Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 7, 2014

All mixed-use up

Filed under: Alameda, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

So remember that public meeting way back in August about the Oak Street property near the Boatworks project?  Well the developer, City Ventures, has finally put something forward to the Planning Board and it looks a little different than what they were proposing in August.   As a reminder, here’s the site:


And here is the old plan, mostly straight residential and a few token live/work units (6 to be exact):


Now, they have a BRAND NEW PLAN!  the site plan looks like this now:



Which now has a commercial building (the big yellow one) anchoring the “entrance” to the development which provides a transition between the totally commercial usage next door and the change to residential within that little development.   Instead of 6 live/work spaces they are offering 10 additional commercial units (the scattered yellow) which would be standalone commercial spaces — it doesn’t say if they will be for sale or for rent, but around 560 square feet per unit, the emphasis is on small.  The idea, according to the staff report, is to provide incubation space for small start ups.  It’s still mostly residential but there is a much better attempt here at making a mix of uses.

Just to note, with the old plan the neighbor adjacent (a commercial business) objected to the rezoning of the parcel.  I don’t know if the neighbors just likes this plan better or discussions with the developer proved to be very convincing, but that neighbor has now sent out a letter of support for the new design.

The Planning Board will be deciding whether the rezoning of this property is in line with City policies and whether the staff should move forward.   This will not be an approval of the plan itself, just about if this is generally the right direction.


  1. Actually this is the type of Project that Alameda has needed forever. Young smart people who hopefully have expendable income.

    Comment by frank — February 7, 2014 @ 7:53 am

  2. Two thumbs up to this project and to Frank’s comment!

    Comment by Bernice Wong — February 7, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

  3. has this property been sold? I’m thinking of Crown Beach where the cart may have gone before the horse. The seller of 1835 probably wants to get top dollar which can only be extracted through this type of residential density. At the last Planning Board meeting Andrew Thomas mentioned future agenda items including this parcel. He happened to specifically mention that since the City has targeted enough sites to housing to satisfy the state housing requirements that we have an opportunity to take it slow and talk about best use. I don’t know the buildings that well, in terms of how they might be reused, but our live/work ordinance ( which should be amended) specifies live/work ONLY for re-purposing existing industrial or commercial space. Live/work would probably not yield highest dollar from leases and therefore sale of the dirt, but it seems like a viable option with built in jobs/housing balance, at least in theory. Plus the unit density is probably a little lighter. It’s an option which, under our restrictive ordinance, is seldom presented.

    Comment by MI — February 7, 2014 @ 3:11 pm

  4. as I recall we are supposed to call it work/live because of measure A.

    Comment by John P. — February 7, 2014 @ 4:15 pm

  5. my dyslexia, John. I thought I was flipping it correctly. yeah, supposedly in order to better conform to Measure A (huh?) the emphasis on the WORK part somehow does that. That just shows how intangible the entire concept was for those who were forced to deal with it at the time. I think WORK/live was the brain child of Council woman Kerr or staff was forced to come with it to quell noise from Ms. Kerr and others.

    Comment by MI — February 7, 2014 @ 5:28 pm

  6. you got it, Mark.

    Comment by John P. — February 8, 2014 @ 9:41 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: