Blogging Bayport Alameda

July 9, 2014

Big yellow taxiway

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, Business, City Council, Development — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

As promised a post dedicated to the Alameda United Commercial Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the City of Alameda.

Unlike the Closed Session agenda items with Charles Company which spanned for months and months and finally ended without anyone in the public ever finding out what the Charles Co was interested in or what they were proposing, AUC has made significant progress on negotiations that we are actually seeing something in the open session agenda about their possible plans.

The first buildings that they are interested in are the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters which I had guessed would be turned into a boarding school with dorms or something. Turns out they are proposing, according to the staff report:

a combination of assisted senior living, independent senior living, student housing, and office space consistent with the ZA and MIP

Most folks should be happy with the senior housing because I guess senior housing = no cars or something like that in most people’s heads. But I was close on the “dorms” guess because “student housing” is one of the options. Of course this is all fairly vague right now, I guess I’ll wait for the renderings and plans before getting too excited.

Here’s where it is:

Screen Shot 2014-07-08 at 4.34.00 PM

 

It’s a little bit far, if you’re walking and given the desired demographic, from the proposed amenities in the Town Center portion, but I suppose that’s what shuttles are for.   The staff report indicates that initial negotiations have pegged the sale price — yes, sale price — of the BEQ at $388,000 per land acre, but I don’t know how many acres it is to give you a total.   However the next parcel that they want on the taxiway is 5.5 acres, looking at the map below and comparing it to the map above, I would guess the BEQ’s were somewhere in the ballpark of 15 acres or more.  Let’s just say 15 acres to be conservative.   If that’s the case then the City of Alameda is looking at around $6 million or so to sell the BEQs to this developer.   But as the staff report says, the final price is TBD depending on negotiations.

Screen Shot 2014-07-08 at 4.19.28 PM

 

The map above is the other parcel that AUC wants.  Prime waterfront property naturally, probably a bit of an incentive to take the BEQs off the hands of the City.  For this they are looking toward:

a new development along the taxiways that includes hotels and residential condominiums.

Again, I’ll contain excitement until actual plans or renderings are produced.   The potential sale price on this particular slice of Alameda Point is $7.5 million plus $56,000 per market rate housing unit.   Color me not shocked that a developer would be willing to pay for the privilege of building market rate housing. Anyway, the City is still in the courtship phase with this particular developer.  Apparently they still have 30 days to show documentation of the qualifications of the development team, which includes financial viability as well I imagine.

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. When I become a senior who needs assistance please don’t put me in the BAQ. I have lived in to many dorms in my life. In high school I worked for a short period in a nursing care facility…they had healthy seniors living next to dying seniors. When I get to that point I rather be where Parcel A is than where Parcel B is. Cardinal Point does well because it is more located on a Parcel A type of lot rather than pushed in the background and has modern architecture rather than a building converted to make due. But as Lauren I will reserve my judgments until I see actual plans or renderings.

    Comment by Joseph — July 9, 2014 @ 6:44 am

  2. I like the architect they selected for the Bachelor Enlisted Quarters; Salvatore Caruso has done a number of Historic Preservation projects. Though it seems like an odd combination to combine senior assisted living with student housing.

    Regarding the hotels and condominiums on the taxiway – this could be a great project to jump start development on the waterfront. It would be nice to know more about the developer’s vision; for example are they planning on developing four star hotels and who is the architect selected to design these hotels?

    Comment by Karen Bey — July 9, 2014 @ 7:04 am

  3. Remember what college dorm life was like? Wild parties, chair races up and down the hallways, nudity, sex , loud music, the sweet smell of pot? Yeah, they’ll get along just fine with the seniors. And they’ll all prob be issued a medical maryjane card just so they can tolerate the bland mushy food that most senior’s diets require. Maybe the pot will mellow them all out. Great idea!

    Comment by Not A Alamedan — July 9, 2014 @ 7:37 am

  4. When I become a senior who needs assistance please don’t put me in the BAQ…When I get to that point I rather be where Parcel A is than where Parcel B is.

    This. +1

    Although, Parcel B is closer to where all the alcohol is.

    Comment by Lauren Do — July 9, 2014 @ 9:22 am

  5. How can the same parcel of land (parcel A) be included in both an ENA, and in an RFQ for a developer to do a mixed use residential development?

    Comment by notadave — July 9, 2014 @ 9:22 am

  6. Just relooked at the map, the two are adjacent to each other, which raises even more questions. Since there is a limited amount of housing, and both projects are targeting residential development, it could be hard for the city to allocate how much each development gets.

    Comment by notadave — July 9, 2014 @ 9:25 am

  7. Just what we need a bunch of drunk seniors throwing things out window…just like old times when there were drunk sailors throwing stuff out windows. I can picture drunk seniors in the underware and socks on doing the Michael J Fox side he did in the movie Risky Business in the hallways…seeing who can slide the farthest. 🙂

    Comment by Joseph — July 9, 2014 @ 9:37 am

  8. You’ll be hearing from our attorneys!

    Comment by Tom Cruise's agent — July 9, 2014 @ 9:56 am

  9. 3
    I remember what life was like in those very same BEQ dorms since I lived in them in the 60’s and it was just like how you described it’s going to be in the 20’s…except back then we didn’t need a maryjane card, can’t wait to return.

    Comment by Jack — July 9, 2014 @ 10:26 am

  10. #6 NAD,

    The RFQ requires the Parcel A developer to build ” a minimum of 800 units” with a huge fee per unit if you go over. There is no conflict or apportionment. If AUC is pitching condos for this primo land, they’ll either be land banking the plots and capturing the value that is generated by the Town Center, or they’ll be making the case that the 400 remaining units that are not in the RFQ should all be built on this parcel. An argument nobody in the city has made to date, so it’s curious. During the RFQ discussion, staff argued for 800 units only so that there would be 200 for the BEQ and BOQ and 200 for Main Street development area. Additionally, there are four huge buildings in the taxiway area, so the likelihood that they are all going to be a hotel is low. Therefore, the “land-bank” concept appears to be the direction at first blush.

    Since the staff report has no real policy discussion, I hope that the issues of what is the proposed plan for the waterfront in terms of timing (since right-away seems impossible), how it fits into all of the planning that has been done and how that concept fits in with the city’s no-master-developer-so-the-city-reaps-the-value-capture-rewards strategy which would tend to be contrary to providing developers with prime land to just sit on while land value increases.

    The tension that this proposal appears to highlight is the interest in getting the BEQ off the city’s books while maintaining it and acknowledging that they are going to need to give away a lot of additional value to make it worth the developers while. One question I hope the council is going to consider is whether giving away some of the most prime real estate in the Bay Area is commensurate with preserving just that single building. Because with this proposal well over 60% of the lagoon waterfront will be tied up (google has everything west of it and with the RFQ, developers will tie up everything east to the corner of the lagoon. The only remaining developable waterfront will be the eastern edge of the lagoon, leaving the significantly less-easy-to-develop interior sites to develop after wards and support the remaining historic structures that can’t support themselves). This is a problem with the “develop everything at one time

    I’m not saying that staff haven’t considered this, but there’s no info on it in the staff report and it would seem to be core information to consider as a part of the public discussion in determining whether or not spending staff time on an ENA is worth it. (the only decision being made next Tuesday)

    Comment by jkw — July 9, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

  11. Preserving the point History ????? like if a drill camp , toxic and nuclear waste were worth saving . simply level everything send the debris to the oakland airport , so they can enlarge the runawy ll the way to Grant Street and let the “Bird” which has been so quiet lately , must be crawling every office at City Hall in search of support , not difficult to find since they have as much foresight as the broken bench in Washington Park.
    I love to be 20 years older and be able to see what Almeda look like , not going to be pretty …..
    let see 4000 residential plus commercial at the base
    200 more in Bay farm
    300 Crab Cove
    300 Clement street
    3 to 400 the Cannery
    200 by the Old Chevy’s
    150 at the foot of Fruitvale bridge
    200 at the Marina
    Most of those have been approved by the way .They conveniently forget to mention them .
    In order to service these 12000 new resident , not counting the 1000’s of office spaces planned , we will be required to upgrade the police station as it is too small , we will be required to upgrade or built a new fire station , No mention of either anywhere ,
    Based on actual and historical trend suplied by the Gov. that is 6050 additional vehicles leaving Alameda between 7 AM and 10.30 AM {not counting th 1000’s from office space , they all say the traffic impact will not be significant , better prohibit the bridges from going up during these hours , no closure for maintenance , never have any accident………
    Yes we have bicycles …….

    Comment by jack — July 10, 2014 @ 10:10 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.