Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 30, 2009

They just want you for your brains

Filed under: Alameda, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:49 am


So the Navy is moving forward with the disposal of the North Housing Parcel and has released (or released a while ago, I have just gotten around to posting it) the Environmental Assessment of their proposed reuse of the site.   See the above photo for the location, and before you ask, the site is about 42 acres.  Right now there are currently 282 three or four bedroom units on the site, along with the big Estuary Park parcel, but the current Community Reuse plan has designated that parcel as supporting 437 housing units.    Parcel 2A on the map is not included in the disposal according to the maps in the EA.

Basically, the Navy has a Plan A and a Plan B.   Plan B is to do nothing.

Plan A includes the homeless benefit conveyance requests, which are:

  • 90 units of permanent supportive housing which would be service-enriched (generally the services would include like child care, job training, whatever is the need greatest for the target community)   This is a reduction from the initial joint proposal by the Alameda Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for Women and Children which was a total of 120 PSH units because of the recommendation by the Evaluation Committee which noted that the market-rate units would be required to build inclusionary housing units.
  • 32 units of below market units for sale which would be rehabbed by Habitat for Humanity using their sweat equity model, they will be receiving their units as part of the Public Benefit Conveyance by attaching the project through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
  • 8 acres of open space will go to the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department and this may be the location where the Miracle League field — promised so many years ago by Catellus to be included as part of the Alameda Landing project — might go as there is an existing baseball field out there that might be rehabilitated for the Miracle Leagues purposes.   On the Miracle League’s dime, I would assume.   Quick digression, as part of that old post about Alameda Landing, that was Former Councilmember Tony Daysog’s last meeting and he mentioned that Kohl’s would be a good business to bring to Alameda.  Prescient.
  • 315 units to be developed by private developer (this is the land that will be auctioned off to the highest bidder).  There is a requirement that 25% of the units be affordable/below market rate because of our inclusionary housing policy.   Anything other than housing would require a change in zoning since the majority of the plot is zoned R-4.

You have until August 14 to read through the entire document and make comments.

Here is an interesting video by the self-styled “Alameda Bike Posse” of the North Housing parcel who noted that the area appeared to be:

…the future site of the zombie apocalypse.



  1. Wonder what the deal is with using the “hectare” as an alternative to “acre” in the Assessment. Oh, that’s right, we’re trying to join the ‘world community’ metric system. Next, they’ll use ‘hectare’ and put ‘acre’ in parenthesis. After that’s settled into our thick skulls, it’ll all be in hectares and no alternative B. I’m surprised they still use the old fashion date (month/day/year) instead of the world method (day/month/year), which is much more logically progressive. They should have, at least, put the progressive method in parenthesis.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 30, 2009 @ 10:27 am

  2. Who pays for those “enriched” services?

    Just curious. Somehow government seems to neglect that old “operations and maintenance” figure out of their budgets.

    Comment by Edmundo Delmundo — July 30, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

  3. They should turn it all into low income housing and housing for the homeless. We could fund it with a small parcel tax and donations from the community. Also, we could find a way to integrate the low income housing with Bayport so that the poor don’t feel segregated or like they haven’t earned a beautiful home.


    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — July 30, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

  4. So I guess the plan is to not re-hab the existing housing – that Navy housing is not fit to live in?

    I appreciate the video of the area but recommend either a mic windscreen or re-dubbing the audio w/ soundtrack and commentary. Then again, the videographer’s intent may not have been a ‘tour’ of what they referred to as “Coast Guard Housing”. Of the shots of the big fire remains – looks like the old hospital was a series of buildings or it is already being deconstructed in sections…

    Thanks for the post.

    Comment by dk — July 30, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

  5. DK: the Habitat for Humanity units will be rehabilitated units for sale, that will be about 32 units. As to the PSH units, I recall discussion about this at the City Council a while back, from what I remember the reason why the 90 would be new construction is that the PSH is meant to serve individuals and families. The existing 3 – 4 bedrooms would be excessive space for an individual.

    I am not clear of what condition the actual units are in, I’m sure some are in better shape than others.

    Edmundo: Generally the service provider who sponsors the project, in this case APC and Building Futures, is responsible for determining which types of services to “enrich” the project with and finding partners (or funding) to keep those services going.

    Comment by Lauren Do — July 31, 2009 @ 6:45 am

  6. As edvard suggested in his comment (# 47 Anthropologically {Stereotypically} speaking), when he steps back and takes a drive he finds segregation (imagine that). It’s very reassuring to know that Alameda is doing its part (small that it may be) to ensure that edvard doesn’t have to leave the Island to take his step back for a look see.

    # 4 “…– that Navy housing is not fit to live in?” Obviously you’ve never served in the Navy DK.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 31, 2009 @ 8:58 am

  7. The housing looks perfectly fine to me. It is probably less than 40 years old. Why not fix them up a bit, redo the grounds and rent them out? Wouldn’t that be the most environmental friendly thing to do?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — July 31, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

  8. #7 Please stay focused, and remember to stop trying to think outside the adopted 1-size fits all environmental philosophy. Today’s “green-friendly” construction means knock-down what ever is there, and build 4 stories of residential over retail. By toadys decision makers, that is the only thing people want… And keep wasting water or EMUD will raise the rates again.

    (Jeez, next people could start talking about the fact we can build homes that require no energy to heat/cool, that harvest their own water and electricity, and also reuse and treat their own wastes, and they cost no more to build per sq ft than what has been being built for the last generation… Thank god we have codes to prevent such balderdash.

    Comment by dk — July 31, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at