So I’m a little bit overly excited — and not in a good way — about this topic so this will probably span over multiple posts because, well, it’s that big of an issue and it’s pretty important.
On Monday, the Planning Board will be hearing sort of the first step in the Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point. Now, unlike some people, I’m not pissy about whether or not I think the City is trying to “hide” the fact that they are doing the EIR as though they don’t want people to chime in, no I’m pissy because I don’t understand the point of this.
Okay, strike that, I do understand the point of this, it’s because the City Manager John Russo thinks that we must put in place all entitlements to remove barriers for developers and businesses who want to develop at Alameda Point. Remember when the City staff was recommending that the City take out bonds to take Alameda Point through the whole entitlement process? So, that part didn’t happen, the bond thing, but the EIR is moving forward.
So here’s the part that is sort of obnoxious about the plans thus far, the “Vision” for Alameda Point is just weird. First, the Vision document is this 12 page thing with a bunch of photos and huge font but very little substance.
First of all, I think the visionmakers need to step back and define what “mixed-use” means, because when I read the document and then look at the proposed land uses, I don’t think mixed-use means to the visioneers what mixed-used means to me.
Because this:
Huge swaths of single use zoning right next to each other does not equal “mixed-use.” The only section that could be considered mixed-use is the “Town Center” portion and that part is tiny.
Interestingly enough, despite the biggest – notwithstanding the Open Space set aside — zoning as being for “Employment” none of the photos in the “Vision” document is of anything employment related. No huge office parks or gleaming corporate buildings. I guess those aren’t as appealing as sidewalk cafes.
Here’s one of the Guiding Design Principles that really had me puzzled, particularly when referenced with the proposed zoning map:
Something will be “distinct” but yet “cohesive” in this mixed used but not really mixed use development. Awesome. I’m not quite sure how the “small town feeling” will be extended into the massive “employment” zoned area since — if we’re being honest here — will probably end up looking like Harbor Bay Business park, but there it is.
A distinctly cohesive mix of diverse districts woven together with a network of transit and open space corridors quilted onto the Alameda tableau. I guess it’s how you spin it.
With the city selling off individual parcels or large quadrants, there has to be some basic framework in place. The wooden-looking map above is simply a framework for zoning, just like the rest of the island. Twenty years from now I doubt that it will look as wooden to the new residents, workers, and visitors. The employment areas, for example (if I’m not mistaken), will allow for live/work projects, which is something you don’t see in Harbor Bay Business Park. And I don’t see that the zoning map precludes having cafes in the employment zones. Plus, “adaptive reuse” is a pretty broad term.
At the end of the day, it’s all market-driven anyway. It’s just a matter of who is going to be holding the land waiting for something to happen – the city, or a master developer.
Comment by Richard Bangert — January 24, 2013 @ 8:32 am
Richard, from my understanding the “Employment” areas were off limited for any residential development, including work/live, but I hope that my understanding is incorrect about that. Looking at the description, it’s vague enough for the Adaptive Reuse portion, but the Employment swath south of the Town Center is pretty clear that it is for “high quality industrial and office park development” and that “Allowed uses are limited to prevent intrusion of uses that would limit or constrain future use of these lands by manufacturing, research, and other preferred uses.” I get the feeling that work/live might be seen as a constraint to an office park development.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 24, 2013 @ 9:22 am
Looks good, except clear at the end of the runway that’s aimed towards the bay bridge and around corner going south (open space) I’d like to see 65 story apartment buildings with million dollar penthouse suites to take in the million dollar view. They’d sell like hotcakes.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 24, 2013 @ 9:44 am
Lauren, A May 14, 2012 Planning Board staff report on zoning and general plan amendments confirms what you said about no residential in the southeastern employment area. But it also has language that leaves open the possibility of softening the edges at the transition to other zoning areas.
“While all of the sub-districts allow for a mix of uses, the other sub-districts allow for predominantly employment-generating or economic development uses that do not contemplate residential uses. The segregation of heavier industrial or research and development uses from residential neighborhoods will help to minimize these conflicts. It is also expected that as the employment areas are developed, lighter industrial or transitional office or flex uses will be planned in “transition” zones adjacent to existing or planned residential areas or visitor-serving areas to serve as an appropriate buffer zone for heavier industrial or research and development uses.”
It references live/work here: “…the AP Adaptive Reuse Employment sub-district allows for a diversity of uses ranging from industrial, warehouse, institutional, and live/work uses, affording significant flexibility for reusing and repurposing the existing buildings.”
…and offers this encouraging note: “Encourage and provide for mixed-use development in all areas and avoid homogenous single-use areas.”
Comment by Richard Bangert — January 24, 2013 @ 9:51 am
According to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment document, work/live is not allowed in the AP-E area, and only conditionally allowed on the second floor only in the Administrative Core in the AP-AR district:
But even more puzzling is that only cafes are allowed in the AP-E but no restaurants. That seems weird.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 24, 2013 @ 10:01 am
Since many of the parcels will come with use restrictions dictated by previous clean-up limitations [Monitored Natural Attenuation/Institutional Controls], namely, that you can’t live on the first floor, but you can work there-I believe live/work is practically a given, no matter how the City wishes to zone it. It is not clear to me how the zoning for future uses is going to interface with the degree of clean-up of individual parcels over time; which makes it very difficult to treat Alameda Point as any kind of coherent development.
Comment by vigi — January 24, 2013 @ 10:09 am
And maybe we should start calling that intrusion of “Federal Facilities” into the Northwest Territories, the “Cemetery Hump”.
Comment by vigi — January 24, 2013 @ 10:12 am
It really is weird that stuck the housing in one of the least appealing locations. Gorgeous views of SF would command top dollar for homes, of course the ground may be too contaminated in some of those other places.
Comment by Denise Shelton — January 24, 2013 @ 10:48 am
I am good with any plan, just do something for the love of God. The best piece of real estate in the USA just sitting there rotting.
Comment by ryan — January 24, 2013 @ 11:54 am
I think the current WORK/live ordinance ( In Alameda it’s not live/work) still only allows for conversion of existing industrial or commercial buildings, but no new construction. Detractors of the whole concept started to use the term “lifestyle lofts” for new lofts for the stuff getting built across the estuary, sort of pejorative like referring to being gay as a lifestyle choice. The obvious purpose is to under cut the legitimacy of the term live/ work for spaces in which people do not fabricate, paint or do other “work” which requires a rough work area. No telecommuting dot com uses allowed! I believe we should be more open minded, creative or whatever when considering design configurations and usage. BTW, post hurricane Sandy, where are we at in terms of taking sea level into consideration at the Point?
Comment by MI — January 24, 2013 @ 1:24 pm
Well, since it is a scoping meeting, it is our chance to tell the City what we think should be included and considered in the EIR and where. If you have thoughts, don’t just post to Lauren’s comment section, drop the City a note or show up at the meeting!
Comment by AK — January 24, 2013 @ 1:50 pm
First, I am very happy to see golf courses permitted in this plan!!!!
Next, I wonder if we would be better served extending the Town Center and the Employment zone further along Main Street. Main Street has great potential for commercial development. Of course housing is great in this area – but more mixed use as Lauren mentioned would be great for this area as well. If you get a chance, drive down El Camino Real in Palo Alto – it’s a good example of what we may be able to do on Main Street.
Also with regards to housing, clustered housing in the Town Center with views of the Seaplane Lagoon, the golf course, the state parks, and the wildlife refuge will add tremendous value to the project.
In terms of retail, I’m hopeful that we prohibit the development of super center big box stores at Alameda Point. With the development of Target at Alameda Landing, and the redevelopment of South Shore Center at South Shore — we have plenty of these type stores in Alameda. I’d like to shift our retail strategy to developing more upscale retail centers in the Town Center at Alameda Point, the Historic Retail Districts on Park Street and Webster Street, and the Historic Del Monte building. Developing these assets and development of the Maritime Visitor Serving zone at Alameda Point will help make Alameda a wonderful destination.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 24, 2013 @ 1:53 pm
Karen, “Golf course,” namely the Kyle Phillips design, is something that will be featured in the Alameda Point Museum of Development Artifacts and Curiosities. It will be featured along with the Alameda Point Spa and Coronado-style Hotel, the solar farm, tree nursery, the commercial seaport on the Northwest Territories, the gondola, monorail, business airport, science center, electric car production, Calthorpe Plan, water taxi to Oakland, and Berkeley Lab Second Campus.
There’s no place left to put a golf course and too much competition for existing demand. I don’t know why it’s on the list. Perhaps they were thinking of miniature golf with windmills and an obstacle course. But if they did squeeze a regular golf course out on the Northwest Territories, at least there will be a clinic nearby to treat Bay Trail users hit by golf balls. The only way that a golf course would work in the other permitted zone, Maritime and Visitor Serving, is a driving range down the middle to City Hall West. The golf course idea had potential at one time…until it didn’t.
Comment by Richard Bangert — January 24, 2013 @ 3:16 pm
I was thinking the Northwest Territories — but I’d like to hear more about why they added it to the list as well. With the right vision and the right developer(s), everything is possible.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 24, 2013 @ 3:36 pm
Jack I agree…..Except Alameda Point is located in a liquefaction zone….But Alameda Unified is moving out of old Alameda High for Eathquake safety and moving right into liquefaction zone for earthquake safety….Can’t make this stuff up.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/alameda/
http://action-alameda-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/alameda-liquefaction-susceptibility.jpg
Comment by John — January 24, 2013 @ 7:06 pm
So what John, all the more funds from the Feds to rebuild when the big one hits.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 24, 2013 @ 7:40 pm
Here’s sea level rise. It’s interesting how the shape of the historic island always stands out so clearly in these maps.
http://cal-adapt.org/sealevel/
Comment by Darcy Morrison — January 24, 2013 @ 8:01 pm
Jack……Maybe every city can just set up a Mint and printing press and bypass the Fed Jack……Why go thru all the pesky paper work….Why worry about companies leaving CA along with the Jobs………We can print our way out…….
Comment by John — January 24, 2013 @ 8:23 pm
Look at Manhattan’s map for sea level rise.
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml
Comment by Jack Richard — January 24, 2013 @ 8:47 pm
Alameda does have its own mint, John, check our outgo compared to our input.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 24, 2013 @ 8:50 pm
AK I plan to take your advice in #11 and show up at Monday’s planning board meeting to tell the City about another land use alternative I would like included in the EIR. This alternative would be more protective than the alternative described by Lauren and include more open space, housing and commerce.
This Protective Alternative would protect open space, new residents, and workers from the contaminated ground Denise mentioned in #8 by implementing cleanup restrictions, such as those referred to by Vigi in #6. These cleanup restrictions would provide more protection from mobile gaseous and liquid contaminants than current regulations provide.
Similarly, except for retail serving businesses, ground floors of buildings would be encouraged to provide primarily parking, warehouse or other easily evacuated uses to minimize damage from temporary flooding caused by storms and global warming – which would have the added benefit of providing more protection from mobile residual contamination. Although single family homes with only parking on the ground floor would be permitted, the bulk of the residential housing would be in multi-story buildings, leaving more space for open space and commerce than the baseline alternatives, and still providing more housing than the baseline alternative. Multi-family housing, which would better support transit than single family housing, would require fewer parking spaces per unit, and by allowing people to live closer to services and schools, encourage waking and bicycling.
Regarding evaluation criteria to use in comparing this alternative with the land use alternative so ably critiqued by Lauren, I would include protection from toxic materials potentially mobilized by an earthquake, and also from failure of the City to enforce institutional controls on digging and use of first floors for many decades (the City failed to enforce basic housing and sanitation codes at the old Harbor Island apartments on Atlantic a few decades after they were built). I will also request the EIR to examine a possible environmental impact of the Navy’s charge of $50,000 or so per residential unit above the number set in the Navy’s transfer agreement with the City. I will ask the City to compare the environmental impact of the Navy’s per residential unit charge with a fee based on the number of acres of residential units.
I hope to hear many other suggestions for alternative land uses at the meeting and requests for evaluation of innovative approaches, such as for financing of transit, schools, police and fire, at Monday’s planning board meeting.
It would be great to see many of you share with the planning board the comments you posted on this blog, and other comments, at Monday’s meeting!
Comment by William Smith — January 24, 2013 @ 9:59 pm
Jack…..If Global warming and Sea rising is really an Issue, why would any city , state , or federal government allow any new building in these areas. Why would we insure and guarantee with flood insurance. I know when I bought my first house in Alameda they told me I was in a very low area and could not get federal flood insurance.
I’m assuming we have bent all those common sense ideas and just let Fed write checks if nature does it’s natural thing.
Comment by John — January 24, 2013 @ 10:34 pm
William, why would you want to put low income in harms way by building in such a sensitive area with potential flooding, contaminated and toxic ground . Why not move them to higher and safer ground like Piedmont and Orinda.
Comment by John — January 24, 2013 @ 10:59 pm
End Federal Flood Insurance
IT’S no surprise that it can be very expensive to live near the ocean. But it may come as a surprise to American taxpayers that they are on the hook for at least $527 billion of vulnerable assets in the nation’s coastal flood plains. Those homes and businesses are insured by the federal government’s National Flood Insurance Program.
You read that right: $527 billion, which is just a portion of the program’s overall liability of $1.25 trillion, second only to Social Security in the liabilities on the government’s ledgers last year, according to government data.
Homeowners and businesses should be responsible for purchasing their own flood insurance on the private market, if they can find it. If they can’t, then the market is telling them that where they live is too dangerous. If they choose to live in harm’s way, they should bear the cost of that risk — not the taxpayers. Government’s primary role is ensuring the safety of its citizens, so the government’s subsidizing of risky behavior is completely backward.
Between 1978 and 2011, the program, which is run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, paid out more than $24 billion in claims in the coastal flood plain. Total losses paid out for Hurricane Katrina alone exceeded $16 billion. FEMA says it is too soon to say how many claims will be filed for Hurricane Sandy-related damages, although The New York Times reported this month that early estimates suggest that this storm will rank as the second worst for claims paid out, with the cost possibly reaching $7 billion — at a time when the program is allowed, by law, to add only $3 billion to its debt.
The bottom line is that the flood insurance program is a fiscal time bomb for the government.
We should phase out the program, begin thinking strategically about how to shift populations away from the most risky coastal areas, and use the best available science to update the woefully out-of-date coastal-zone risk profiles that government agencies currently rely on to determine danger. We also need to encourage more stringent building codes that take into account the full range of climate risks. (Officials in New York and New Jersey this week estimated the overall costs of Hurricane Sandy in the two states at a combined $72 billion.)
We do not underestimate the complexity and political difficulty of phasing out a popular program like national flood insurance, nor do we think the government should abandon people who are currently insured. But Congress and the president should challenge the status quo and make some tough decisions, like providing subsidies or buyouts to encourage people to move out of the most disaster-prone areas, and eliminating other government incentives that support living in high-risk areas.
Some Americans want to live as close to their beloved coasts as they can, but coastal landowners should pay the full cost of living in these dangerous areas. In this climate-constrained world our quality of life will take some hits. But with careful planning and a gradual shift away from the coast, Americans can still enjoy the beauty and live safely, yet escape the cycle of catastrophe and response, in which so much money is expended on properties that are repeatedly flooded.
Judith Kildow directs the National Ocean Economics Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, a graduate school of Middlebury College. Jason Scorse is an associate professor of economics at the institute and directs its Center for the Blue Economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/end-federal-flood-insurance.html?_r=0
Comment by John — January 24, 2013 @ 11:12 pm
Looks like this was cut off
The flood insurance program was created by Congress in 1968 to fill a void: because of the risk, few carriers provided flood insurance. Now, private insurers offer flood insurance in a partnership with the government — but taxpayers shoulder all the risk. It has turned out to be a bad bet. The program is $18 billion in debt, a sum the government acknowledges probably will never be paid back by premiums, and it is likely to need a new multibillion-dollar infusion to pay claims from Hurricane Sandy. It is long past time for the government to stop subsidizing home and business owners who live and build in dangerous flood zones
Comment by John — January 24, 2013 @ 11:19 pm