Blogging Bayport Alameda

September 29, 2014

Here I am with open house

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

Tonight there is an Open House to meet the developers that have been selected to start the process of possibly being able to actual start developing something at Alameda Point.   You’ll be able to meet the finalists for Site A and Site B.  The meeting will be at the Alameda Main Library (which according to #2 son smells like a hotel, I believe this was phrased as a compliment) and starts at 5:30 p.m. and will end at 8:30 p.m.   There will probably just be informal tables and such so you’ll be safe coming in during those hours to relentlessly grill the developers if you wish.

The City Council is slated to be there because the City send out one of those special meeting notices when the City Council is going to all be in the same room together so you know what that means.  That’s right: all the other candidates running for office will also be there, so expect to see the folks running for office pressing the flesh and acting like they have some clue about what the heck is going on.  Essentially this will turn into some pseudo-campaigning event, fun?

Refresher map of the location:

AP sites


The finalists for Site A are Brookfield  and Alameda Point Partners. (Those are links to their responses, FYI, not their websites).   And the finalists for Site B are: Catellus and Mission Bay Development Group.

I think the candidates who are trying to push the whole: OMG too much housing and jobs should come first! Will be interested in what the two finalists for Site B have written in their Site B responses.  Site B, of course, is the all commercial no residential sector of Alameda Point.  From the Catellus proposal:

Successful execution of the mixed use/residential development in Site A will continue to help drive user demand in Site B and the Enterprise Sub-District. A look at the nature of businesses and industries which are developing in today’s economy reveals that locational decisions regarding high tech and bio-tech growth are influenced by a number of factors, including the availability of nearby housing. Housing is not just an attractor by virtue of the numbers of units, but by the ability to establish a strong sense of neighborhood – the kind of place to live that is attractive to young, entrepreneurial residents and families and that differentiates itself and creates the kind of urban livability setting that is so desirable. Attracting employment to an area is also influenced by the availability of an interesting and sociable environment that not only provides the necessary local-serving needs of a community, but also has an eclectic and unconventional charm that distinguishes it from other places. A strong connection to the bay as a recreational and open space amenity is a characteristic of Alameda Point, but it needs to be brought in and directly connected to the life of the community and made an integral part of the lifestyle that is offered. [emphasis added]

Mission Bay Development Group echoes this sentiment:

While the land uses within Site A are housing-focused, we view that housing component as critical to establishing a vibrant retail district at the waterfront – one which creates the kinds of amenities that will attract new employers and increase the number of jobs at Alameda Point.

The two finalists for the commercial and therefore the job-centric development portion of Alameda Point have both stated that without the housing component attracting the type of employers that I think most people want is much tougher.  It’s not a coincidence that tech companies have flocked to service rich San Francisco.  And neither Catellus nor Mission Bay Development Group were selected as finalists for the Site A (more residential) project so it’s not like they have monetary stake in the residential portion of Alameda Point getting built.   Anyway, something to consider when you start hearing candidates talk about eliminating residential altogether from future Alameda Point plans with the exception of rehabbing the Big Whites and fixing current APC housing.


  1. If anyone goes ask both Catellus and Mission Bay Development Group their relationship with Hawk Engineering being an expeditor on the Mission Bay project and how they paid millions of $ to them and how the person who owns and runs Hawk Engineering worked fairly high up for the city of SF.

    Comment by Illegal? — September 29, 2014 @ 8:56 am

  2. well, “illegal?” why don’t you go and ask your questions yourself? I for one do not get what you are talking about or how it is important to Alameda.

    Comment by vigi — September 29, 2014 @ 10:07 am

  3. tangent alert! vigi, I believe we lost a U.C. development in Alameda to Mission Bay back in the 1990s. Willie Brown was pulling lots of strings on that project. Hawking may not be directly relevant to our projects, but if you compare S.F. politics to Alameda, the accusations of “corruption”, often by what Lauren refers to as “OMG too much housing…” people, are laughable. And no dave run of the mill campaign contributions like IAFF don’t count here. If people are really certain that Alameda politicians are benefiting directly and inappropriately from developers (other than campaign contributions) I wish just once somebody would connect some dots.

    The article in Alameda magazine this month which discusses Sullwold and Howard’s claims that there is a dearth of candidates because the political colossus of IAFF has intimidated everybody is simply ludicrous. IAFF influence has been consistent though they seem to have ramped things up a bit as they have more at stake. The number of aspirants for office ebbs and flows, but name recognition may have the most to do with who wins. If Frank wins and Jim Oddie does not, what will that mean for the claims that IAFF runs the show? With the three candidates for two seats the implications of the outcome should be extremely clear.

    It was great that in the article Howard, the veritable Lee Atwater of Alameda creepy politics, is quoted saying how the rough and tumble arena of politics keeps people from running. As if he laments that and hasn’t contributed directly.

    Comment by MI — September 29, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

  4. Don’t equate me to Howard! Thems fightin’ words!

    Comment by Lee Atwater's ghost — September 29, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

  5. “IAFF…seems to have ramped things up a bit”.?… is that why 8 different fires were set over the weekend? No, just kidding. I’ve Been watching too many Breaking Bad re-runs.

    Comment by vigi — September 29, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

  6. 4. don’t worry, Howard will never record with B.B. King. I doubt he even plays an instrument.

    5. ramp up is of course reference to political activity in the face of having to pay increased contributions to retirement, but whoever was on call earned their pay Saturday night. The fires were set in somewhat of a ring around our place and with the window open listening to the sirens was pretty weird.

    on topic. wandered to library at about 6:30 tonight. in and out in less than sixty seconds. The new street lamps and trees on Park are looking good.

    Comment by MI — September 29, 2014 @ 7:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at