Last week at Alameda Landing Panda Express opened up rather unexpectedly without much fanfare. No over the top grand opening like Safeway and no giveaways to lure people in. It was small and low profile and I was shocked to see it open so quickly because last time I peek inside Habit Burger was fully decked out and the interior of Panda Express was still closed.
But today Habit Burger is going to have it’s grand opening and in a very classy move it’s donating 100% of the proceeds from the first few days lunch and dinner rush to local non profits. Here’s the schedule if you want (1) burgers and (2) to give to a really good cause:
Very generous and awesome.
Also, with the slow trickle of openings and lease signings other businesses (not named right now) have been entering into negotiations with the leasing agency. At one point the business in “Lease Negotiations” at E2 had been named as Yogurtland. It’s not clear if it’s still Yogurtland or one of the many other yogurt type places but it’s still listed at QSR (quick service restaurant)-Yogurt.
There’s also been the addition, since last we looked at the leasing map, a QSR-Boba Tea. Both of these types of joints are perfect given the proximity to the College of Alameda. One of the larger spaces a 2nd floor space is being set aside for a “Salon” right now and speaking of that, looks like Alameda Landing might be getting its own nail salon as well.
What I am looking forward to is the possibility of the full service restaurant at Alameda Landing, I’m not sure what other quick service dessert places exist other than yogurt or ice cream shops, so we might be looking at two frozen treat places at Alameda Landing.
Also in other awesome West End news, there is an application to the Zoning Administrator to convert the Burger King on Webster Street to a possible Peets Coffee:
February 10, 2015
PLN15-0007 – 1901 Webster Street – Design Review and Administrative Use Permit – Applicant: MBH Architects. A rescheduled public hearing to consider the approval of exterior design and material modifications to an existing restaurant building (Burger King) for a new prospective tenant Peet’s Coffee & Tea. An Administrative Use Permit will also be considered to allow an outdoor seating patio and business operations beginning every day at 5:30 AM. The property is located within C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. This project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption and no additional environmental review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(a) – operation, permitting or leasing of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that which exists.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Converting the Burger King to a peets is great news. Probably can convert the gas stations on Webster as well now that the safeway gas station is open.
Comment by Scott — February 2, 2015 @ 6:34 am
I think it would be “very generous and awesome” if all the businesses at Alameda Landing paid a living wage of $15/hr.
Comment by Gerard L. — February 2, 2015 @ 9:28 am
@1: Why is a Peet’s better than a Burger King? Is Peet’s coffee more nutritious than Burgers? Or is it because you prefer the kind of people who hang out at Peet’s to hose who patronize Burger King?
(granted Alameda is letting too many burger shops open, just like the 99+ beauty shops/nail salons).
Comment by vigi — February 2, 2015 @ 9:37 am
Gerald L: it would be, perhaps we should urge the new Council to adopt a living wage minimum in the city of $15 per hour?
Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2015 @ 9:38 am
I was thinking a proposal for the City to adopt living-wage policy too…along with efforts at affordable housing.
Comment by Gabrielle Dolphin — February 2, 2015 @ 9:54 am
I would like to see Burger King converted…the last few times I have been there the place was empty…we had relatives staying with us from El Salvador for 3 months and the kids loved Burger King because they have it at home. Peets Coffee has a relationship with Alameda on Bay Farm, so it is somewhat supporting an somewhat Alameda corporate business. I personally don’t drink it because it is to strong. The only problem is getting in and out of there because it is on Pacific and there is no light there.
Comment by Jake — February 2, 2015 @ 10:43 am
Jake, its actually on Eagle and Webster, but you are correct in saying its hard getting in or out of that little street.
I’m all for a new Peet’s on Webster St.
Comment by John P. — February 2, 2015 @ 10:50 am
Lauren: I think as an important first step to a living wage my daughter and family intend to emulate our cousin/niece in working towards reducing the local voting age first.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/politics/students-in-maryland-test-civic-participation-and-win-right-to-vote.html
http://www.msnbc.com/up/watch/maryland-city-changes-voting-age-to-16-385711171630
Comment by Gerard L. — February 2, 2015 @ 11:23 am
Gerald L. two thumbs up for those links! Wood Middle School recently had their students “vote” in the last election and weighed in on municipal elections as well. The turnout for the Wood Middle School (54%) well exceed that of the city of Alameda.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2015 @ 11:29 am
a: Kudos to Habit Burger. Nice way to start a positive connection to the city.
b: Peet’s on West End will be an asset.
c: Minimum living wage of $15/hr – I’d support it if it provides better service and the majority of the workers are from the island. I’d hate to hear that huge sucking sound as wages earned in Alameda heads “down the tube.”
d: Local lowering of the voting age might just engage our youth. They’ll want to vote via their PS2’s from their bedroom insteading of going to the polls.
Comment by Basel — February 2, 2015 @ 12:47 pm
Gerald voting is not something to take as recreational fun , it affect the entire community and generation , 16 is pretty young to select the next man that will go to war , the main reason they want it at 16 “They are still in school in a controlled environment and very easy to influence ”
In short food for brain washing , beware of what you wish ……
Comment by arnold — February 2, 2015 @ 2:31 pm
Scotland allowed their 16 – 17 year olds to vote for or against Scottish independence, why shouldn’t 16 – 17 year olds be afforded the ability to vote for who should be their next Mayor or representatives on the School Board?
Comment by Lauren Do — February 2, 2015 @ 3:25 pm
I don’t think when you are 16 or 17 you would vote for who is popular and not who they think the best candidate is, but I could be wrong. The only reason I got involved in High School is because I had to take a civics class. My views were mostly that of my teacher or my parents. Most of them don’t have ID cards or Drivers License. In other countries kids learn responsibly a lot younger than in the US. I would think you would get less then 5% that would read the voters guide or even know what the issues are. Most 18 and 19 year olds don’t vote. I realize it is different in every family depending how you were raised. If all your friends that age were going to vote for 1 person and you liked someone else you would probably vote the same way as your friends. When I went to college I registered Republican because my parents were Democrats and I voted Republican if at all.
Comment by Jake — February 2, 2015 @ 4:08 pm
Asinine I say, totally asinine lowering the voting age to 16. If anything we should raise the voting age to 21 and require an essay test before allowing anyone but male property owners to vote.
As far as raising the minimum wage, great but the city’s citizens should pay by raising taxes to any affected business the difference between the official minimum wage and the “living” wage the citizens have decreed.
What the heck does Scotland have to do with Alameda?
Comment by jack — February 2, 2015 @ 5:42 pm
Alameda Point Collaborative – what a scam. It does nothing except enrich the ego and bank account of that crook Doug Biggs.
Comment by John McCann — February 2, 2015 @ 8:30 pm
Goodnight Druncles. Back to a discusion of lower voter age and higher living wage.
Comment by Gerard L. — February 2, 2015 @ 8:46 pm
GL, don’t know the difference between discussion and decree do you smart guy?
Comment by jack — February 2, 2015 @ 9:58 pm
I have posted thousands of blog comments and you are the first to respond with the compliment that I am a “smart guy”. Love and kisses.
Comment by Gerard L. — February 2, 2015 @ 10:33 pm
#15 wow that’s pretty close to actionable should Mr. Biggs seek redress through the courts: Mr. McCann: does Mrs. McCann know you’re spouting off with rants that can take you and yours to the cleaners?
Comment by anonymous — February 3, 2015 @ 1:49 pm
#15, WOW, I agree with anonymous, put up or shut up.
Comment by John P. — February 3, 2015 @ 2:36 pm
Yeah #15. Where did that come from? Rather mean and uncivil unless you know something that no one else in Alameda is aware of. And if you don’t, best not say stuff like that.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 3, 2015 @ 2:51 pm
“actionable”. can’t get blood from a turnip, particularly an anonymous one. Funny, the first person I think of when I see Doug Biggs libeled is somebody who would go to court in a good old New York minute, and in fact has, repeatedly, and lost. a sociopathic vegetable.
Comment by MI — February 3, 2015 @ 6:28 pm
Only Do know
Comment by jack — February 3, 2015 @ 6:51 pm
And Do don’t tell
Comment by jack — February 3, 2015 @ 7:32 pm
I’m pretty sure that’s not actionable. Not nice and certainly worthy of scorn, but not actually libel given the ambiguity of the statement and the fact that Biggs does indeed make money from the enterprise. “Crook” is problematic but probably not specific enough to take it out of the realm of opinion and then there’s the whole question of whether he is a public figure (sorry for even dignifying the comment, but libel is a really high bar).
If you want an example where the bar is/was much lower then take a look at Lauren’s October 20, 2014 post, “But seriously we all know there is only one person who both (1) hates Mike McMahon with the passion of 1000 burning suns and (2) begrudges any money at all going to the school district in the form of taxes. Name rhymes with the same action that made the decision to not place on the mailer who paid for and sent out the mailers in the first place.” Now if she was right than Lauren has no worries (truth is always a defense), but if she was wrong about who sent that flier then that there is actionable and a relatively easy case to prove. Damages would probably not pay the legal bills, but it would at least notch a win for the man who, apparently, hasn’t fared will in court (per MI)
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — February 3, 2015 @ 8:18 pm
Hmm, perhaps “people can be unreasonable” should go and read up on defamation posts that I wrote up the last time I was threatened with legal action by the same person. Public figure, opinion, platform for refutation and all that.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 4, 2015 @ 6:32 am
When one says “makes money off of”, it implies that that job is being done solely for taking money out of the enterprise. It does not sound like a salary, or God save us, a salary and benefits from hard work with people in most difficult situations and dire needs. APC is not a profit making enterprise. It is a social and economic development program. The comment was mean and nasty, meant to be mean and nasty, but likely not actionable.
Comment by Kate Quick — February 3, 2015 @ 10:54 pm
Great news about Peet’s Coffee coming to Webster Street! Hopefully this is the beginning of a new direction for Webster.
Comment by Karen Bey — February 4, 2015 @ 7:53 am
Lauren, I know all about that. But you crossed the line from opinion to a direct accusation in that post. Hope you are right and/or said person no longer feels like taking you to court. You blew your balancing act if you are wrong and he sues (notwithstanding all your posts).
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — February 4, 2015 @ 9:52 am
Public figure, opinion, platform for refutation. It’s really not that hard. If he could have sued me by now, I’m sure he would have.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 4, 2015 @ 9:55 am
Nothing wrong with Webster Street’s old “direction” except for the people who are trying to change its direction.
Comment by jack — February 4, 2015 @ 10:00 am
Great that you have such confidence. May I remind you who the Mayor of Alameda is (you wouldn’t have bet on that one either). Also, your defense of the Crab Cove stuff has been 100% off the mark as well (which in no small way contributed to your blindness to who was going to win the Mayorship). I like your self-esteem, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking you are always right.
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — February 4, 2015 @ 10:03 am
P.S. I think we both agree that Biggs doesn’t have a case despite what some of your commenters have suggested.
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — February 4, 2015 @ 10:04 am
Like Doug Biggs does not have a case, neither does our litigious friend. The difference is Doug Biggs understands that when he puts himself out there as a public figure he takes the good with the bad and doesn’t threaten lawsuits for every slight.
Comment by Lauren Do — February 4, 2015 @ 10:09 am
Unreasonable: you’re sounding as sinister and threatening as our local media mogul/tech entrepreneur/arrestee-for-alleged domestic violence, though you make fewer grammatical errors than he. People can be creepy.
Comment by BC — February 4, 2015 @ 10:25 am
I wish that people who make comments here would use their real names instead of hiding behind nicknames and aliases. Of course, a bit more civility might be nice, too. (Not that I am always effect, but I do try to be nice most of the time…)
I did not make it to Habit Burger or Panda Express yet, but neither one sounds as tempting as the local family-owned restaurants we usually patronize in both of our traditional business districts. My first experience with the latter–unfortunately, about the “healthiest” place to eat at an LA-area suburbanmall–was enough to relegate it to “if that’s all there is, I’ll eat it” status compared to established local restaurants that carry similar Asian cuisines…
Comment by Jon Spangler — February 4, 2015 @ 10:55 am
Jon I really wish you’d stop using your real name and choose a handle that no one knows so Jon can share his nice effect opinions without them being besmirched by Jon.
Comment by jack — February 4, 2015 @ 11:19 am
People Can Be Unreasonable and Creepy, calling somebody a stalker who goes around putting addresses of parcel tax supporters on a map or posts other personal information about people for the obvious purpose of intimidation, doesn’t seem all that big a stretch. On the other hand, the fact Biggs does “make money” from the enterprise hardly makes him a “crook”, it’s called a SALARY. But I’m sure you only do volunteer work and support your family by soliciting spare change on Telegraph Avenue. This is not about actionable, or civility for that matter. It’s about fucking creepy, AND maybe somebody who wants to play dirty pool but then whines about having the table turned or getting burned by his/her own actions. We can argue all day about egos, but there are lots of folks at the Collaborative who are no doubt grateful for what Doug does, no matter what his motive may be. Meanwhile a whole city stands to suffer because of a couple people who suffer delusions of grandeur.
Comment by MI — February 4, 2015 @ 12:59 pm
Mark: I don’t think the issue is Doug. It is more about bashing the poor. The Reagan welfare queen image that won’t die.
I think the civil discourse in Alameda has improved over the 20+ years I’ve lived here. I can’t even remember the last time I heard someone say: “Were you born in Alameda?”
The “couple of people,” laugh at them don’t yell at them.
Comment by Gerard L. — February 4, 2015 @ 2:35 pm
35. I haven’t been on this blog long enough to know who this ” local media mogul/tech entrepreneur/arrestee-for-alleged domestic violence,” Can you enlighten me on this dirtbag?
Comment by Alan — February 4, 2015 @ 4:13 pm
In the lexicon of this blog anyone who’s lived here over 30 years and isn’t a liberal/progressive is by definition a dirtbag.
Comment by jack — February 4, 2015 @ 5:26 pm
40. see https://laurendo.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/ink-blotter-part-2/
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — February 4, 2015 @ 7:04 pm
Hey Jack, I think I have a new alias for you. Just in case you want to go anonymous.
Comment by John P. — February 4, 2015 @ 7:04 pm
Is there anyway to stop receiving these emails?
Comment by Scott — February 4, 2015 @ 7:07 pm
Post #44, yes most definatly, turn off your computer and try reading a good book.
Comment by John P. — February 4, 2015 @ 7:19 pm
post #44, yes turn off your computer and go read a good book.
Comment by John P. — February 4, 2015 @ 7:20 pm
41. cry us a river Jack. By any measure that is a gross exaggeration, but what’s more, it is wildly Alamedian-centric delusion of persecution. This blog is about so much more than the cliched dismissal of old guard by liberal yuppies. However, I was at a meeting only a couple years back at the library where some of were talking before things got rolling ( can’t recall what the meeting was about) when vigi assessed me with disdain by rhetorically asking “How long have you lived here?” She was inferring that I was ignorant of the facts ’cause I was a newbie of some sort ( over twenty year resident at that point).
Comment by MI — February 4, 2015 @ 7:35 pm
vigi was right.
Comment by dirtbag — February 4, 2015 @ 8:43 pm
dirtbag, what is your threshold for earning the right to an opinion on Alameda issues, third generation or fourth ? We can’t all know everything, but I’ve put in enough time on enough issues to be confident enough not to be discouraged by you all. coming up on my silver anniversary.
Comment by MI — February 5, 2015 @ 5:14 pm
43/48
John P., MI didn’t get your new alias for me.
Comment by jack — February 5, 2015 @ 5:38 pm