Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 7, 2015

Different than before

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, City Council — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

I have not watched the City Council meeting yet, but from what I understand, it was a 5 – 0 against the repeal, which means that the Del Monte projects proceeds as normal.  That means that the person that placed the repeal on the agenda (Trish Spencer) couldn’t even support her own proposal and succeeded in wasting a whole bunch of time.  More on that after I actually watch the video.

So I figured out why the whole Tony Daysog and his issues with the Del Monte/Northern Waterfront TDM has been bugging me.   One, I realized — even though someone pointed this out to me a while ago — that Tony Daysog keeps calling TDM Traffic Demand Management.  TDM actually stands for Transportation Demand Management.  If you go in with the expectations that TDM should be solving traffic issues, they you will be forever unhappy with the TDM.   If you understand TDMs are simply a mechanism to helping people find alternatives to single occupancy driving, then you’ll be more open to TDMs in general.

The second thing I realized was that Tony Daysog never made a similar sized fuss when Alameda Point’s TDM came before the City Council for approval.  In fact, he effusively praised the TDM, from the minutes (but the minutes accurately reflect the video because I rewatched it):

Councilmember Daysog stated the TDM is a great forward step for Alameda Point which changes the behavior, culture and lifestyle of residents and employers; suggested future residents and employers be educated with a 20-minute discussion.

And, he voted to approve the TDM for Alameda Point.  Of course today, Tony Daysog will insist that he was unhappy with the Del Monte TDM because there weren’t enough penalties in the case that the development didn’t meet arbitrary benchmarks, but here’s the funny part.  The Alameda Point TDM addressed the whole idea of penalties, which is what Tony Daysog wanted to memorialize in the Del Monte TDM and it essentially concluded, there already is a built in penalty protocol, but we don’t think it’s necessary to spell it out in this document.  Which is the same message that staff had said during the Del Monte discussions, from the Alameda Point TDM:

The issue of whether the Plan should contain penalties for failing to achieve trip reduction goals was raised as part of the public process in preparing this Plan. The discussion included financial penalties such as increases in TMA taxes or membership dues, or fines for individual businesses or residential developments that failed to achieve reduction goals, but also included methods that rewarded or incentivized goal achievement in the form reducing TMA taxes or membership dues, etc. The approach recommended in this Plan is to allow the Plan to be self-enforcing, as proposed through annual monitoring, reporting and Plan refinement.

The monitoring and reporting element of the Plan requires that, should the monitoring show that the development is failing to achieve its trip reduction goals, the TMA and its members, commercial and residential entities, prepare and implement a refined Plan with new or substantially revised strategies, and continue to monitor the effectiveness of the changes. This requirement in itself constitutes a form of financial penalty since the cost of revising the Plan and introducing new strategies along with marketing and promoting the strategies can be an incentive to implement robust strategies in the initial Plan and avoid the cost of revising the Plan, or implementing more costly strategies.

It’s this sort of lack of consistency in voting and over all policy-making that makes it difficult to believe that there’s a whole lot of sincerity to Tony Daysog’s principled stances.   Mind you, this vote on the Alameda Point TDM happened in mid May of 2014 so that was a really short seven months to veer from thinking TDMs are great, even ones without penalties and holding up a much smaller development because there was an expectation that this TDM should be more than what TDMs are traditionally.

Advertisements

31 Comments

  1. Lauren, as Mike Henneberry (planning board president) said this was not about staff or anyone else getting things right it was about “politics”. I was reading Tonys smart voter Bio. it looks like he is on board with the present course on the base. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Boy this kitchen is getting hot.

    Comment by John P. — January 7, 2015 @ 8:36 am

  2. I’m going to be optimistic here (need the practice) and look at last night’s meeting as a sort of “family therapy on steroids” session. Everyone got to “share and be heard” and understands each other and alla dat stuff.

    Comment by greenefree — January 7, 2015 @ 9:31 am

  3. Since apparently TL Partners 1 spent the six o’clock hour before the 7 PM council meeting threatening the new Council with a lawsuit, the whole point of Agenda Item 6A was rendered moot. The anti-Trish Drama Queens had packed the meeting though. Long on emotion and short on facts, many of them seemed to be reading from the same script of talking points, no doubt handed out by the League of One-Note Voters. It is amazing how many people have moved to Alameda just to sit and watch a building they do not own and will never live in be developed. Also hilarious to hear how this “eyesore” and “blight” of a building needs to be developed to “preserve its historic character” (???). Hard to have it both ways.

    Comment by vigi — January 7, 2015 @ 9:53 am

  4. Our common welfare depends on a unity of purpose – differences to be sure – but a unity of overall purpose. There are three things I spotted last night – none of which I know enough about to speak with great authority. My opinion and two cents worth: we have 1) Issues 2) principles and 3) personalities. 1) The “issue” of Del Monte and planning Alameda’s course into the future remains on track. 2) The principle of “government of, by and for the people” remains intact even with the marked polarized interests of Alameda citizenry 3) The personalities: Ashcraft and Oddie – experienced and knowledgeable council members caring foremost to educate themselves in order to best lead our community. Matarese: experienced and knowledgeable, with ambition towards Mayorship – his work will be influenced to that end. Daysog: unbridled ambition, ego and a minimalist approach to facts that tosses him in the political wind like a whiffle ball. And the Mayor: her folks probably look a lot different to her from her position on the Dais – or not. Three possibilities: 1) Trish “comes to” and in doing so is the bridge between the foot-draggers and progressives cartwheeling Alameda into a new dawn of urban development. Or, 2) she’s recalled for her inexperience and inability to govern. 3) she steps down for undisclosed reasons – but mostly because the kitchen (as said above) is just too hot. I would hope for the first.

    Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — January 7, 2015 @ 10:20 am

  5. Vigi, the League is not in the business of telling anybody what to say, but it is transparent in sharing its opinions on matters of concern and if others feel the,same way, so be it. The facts were that no information, other than the old and the rescission ordinances were available for the public. No staff report, no information as to who put it on the agenda, no what are the impacts? , nothing. Nada. Why it was agendized is an important piece of information. Was it to stop the development? Give time for additional information? Just to let the matter be discussed by the New Council? (That was what Mayor Herrera Spencer said she was trying to do.) But if it were truly that, would not there be other ways to talk about it than to put a rescission ordinance on the agenda. We noted a serious lack of transparency. Many others picked up on that, too. Not rocket science.

    Comment by Kate Quick — January 7, 2015 @ 10:21 am

  6. Happy new year everyone!

    Vigi , you got that so right , if they were to project this into the movie theatre, people would pay and come out laughing ….until they got stuck in the Island trying to go to work !

    Comment by joel Rambaud — January 7, 2015 @ 10:22 am

  7. Kate , come on ! there has not been any transparency at City hall in over 20 years …..

    Comment by joel Rambaud — January 7, 2015 @ 10:25 am

  8. Transparency. noun. Politicians I like doing whatever they want

    Comment by Ambrose Bierce — January 7, 2015 @ 10:39 am

  9. What’s not rocket Science Kate……Is we don’t even know what the project is… The self back patters at the City failed in doing their work….Weak leadership and management would NOT have brought this to council for a vote …Taking something 80% of the way and having a concept is not something you bring up to vote for.

    Comment by Not Rocket Science — January 7, 2015 @ 10:41 am

  10. Blah blah blah…the previous city council aided by the city manager and city attorney set it up so that the city would get sued if they backed out now. The current council did the prudent thing under the circumstances.

    Comment by Breathless — January 7, 2015 @ 11:36 am

  11. Checking in on “Comments” and am quite taken by the bitterness expressed here. It helps?

    Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — January 7, 2015 @ 11:40 am

  12. What a complete waste of time last night. There was no new information toward stopping the Delmonte. Just the same folks saying the same things. This was all facilitated by a mayor that as a citizen complained about late meetings going on into the wee hours. Was it because she and her people didn’t get their way they held us all hostage?

    Comment by Al P — January 7, 2015 @ 12:25 pm

  13. I had hoped someone would have described more fully the “criminal behavior” the council would be guilty of if they. Voted against the repeal of the contracr with TLC. Can someone explain what the planning committee was supposed to have overlooked and why?

    Comment by Anne Spanier — January 7, 2015 @ 12:26 pm

  14. If I need a lesson Bitterness I will go our Spiritual Leader Gabrielle

    “unbridled ambition, ego and a minimalist approach to facts that tosses him in the political wind like a whiffle ball.”

    ” Mayor: her folks probably look a lot different to her from her position on the Dais – or not”

    What do you think the windbags like Jon Spangler looked like on TV

    Comment by Comedy Central — January 7, 2015 @ 2:39 pm

  15. Dear Comedy Central, I merely express my opinions, views and experience. Must it be a target? I am not a spiritual leader or giant or anything. Just a participating citizen in community…although my title is Rev. Dr. Gabrielle Dolphin

    Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — January 7, 2015 @ 3:49 pm

  16. Charlie êtes-vous

    Comment by jack — January 7, 2015 @ 6:21 pm

  17. Gabrielle Dolphin, if you are a Rev. or Dr. and a sensible person then this blog could destroy you. We are not “fair” and we are “unbalanced”

    Comment by John P. — January 7, 2015 @ 6:26 pm

  18. post #3, vigi, you are forever the “lunatic fringe”, but you are our “lunatic fringe” and we love you.

    Comment by John P. — January 7, 2015 @ 6:29 pm

  19. Uh, JP you need to sooth the lunatic fringe by holding a seance on the curvature of bricks.

    Comment by jack — January 7, 2015 @ 6:45 pm

  20. I missed the first city council meeting of the new council — was away with my granddaughter interviewing for high school, but I’m glad to hear that the repeal didn’t pass. Also glad to see that the majority of the speakers were against the repeal.

    Developing the Del Monte will be the best thing that has happened to Alameda in years!

    Comment by Karen Bey — January 7, 2015 @ 8:15 pm

  21. Yup, at least since we succeeded from Oakland.

    Comment by jack — January 7, 2015 @ 9:57 pm

  22. John P: thanks for your comment. I contemplated last night how easy it is to be drawn in; ego stung, and ol’ timey reactions get triggered to “prove” I’m “better than” someone else. I’m not and I’m guilty of same. We are like a bunch of raw pebbles tossed in a polishing machine. Our rough edges won’t be honed and shined up if we don’t knock against each other..right? By no stretch is this world (our town) easy. Yet still believe in being both in this world AND “of” it…and not sure there’s anything better to do than learn how to stand on my feet, declare who I am, and work daily on integrity. Is that sensible? Still finding out! :0) (P.S. like that “you’re our lunatic fringe and we love you!”) Thanks!

    Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — January 8, 2015 @ 9:42 am

  23. Polishing machine??? This blog? That’s about the funniest thing I’ve seen written here in ten years. These ‘raw pebbles’ will shatter each other way before they knock themselves into a shining stone.

    Comment by jack — January 8, 2015 @ 10:10 am

  24. Only if it coincides with a drag race or something at Alameda Point. Maybe the City can arrange for the opening to be scheduled on the same day as one of the those autocross events.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 8, 2015 @ 10:41 am

  25. Why thank you, Mr. Piziali! Uncommonly decent of you. I love you too!

    Welcome to the best blog in town, Gabrielle Dolphin! I suggest Dr. Dolphin adopt the nom de plume “Flipper”, otherwise the comments you write here will appear under a Google search of your name.
    But I don’t know why you would label Trish as “inexperienced” and Oddie as “experienced and knowledgeable”. Oddie has never held office before that I know of, although, granted, he already looks like a congressman. When it comes to experience, Tony Daysog seems to have the most elected years on the council dais, and a degree in urban planning to boot.

    Katie Q: Transparency? For starters, there is no plan whatsoever for Sherman Sub-area B or Eagle Sub-area C [the Del Monte land between the 2 planned traffic lights]. Apparently, anything from a 5-story apartment building to fallow land could end up there.

    Comment by vigi — January 8, 2015 @ 11:03 am

  26. Thanks Vigi “Flipper” :0) nice. My experience with the people of the Council is admittedly limited. I’ve watched Jim in the Dem Club, and working with Bonta and an issue closer to home, .and he seems to have a level of integrity and follow thru that signals “thumbs up” to this voter. Daysog, I’m learning his history and experience..but the performance he’s brought to Council chambers seems lacking and lack luster…NOT that I can judge. By no means and I say open. I am NOT privy to all that goes on in the lives and work of these brave folk who have stepped up to lead..just observing.

    Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — January 8, 2015 @ 11:29 am

  27. #26. All comments on transparency had to do with the Council process with respect to agendas and conduct of meetings. Not opinion or up or down thoughts on planning issues, which were another kettle of fish altogether. The “why are we doing this?” and “what are the impacts of this measure?” questions were not made evident by staff reports or any other document(s) attached to the agenda item, on line or in the hard copy packet at the library. It took over four hours to resolve, resulting in a 5-0 vote to not rescind the prior adopted ordinance.

    Comment by Kate Quick — January 8, 2015 @ 10:56 pm

  28. Lauren: It’s single *occupant* vehicle, not occupancy, but that’s a minor mistake that anyone could make, and of course, we know what you mean — right?

    I keep reading over the sentence “If you go in with the expectations that TDM should be solving traffic issues, they you will be forever unhappy with the TDM.” and laughing, in spite of myself. Absolutely everybody “goes in” with that expectation, that’s supposed to be the whole point of TDM, to encourage transit use and reduce the increase in traffic from new developments. That’s what we’ve heard over and over, from the former mayor, the city manager and everybody else. To ask whether TDMs will have any real success where traffic impacts are concerned makes perfect sense.

    And #4, the comments about Tony Daysog are just strange. He strikes me as a fairly modest person, and his request for a TDM study doesn’t exactly sound like “a minimalist approach to facts”. He’s asking for facts, right?

    I don’t get the comment on “foot draggers” either — as opposed to the enlightened progressives showing us the way, is that it? I lived in Berkeley a long time, I know progressives, they’ve done a lot of good but they can also be amazingly dumb when it comes to practical reality — like the suggestion that all houses have their roofs painted white to reflect more sun and minimize AC, never mind that nobody uses AC in Berkeley. Or how about replacing all the windows in older homes? Or putting commuters on buses — those large, articulated buses — and transporting them down to the waterfront where an endless fleet of exhaust belching ferries would transport them to SF, where of course everybody works.

    If by “progressive” you mean “smart growth”, please explain how that works on an island — minus the fleet of ferries.

    Comment by Darcy Morrison — January 10, 2015 @ 3:47 pm

  29. don’t know about progressive, but the enlightened thing to do is to pick a lighter color when replacing your roof. I don’t really like the color but I went from black to white-ish grey when I replaced our roof. Cities are huge heat sinks with all the cement, asphalt on streets and roofs. The collective effect is to hold a tremendous amount of heat.

    “On the hottest day of the New York City summer in 2011, a white roof covering was measured at 42 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the traditional black roof it was being compared to..”

    It’s an island too! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307185111.htm

    Comment by MI — January 10, 2015 @ 4:01 pm

  30. Since Tony reads blogs and has been known to comment I’ll assume he is reading this. Hi Tony. I am happy Tony has asked for clarification and further refinement of TDMs. It can’t hurt. I don’t find fault with your observation of modesty either, but there have a been a number of times where I have had problems with what I perceive as Tony posing in attempts to impress the public with how very, very earnest and very, very thoughtful he is. Enough already. At the last council meeting he attempted to convey I don’t know what by going on and on about what a big deal the Del Monte project is in terms of the quagmire of back pedaling on a development agreement. I think I do know what, he was apologizing to the people who wanted repeal. I’d have to go back and transcribe the term he used, but I kind of agree with the wind and whiffle ball reference in #4.

    Comment by MI — January 10, 2015 @ 4:21 pm


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.