Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 5, 2013


Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, Development — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

The clock started ticking yesterday but you still have  a bit of time to review all 1000+ pages of the Alameda Point Draft Environmental Impact Report if you need a little light reading to get you through the day.    Essentially you have to get this all read and processed by October 21, 2013, which will be your last day to make any comments on the Alameda Point draft EIR, the comments can be sent to the City by email, or you can choose to go to two public meetings, the first is next Monday at the Planning Board meeting, but that’s probably not going to get you through half of the document.

The final meeting will be at the City Council on September 25.

If you opt not to read the document on-line and you are too cheap to pay the $45 to get one printed up for yourself — I won’t lie, I wouldn’t pay that — you could find a copy at any number of public places like the libraries (branches and main), Mastick Senior Center, Golf Clubhouse, City Hall, City Hall West, APC, etc and so forth.

The usual suspects have already submitted some level of comments based on the Notice of Preparation that went out earlier including EBMUD, Port of Oakland, City of Oakland (with a gentle reminder about the Chinatown Agreement),

I will point out that at Tuesday’s night City Council meeting during City Manager Communications, City Manager John Russo made a point — probably largely in jest — to point out the number of organizations that had been included in the mailing regarding this draft EIR, including the East Bay Regional Park District. But this time they must have posted the letter in the right box, because EBRPD managed to submit a comment letter earlier. I will add that one interesting bit from the EBRPD letter is that they are asking the City to allow a certain amount of office space to be allowed in the open space area — right now it is not allowed — because they want to put some office space to manage the wildlife area for the VA.

Oh and if you don’t want to slog through that but want to feel engaged in the Alameda Point process on some small level, you can help the City rename the Town Center portion since some folks have expressed the opinion that the Town Center name is confusing. Of course the alternatives are not any better so…


  1. How did they come up with the list of names for the “Town Center” portion? They really are all pretty meh. The survey lets you add a suggestion, although it probably has as much weight as writing in a candidate on your ballot for POTUS. I suggested Clipper Landing because of the China Clipper and to encourage people who go there to use their Clipper cards to cut down on traffic ;).

    Comment by Denise Shelton — September 5, 2013 @ 8:18 am

  2. The seaplane lagoon pre dates the Navy. It was originally for the PanAm Clippers. So, I think we should remember that phase of our city’s life. I also am in favor of public names being directional. Alamedans have been going to the seaplane lagoon for years, let’s continue to do so – call it Seaplane Lagoon or Clipper Seaplane Lagoon. Thus, we’d meet at the ferry plaza on the lagoon, (although I still think it’s a perfect place for seaplane rentals for me and tourists), just as we cross the Emperor Joshua Norton Bay Bridge, but say we’re going over the Bay bridge.

    Re: names in general, there was a lot of transportation history made out there on the West End of our island before the Navy that most of us are proud of. Surely the staff has done its homework and is well aware of what it hub it was. We should name things there to honor the train companies, fleets, air companies, packers, truckers, etc., that came before the Navy. They are the ones who helped build our city. The military came later.

    Comment by Li_ — September 5, 2013 @ 8:36 am

  3. Why not just call it Alameda Point? I wrote it in. Isn’t that what everyone will call it anyhow?

    Comment by Spanky M — September 5, 2013 @ 8:38 am

  4. Write-in campaign for “town center” name:” Laguna Station. It seamlessly picks up the “station” theme from the rest of Alameda, and it sounds more like a place that I would want to visit and spend money if I lived somewhere else. Next stop, Laguna Station at Alameda Point.

    Comment by Richard Bangert — September 5, 2013 @ 9:24 am

  5. I’m w/Li. If it ain’t broke, don’t change it. Call it “Seaplane Lagoon”. That’s a unique, special name; and Alameda has the only Seaplane Lagoon around [is there even another one in the whole state?]. “Meet me at the Seaplane Lagoon” has a certain je ne sais quoi. Too many locators already have “Alameda” or “station” in the title, making them easy to confuse with another location.
    Sorry, RB: Southern California has already overused the word “Laguna” to death.

    Comment by vigi — September 5, 2013 @ 9:45 am

  6. I’ve grown attached to the “Seaplane Lagoon” name because of it’s history at NAS Alameda. I wrote in: Seaplane Lagoon Station. I like the idea of stopping at the Seaplane Lagoon Station at the Alameda Point Ferry Terminal.

    Comment by Karen Bey — September 5, 2013 @ 10:04 am

  7. I’m with vigi and Karen. “Sea Plane Lagoon” works for me.

    Comment by John P. (L) — September 5, 2013 @ 10:10 am

  8. I like your idea too Vigi – let’s keep it simple.

    Comment by Karen Bey — September 5, 2013 @ 10:33 am

  9. How about “Charlie Foxtrot?”

    ‘Cause that’s what it will be….

    Comment by dave — September 5, 2013 @ 10:45 am

  10. Aircraft Carrier Lagoon?
    Doolittle Vista

    Hermosa Vista a la Bahía
    “beautiful bay view” in Spanish

    Comment by happyhappyfunfun — September 5, 2013 @ 11:38 am

  11. Point Poison Station

    Comment by F. L. Wright — September 5, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

  12. Bangakok Loch

    Comment by Chef at the Gridlock Grill — September 5, 2013 @ 12:43 pm

  13. The Master Infrastructure Plan – staff likes to call it the “MIP” – prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson (“CBG”) for a fee of $199,500 showed the “backbone infrastructure” needed to support the land use program set forth in the 1996 Community Reuse Plan for the Point. This includes replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing utility systems, streets and open spaces.

    Total cost? $566,580,000. That’s half a billion bucks for you keeping score at home.

    The draft presented to the Planning Board broke down these costs into three groups:

    Phase 1, covering what staff now calls the “Enterprise” area in the southeast portion of the Point as well as the proposed “Town Center,” would cost $219,870,000.
    Phase 2, covering the “Main Street Neighborhood” area in the northeast portion, would cost $229,700,000.
    Phase 3, covering the “Adaptive Reuse” area located within the Historic District north of the seaplane lagoon, would cost $117,010,000.

    In response to Ms. Alvarez-Morroni’s questions, Alameda Point project manager Jennifer Ott told the Board that staff had been working with an economist – if nothing else, planning at the Point is providing a lot of paychecks for consultants – to come up with numbers to present to Council on September 17. So maybe all will be revealed then.

    But, having read the MIP and listened – on tape – to the Planning Board meeting, the Merry-Go-Round is left with an uncomfortable feeling: Is development at Alameda Point, on the scale envisioned in the Community Reuse Plan or even in the “Planning Guide” recently endorsed by the Planning Board and Council, going to be economically feasible? At times, it seems as if we’re one step ahead of the “If you build it, they will come” logic whispered to Kevin Costner in “Field of Dreams.” If we design it, our planners seem to be saying it, someone will pay to build it.

    On this point we are surprised to find ourselves apparently in sync with Planning Board member and Alameda Inner Ringer John Knox White, who declared during the Board comment period:

    At some point in time we have to have a conversation about what this document [i.e., the MIP] is telling us about our thoughts and plans for Alameda Point. The answer could be something we don’t want to hear. It seems to be leading us to, This is a great document; what it’s saying is we’re going to hit a point at which we’ve got to say there are parts of the Point we’re not going to develop or we’re going to have to think totally differently about how we’re going to develop it. I said that 18 months ago, I think at my first meeting, we can’t be afraid to say, you know what, there is no plan that we can develop in a way that makes sense for Alameda Point. I do want to challenge us that the fact that we’ve been working on this for almost 20 years doesn’t mean we have to develop anything. I’ve been involved with it for 11 years of my life. I understand the interest in getting something going and whatever else, but let’s make sure that we don’t accidentally head down a road that fiscal neutrality never happens and we start costing the city money and what not.

    To pick up on one of Mr. Knox White’s favorite locutions, that indeed would be worth “having a conversation about.” And the sooner the better.

    Comment by Small Details — September 5, 2013 @ 12:56 pm

  14. You know, people do know how to click on links, next time, just provide a snippet and a link or I’ll do it for you. K THX BYE

    Comment by Lauren Do — September 5, 2013 @ 1:18 pm

  15. anyone know when they are going to begin demo?

    Comment by ryan — September 5, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

  16. 15. That’s a known unknown. That’s why there is a Phase Zero for the waterfront/station during which we continue to make do. Demo will start when either a) a developer shows up with an attractive offer, or b) grant money is found to demo the buildings that have no obvious reuse value. I would suggest that putting some effort into “b” would help us with “a.”

    The only “known” demo on the calendar is the VA’s street demo of Redline and demo of the north entrance structures to allow the VA to construct for us a new north entrance and put in infrastructure on Redline past the gym and out to their clinic site. It may be 2015 before that happens.

    Comment by Richard Bangert — September 5, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

  17. I’ve just looked up the spanish word for swamp — pantano. How about “Plaza del Pantano”? That’s as historic as you’re ever going to get.

    Comment by darcydlm — September 6, 2013 @ 12:53 am

  18. BORING choices! Basically whoever dreamed up this survey (and they didn’t dream much, did they?) gave us two lackluster choices, not 6. This is scary. Mr. Russo wants us to direct our own destiny at The Olde Navel Base (which is a good thing, and no, I spelled ‘Navel” just as I intended), and this is the best that City Staff can come up with? I am horrified to think of what The Olde Navel Base will look like after buildout with this inspired leadership. I like Denise’s suggestion best- Clipper Landing, but if you MUST have a variant of Towne Centre, why not The Navel Center, because, after all, what do you play with at the center of your tummy?

    Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — September 6, 2013 @ 11:05 am

  19. Please, just don’t hang “Historic” in front of whatever is decided (as in…The Historic Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point).

    Comment by Basel — September 6, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

  20. Since the main feature of the land is that it is some of the last undeveloped bay front land, how about “Seaboard Village” or “Coastline Center”?

    Comment by Marianne Siegle — September 12, 2013 @ 1:34 pm

  21. how about Willie Brown Lagoon and Town Center. He now has a Bridge named after him.

    Comment by John P. (L) — September 12, 2013 @ 3:16 pm

  22. How about SCHLEPP’s Point

    Comment by Jack Richard — September 12, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at