that once the contracts are up for the contianer storage they are gone forever. As I recall we would not let them use the base as a storage area back when I was on the planning board. The inner harbor area was to close to the residential areas and to stack the containers would not work. They were turned down at that time .
Comment by John piziali — November 5, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
The old wharehouse along Buena vista and the estuary looks like a great place to have industrial development. With the possibility of loading products on and off ships in that waterway, a green business could be developed. I suppose everyone has looked at any and all possible light industry for the site and didn’t find one. Were any studies done on that approach to its use and how many years ago were they considered.
Comment by anne frey — November 5, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
Hey John . . thanks for your good work here and when on the Planning Board. All the best.
Comment by Tony Daysog — November 5, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
39
John, where is the, “inner harbor area”? Seems to me that the base is an ideal area to supplement PofO. If they could figure out a way to cross-estuary with container shuttle barges, (and that ain’t rocket science) makes sense to me.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 5, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Shuttling containers on barges would be very expensive because the loading/unloading in Alameda would be done with ILWU labor. It would make more sense to have an actual container pier. Oh, we had one at Encinal terminals– shut down for many years now. So any increased container/warehousing scenario for Alameda Point would involve lots of trucks through the tube.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 6, 2010 @ 12:32 am
John, there are aspects of the Peter Calthorpe plan that I like including the housing, but I think the community wants the opportunity to create a community based plan combining aspects of other plans that are equally appealing.
Almost 50% of the voters voted for either Doug DeHaan or Frank Materresse who both supported something different than the Peter Calthorpe plan. In my view, it would be a big mistake to ignore the ideas of this part of the community and push for a plan that is largely viewed as the SunCal plan.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 6, 2010 @ 6:39 am
Sorry, I was responding to Jon’s post #35, not John.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 6, 2010 @ 7:11 am
#44….A voice of reason….I hope you will be working on the new plan.
Comment by J.E.A. — November 6, 2010 @ 8:14 am
37. Re. The election
“A beggar on horseback
lashes a beggar on foot.
Comes the Revolution,
they change places,
nothing more.”
— William Butler Yeats
Comment by Dennis Green — November 6, 2010 @ 8:57 am
post42, Sorry Jack I fell asleep. The Inner Harbor area would be from Encinal High school over to Pacific ave. then out to where the ships are docked on the base. Jack another light bulb just went on. This is really original, how about an areial tram to carry the containers over the water.
Comment by John piziali — November 6, 2010 @ 9:22 am
I’m surmising only as I really know nothing about ports but: As I understand it, the Port of Oakland is planning to expand into the Oakland Army Base (and was there something too about expanding/improving the rail access there?). Anyway, I don’t know how it would be advisable for the Port to consider any uses here, given the cost of then hauling everything to the other side of the estuary. It seems to defeat the purpose of their planned expansion in Oakland.
Also, I recall someone knowledgeable commenting here, who said that the Port had no plans to expand into Alameda.
And also, as I may not be clear here either, but: I thought the container business was supposed to move off the Del Monte site. Aren’t they the ones who got the year-long extension on their contract so they could remain in place for an additional year? So they’re not staying there long term.
Comment by dlm — November 6, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
How about the old F.I.S.C. site, out past Marina Village? Directly across from Jack London Sqaure. An old military supply base, and site of that toxic fire. Can’t remember which developer has the contract, but they discovered that all the pilings along the waterfront are rotted out, so delayed their plans to build a hotel, restaurants, etc. there.
I worked on the ACE commission to study possible uses for the acreage when the Republicans closed all our bases to get even with Ron Dellums. We thought at the time it would make an excellent site for a bio-tech incubator, “silicon Island” style. I walked the property with Myor Ralph and his son, with whom I discussed comic books!
Access/egress wouldn’t be any worse than AP, which is almost adjacent, and there is less threat to residential. Many acres on solid ground. And Tony may not know just how wily Port of Oakland can be. Huge revenues for the City.
Comment by Dennis Green — November 6, 2010 @ 1:57 pm
43
Expensive for whom? The ILWU does the loading/unloading of containers now for the port so what difference if it’s in Oakland or Alameda or expensive or cheap? Port pays, not us.
I still say the easiest method to get containers across the estuary is to float them. No way would a container pier with cranes get built here.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 6, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
50
Biotech incubator, eh. You and Ralph must have been breathing heavily in that toxic FISC zoo to think that one up, or was it in the comic book?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 6, 2010 @ 5:19 pm
Nah, Ralph was a jarhead, that’s what jarheads do. Jack was a squid, they fuck themselves to death.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 6, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
51. The port does not pay, the clients of the port pay. They are not going to pay lots of $$ to move containers over water with ILWU labor when it is easy to move them by truck with non-union labor. It is not a viable alternative. If an FTZ happens, it will involve trucks through the tube.
If you were to build a container terminal again out there for actual ships to load and unload, then they have to use ILWU anyway, so that is not any different from the Port of Oakland. However, Alameda has many issues that do not make it so competitive with Oakland– road access is one, but rail is even more important. This also killed San Francisco as a container port.
As far as barging containers, there is a big project that will be happening in the Port of Stockton– 350 containers will be barged to and from the Port of Oakland every week as soon as they get it up and running. The main purpose is to keep 700 truck trips off the road per week.
I invite any of you who think you want to seriously pursue a container operation at the FISC or at AP to drive west on 7th street in Oakland, turn left on Maritime St, and follow the loop around back to 7th Street (between 8 am and 5 pm Monday-Friday). This is where I work every day. I think you will think again about what you want in Alameda.
By the way, the FISC is where Bobac is using the warehouse next to the building that burned for container operations.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 6, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
55
Nobody wants trucks though Alameda. A container operation with water borne cross-estuary transport minus all the political/union bullshit is feasible. That minus makes it impossible. That’s the nature of the economics of failure.
One question, if the Port of Stockton can barge containers fifty + miles in order to save dollars by eliminating trucking, why can’t containers be barged 1/4 mile here without the sky falling in?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 6, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
Whatever happened to the cruise ship terminal idea floated (if you’ll pardon the expression) by Eugenie Young? Was it considered not feasible and why specifically?
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 6, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
SF had second thoughts about being cruise ship unfriendly and now is planning on spending big bucks on refurbishing cruise ship facilities. I think SF has leg up on Alameda in the cruise panache department.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 6, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
56. I am having trouble knowing whether you are just pulling my leg on the floating the containers across the estuary. Forget the union and politics issues– why would someone want to use a container crane to lift the container from a dock in Oakland to a barge, then barge it over here, use another container crane to lift it off the barge to a yard hostler to take it to a freight dock where it could be unloaded and the goods picked up by a truck that would traverse the streets of Alameda? Why not just bring the truck directly to the container terminal at the Port of Oakland and take the container there with one lift from the ship and one lift to the truck and truck it straight to the warehouse in Oakland, Hayward, Richmond, or elsewhere? To Stockton it barely makes sense — from an environmental standpoint it decreases the carbon footprint and diesel pollutants from the trucks, and brings the terminal closer to the central valley where we have produce and distribution warehouses, but it also adds at least a day of transit time. Each crane lift for a container costs at least as much as a local dray.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 6, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 7, 2010 @ 12:00 am
I like the Granville Island link too–that would be excellent in this location.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 7, 2010 @ 12:45 am
As Jack R. mentioned, San Francisco has plans to refurbish their Cruise Terminal and recently have begun allowing the cruise ships to pull power from the SF’s electrical grid.
Besides, San Francisco will never become a major cruise hub so long as the Jones Act requires that a foreign port be hit during every cruise for foreign flagged ships. There are precious few US flagged cruise ships and I can only think of one (or two) sailing in Hawaii.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 7, 2010 @ 6:02 am
All this chatter about containers on trucks ignores a big push by the railroads to haul more freight, including double-decker containers. They have enlarged many of their tunnels to accommodate the higher loads.
Initially, the high-speed rail line in California will haul freight, not passengers. And one such train will take dozens of sixteen wheelers off the roads and freeways. The trucking industry is fighting back, since their use of the roadways is subsidized by taxpayers and the break they get on diesel fuel y-axes, which don’t begin to reflect the damage they do to the asphalt and concrete.
It’s a big deal, and I agree we don’t need container trucks in Alameda!
Comment by Dennis Green — November 7, 2010 @ 7:04 am
Thanks, Jack and Lauren. I was wondering why the cruise ship idea didn’t work. It’s a shame not to be able to make use of the deep water port. It’s something not everybody has. Alameda needs to focus on what makes sense for our geography since we’re stuck with it.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 7, 2010 @ 7:55 am
I like the idea of filling up those docks on the base with the ready reserve ships, they bring in good rent and not a lot of traffic. At least for now. It looks like most everyone agrees that containers won’t work for Alameda in the future.
Comment by John piziali — November 7, 2010 @ 8:24 am
62.
Jones Act and Love Boat aside, SF is two days too far from anywhere worth going for it to be anything more than a once in awhile destination port. Even though, I think Princess said they’re going to base something there…if SF follows through on their promises.
The cruise terminals currently used in SF are an embarrassing joke.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 8:41 am
61.
What Granville Island link were you referring to?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 8:45 am
59
Kevis, I don’t know why anyone would do what you say about containers. I’m just suggesting that if there is going to be PofO container support here on the Island, than someone better figure out a way to do it sans traverse trucks.
63. Dennis, I think most of the chatter here about containers on trucks centered on those trucks traversing Alameda streets. Subsidized or not, I doubt too many Alamedans would support trucks or rails shuttling containers off and on the Island.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 9:17 am
#67
See the link above in Lauren’s comments called the Granville Island in Vancouver
Comment by Karen Bey — November 7, 2010 @ 9:41 am
Hey I have an idea, there’s this company out of Irvine called Suncal, why don’t we ask them to develop this area?
Comment by E — November 7, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Here’s the relevant post from 8/10/10, which covered the port/container issues being discussed above:
“What a difference a Bay makes”
And here’s a couple of relevant comments:
“Regarding expanding the Port of Oakland, there are already plans using the vacated military base in Oakland itself, the Army base. Phil Tagami (who performed the historic analysis for SunCal for Alameda Point) is the lead developer for the Oakland Army Base project.”
Comment by Lauren Do — August 21, 2010
“I just went looking for a link on the Oakland Army Base, and I see Lauren posted one above. The Oakland Army Base is slated for port-related uses, and
***the plan is to ship cargo by rail, not by truck*** ”
Comment by dlm
Comment by dlm — November 7, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Here’s an additional comment re the Tidelands Trust area and BCDC approval of uses:
Selling the land piecemeal is not an option. The most valuable part of the land, for development purposes, is a swath of land running from the Seaplane Lagoon straight north to the estuary. This segment is currently classified as Tidelands Trust Land. The Navy cannot auction that piece of land because the moment it leaves Navy hands it becomes state-protected land. It will only be able to be sold to a private developer AFTER the city has taken possession of this piece of land and has consummated the land trust swap that has been pre-arrangement through a ten-year-old state assembly bill often referred to as the Tidelands Trust Exchange Act. This piece of land will be taken out of public trust designation under the condition that a strip of land on the northern waterfront that is currently not officially trust land is then given perpetual protection as Public Trust Land.
It may seem like a minor technicality, but it is a technicality that there is no way around. The Navy cannot auction the most significant part of the property, which would leave potential auction land speculators to wonder what their development options would be and what the future zoning would be. It would be hard to place a future value on the land for auction purposes with a key part of the puzzle out of play.
As for the port idea becoming reality, BCDC long ago ruled out that designation. In other words, loading and unloading cargo is not currently a use that BCDC would allow. If the Port of Oakland did purchase any land, they would have to twist a lot of arms to get permission to run port operations at Alameda Point. And I think if it ever appeared that this would be a possibility, the city would just sit on the Tideland Trust Exchange option and never execute that pre-arranged agreement, which could monkey wrench that idea.
Comment by Irene — August 21, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Comment by dlm — November 7, 2010 @ 11:24 am
#70: correction – here’s the link for “What a Difference a Bay Makes”, dated 8/20/10:
Comment by dlm — November 7, 2010 @ 11:57 am
68.
Thanks Karen, I hadn’t noticed that link before. Granville Island is a jewel and to aim towards that goal must take in mind that Granville Island is connected to downtown Vancouver both by water taxis (which are numerous, cheap and fun to ride) and a highway (which also has a pedestrian walkway). The Island’s economic wherewithal is centered on tourists both local from a population base of 2.5 million and international tourists visiting Vancouver.
The Encinal Terminal space, on the other hand, will have to rely the population of Alameda and not tourists to support itself (difficult to get there for off islanders) unless the focus is on some kind of economic self-sustaining enterprises.
No expertise here, just my thoughts.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
So Phil Tagami has an option on the Oakland Army Base. Did he have anything to do with Oak Knoll?
68. Jack, just something to think about…Alameda once had plenty of cross-island rail, from the Fruitvale Bridge almost to the Point/Base. But we’re so much more enlightened now. We also once had trolleys stopping at all the stations and even crossing the Bay Bridge, until Chevy and Chevron got their way!
Talk about transit options…
Comment by Dennis Green — November 7, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
I think, back in those days, the trolleys and rail served a greater role than just public transport. The Stations kind of stitched the city together and made it seem whole. Now people sit in their little metal cocoons, are never shoulder to shoulder with fellow traveling islanders and travel in virtual isolation.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
Jack, good point! And isn’t that what makes for a community of shared interests, and differing opinions?
I used to love the fact that I could get crossways with Diane Coler-Dark one day and embrace her the next. Because of blogs like this, are we losing that?
Comment by Dennis Green — November 7, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
Well, we sure aren’t shoulder to shoulder much anymore but to think people, back then, didn’t have disparate views is wrong, in my opinion. I think blogs like this, in fact, serve as a vehicle for people to, sometimes, vent their feelings of frustration but also to make themselves think seriously about points of view they disagree with.
The difference now and blogs like this compared to traveling shoulder to shoulder and verbally chatting is the anonymity of written communication (even when people
use their real names) compared to the natural tenancy of most people to chat amicably when they meet face to face with those holding opposing viewpoints.
I think it’s good for people to express their views without the extra burden of agreeing with the pretty woman seated next to you or the burly loudmouth who you know, knows nothing about what she’s or he is talking about (or vice versa).
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
54. Jack, are you telling us that you’re going to go fuck yourself to death? Not on a trolley, let’s hope!
Comment by Dennis Green — November 7, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
I think the blogs are more useful for communication and understanding if you hang in there and read the comments for a while. Every so often some one peeks in briefly, freaks out and leaves. Sure a lot of our comments are “narcissistic prattle” but that’s just us having fun. Most of the regular contributers have their profound moments, too. In the past few weeks we’ve learned a lot more about where each of us is coming from and gained a better appreciation of what each person has to offer. I’m originally from New York, so maybe I’m less sensitive to blunt comments. People out here tend to be nice to your face but you never really know who they are or what they’re thinking. The blogs free you up a little bit and if you give other people a chance without shutting down every time someone says something that offends you, you often learn something and sometimes even change your mind about something. I know I have.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 7, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
78 Maybe in a shipping container on John’s aerial tram?
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 7, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
I said that’s what squids do, no longer a squid. Unlike jarheads, ex-squids have short memories.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
80 Only if it has windows. The view of SF in the evening on a aerial tram 6 stories above the water might be worth it.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Jack,
One of the options the Planning board discussed for the Del Monte Building was a multi use approach. A couple of uses I remember being tossed around was office condos, and artist studios but the idea was that it not compete with Alameda Point.
The nice thing about this development is its close proximity to the Wind River campus which is now a fully owned subsidiary of Intel. We may not have tourism on our side — but the location is prime, and the Del Monte building is a unique and historic development opportunity.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 7, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
Karen, just what is it at the Point they’re not supposed to compete with? Also, what does being close to Wind River have to do with the location being prime? Marina Village business park is also close to Wind River. I sense being close to WR didn’t keep those empty boxes full of industrious workers.
The building is, indeed, unique.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
A good use for the Del Monte building would be a lease to an Indian tribe (like the chief’s on this blog) and make it into a boutique gambling joint. Now that would be a draw!
Maybe a couple of high class houses of pleasure on the estuary. Historic, you know, this was the Alaskan packers home port in the 19th century.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
There is a proposal to build a ferry building at Alameda Point along the lines of the Ferry Building in SF. The Ferry Building in SF is a mixed use building with shops, restaurants, office space, etc.
One of the reasons that the Northern Waterfront development is a prime location is because it’s surrounded by water on three sides. The plan also changes the zoning from light industrial and manufacturing to mixed use which includes residential, commercial, office, marina and open space.
Another component of the plan is to re-route and reduce truck traffic on Buena Vista — all which adds value to the project and makes this a prime location for development.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 7, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
67. Jack– thanks, I obviously totally misunderstood your interest in the container yard here and the barging idea. Basically, the Port of Oakland has no need for Alameda to store empty containers– there is plenty of land available at Oakland Army Base. You may have noticed that the container yard across the High Street Bridge at Tidewater is also gone– with no consequences at all. It is sort of like the car businesses on Park Street– left over from an earlier era when Encinal Terminals was still a container port with ships.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 7, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Maybe people aren’t aware that Alameda is already home to a water taxi service– it is just not employed as a carrier for the public at present. They are called Marine Express and they are located next to Rosenblum Cellars. Also, I used to live on an island called Balboa in the Newport Bay, and they had two 3-car ferries crossing the bay all hours of the day and night to the Balboa Pavilion on the Newport Peninsula. I think something like that could work here– see Balboa Island Ferry for more information. Fare for adult passengers is only $1, for adult and bike is $1.25. I think there could be a lot of synergies with Oakland nightlife if we could jointly develop this with Jack London area.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — November 7, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
86
Ah yes, the SF ferry building. Note the SF in front of ferry building. That’s called location. In SF it works as a mixed use building. In Alameda, it’s doubtful it would even work as a ferry building.
Also, there’s only one northern territory in Alameda that has the potential to be world class. That’s the northwestern point of the Point. Unfortunately, it’s off limits to develop its potential. Such are the economics of failure.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 7, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
50:
Prologis (which bought Catellus) is once again moving forward with its plans to build Alameda landing at the FISC site, which is no longer zoned for commercial development.
As part of the Alameda Landing, Prologis has committed to fund a cross-estuary bike-ped water taxi/water shuttle between Alameda Landing and Jack London Square. It is conceivable that the water taxi/shuttle might make additional stops in Alameda and one of them *might* be at the Alaska Basin or Grand Street…
I find all this talk of containers at AP interesting, as the financials and logistics of this were deemed unworkable years ago, barges and trams notwithstanding.And recommended at times by the same folks who decry all the supposed traffic congestion that residential development might bring to AP, too.
With all the congestion, pollution, and noise caused by diesel trucks or barge, cranes, etc., I cannot imagine we would be happy with a shipping terminal at AP…
BTW, marine and truck diesels are some of the most polluting propulsion systems around, which is why it was so important for thePort of SF top get the cruise ships on dockside electrical power, and why the Port of Oakland is trying to do the same thing with cargo ships and retrofitting all of the trucks transporting goods from the POO to their destinations.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 8, 2010 @ 9:51 am
91: I should have specified industrial and not commercial development in my first sentence above.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 8, 2010 @ 9:53 am
Jack, The North West Terr. does have one approved use, a golf course. I would agree with you that A ferry building type development would not work at the point because it would not be on the Embarcadero,and would not be Historic. Also there is another one of that type already built in Jack London Square.
Comment by John piziali — November 8, 2010 @ 10:02 am
44: Karen, Peter Calthorpe developed his plan by holding extensive community meetings and referring back to all the previous community input we offered over almost 20 years. It IS a community-based plan.
The highest-density numbers pushed by SunCal (in the neighborhood of 6000 residential units) were clearly pushed by SunCal for profitability purposes but the Calthorpe plan – a community-based plan for AP as much as anything we have ever seen – envisions a sustainable and low-impact AP that “looks like the rest of the island.”
I strongly urge you and other readers to take a fresh look at the Calthorpe plan on its own merits and with a variety of densities between 3000 -5000 residential units. Let’s look at it and give it a fair hearing. We certainly do not want to think abut SunCal any more, but the Calthorpe plan is a keeper, IMHO…
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 8, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Jon, Calthorpe is way too high on residential, would require suspension of Measure A, which your grandchildren might get if their generation is dumb enough! Calthorpe’s traffic mitigation/transit plan is feeble at best, to non-existent. You keep pushing this as some sort of independent plan, but only SunCal has ever put it forward. A d it was at the very heart of Measure B!
Comment by Dennis Green — November 8, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
86. My God, Jack, my tribe has casinos all over the place, the Redman’s Revenge, as we put it! And as for houses of pleasure, we run round-eyed ladies up and down the poles every night! Thought I saw you pole-dancing in one of them just the other night. Oh, I know, you like to pretend to be aloof, a “former” Squid who would F his brains out at one time, but that also explains a lot!
Comment by Dennis Green — November 8, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
Both the Del Monte site and Chipman site are up for sale as far as I know as of this week. I still think if Target is going to come to Alameda the Del Monte building is so much better than Alameda Landing.
Comment by Joe — March 8, 2012 @ 9:06 am