Blogging Bayport Alameda

April 17, 2015

CREAM sh-boogie bop

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Business — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

This is probably the first time I’ve been really concerned about the viability of a specific small local business.  Yesterday while visiting Alameda Landing I noticed sign with a cookie ice cream sandwich on the window and language about Facebook liking.  Upon further inspection it appears that CREAM (Cookies Rule Everything Around Me) is coming to Alameda.  It’s (essentially) the model that Cookiebar borrowed, pick your own cookies and pick your own ice cream to make your own ice cream sandwiches.

Fortunately for CookieBar it has some really interesting flavors (Vietnamese Coffee is yum!) and is making its own ice cream.  Let’s hope the West End is big enough for two cookie ice cream sandwiches.

Another addition to Alameda Landing according to the “coming soon” fliers on the windows is Orange Theory Fitness which is some sort of work out thing.  According to Men’s Journal it’s some sort of group personal training thing which, personally, just sounds exhausting:

Orangetheory members take 60-minute group classes that rotate through high-intensity intervals, while running on treadmills, indoor rowing, suspension training (like TRX), and using free weights. Everyone wears a heart rate monitor to make sure he or she spends at least 12 to 20 minutes in Zone 4/5, otherwise known as the “Orange Zone,” or 84 percent or higher than your max heart rate. These intense intervals then lead to something called EPOC, excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, or when your body eats up more oxygen and calories in the 24 to 36 hours after you work out, thereby increasing your overall fat burn.

It will be interesting to see if it can co-exist next to the existing athletic club, but very well might be if it offers a much more affordable alternative.


  1. So after the Workout you could hit up CREAM and In-N-Out.

    Comment by frank m — April 17, 2015 @ 8:32 am

  2. I like that “work out then CREAM” routine! I think Tucker’s will always be the Alameda flagship Ice Cream Parlor. It’s got deep history and involvement at all levels in our community – it has a “feel” that anything new would be hard-pressed to duplicate. For starters, it would have to be around tor 20+ years…and be located in one of the historic shopping districts etc. I wish anyone well who attempts a business. It is not for the faint of heart. And as for Orange Theory? I have a similar feel about the old Athletic Club as Tuckers. It’s got history, programs for seniors, adults, kids, disabled etc. A hard pressing Zone 1-5 60 minute military ordeal will be fine for the younger generation we seek to invite to the community (those riding bikes and ferries and buying new housing on the Island) but this is a growing, up-and-coming demographic settling into our Island could well cater to that specific market share. Can’t imagine either new businesses popping our old-timer balloons…if that makes sense. Have a beautiful Friday everyone and Happy Earth Day Celebrations.

    Comment by Gabrielle — April 17, 2015 @ 9:29 am

  3. I was told yesterday that the ice cream shop on Webster was started by some young people who grew up and went to school in Alameda. As for Tuckers, even though they are an “institution”, I just think their ice cream is too sweet and there is a cloyingly sweet smell when you are near the store. I am a Fenton’s person.

    Comment by Elaine — April 17, 2015 @ 9:55 am

  4. Tucker’s has always been overpriced, it’s too dark inside, the bus fumes spoil the atmosphere, and there’s no place to park. Loard’s Rules in Alameda! Halo Halo sundaes and Ube purple ice cream on the Beach. However, FENTON’s is probably the best ice cream parlor in California. If there wasn’t always a line out the door and around the block, I’d go there more often. Fenton’s needs valet parking.

    Comment by vigi — April 17, 2015 @ 10:06 am

  5. “Valahalla? Pff – smelled like goat, bonfire smoke got in my eyes, ambrosia too sticky.” -vigi

    Comment by ajryan — April 17, 2015 @ 11:45 am

  6. Well the good news in this is I guess, there’s a place for everyone’s taste!

    Comment by Gabrielle — April 17, 2015 @ 12:41 pm

  7. Cookie Bar already vanquished Wes Cafe’s Ice Cream parlor attempt, so, I like their chances of at least surviving.

    Comment by BMac — April 17, 2015 @ 1:56 pm

  8. In my opinion Tucker’s is one of the most popular ice cream parlors in Alameda. They have the long lines to prove it, and the shop itself is very charming. They’ve done a very nice job on the decor. Besides from the quality of their ice cream, it’s location makes it a perfect stop for desert after dinner or a snack before or after a movie.

    Comment by Karen Bey — April 17, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

  9. Took my daughter to Alameda Point for her first driving lesson this week, and she gets pulled over in a parking lot. Not by one of Alameda’s finest but by a George Zimmerman wannabe working for the city.

    My daughter did not react well to GZ-Wannabe threatening to call the real police. I am emphatic that this GZ-Wannabe should have had no contact with my daughter or any other child in Alameda. If he expected a crime was being committed he should have called the police like any other non-vigilante would do. Probable cause, presumed innocence, and a city-hired GZ-Wannabe. Definitely not a healthy environment to raise a young adults.

    Never spoke to anyone at the city just got a 4 minute voice mail after contacting the city manager’s office. Non-coherent for the most part. Recent side-show activity (as in scary black people), people drive their cars into buildings, people shouldn’t drive in parking lots because of the hazards of driving in parking lots, and those parking lots may be leased to private businesses and we can’t afford signs to let GZ-Wannabes what is and is not a public parking lot.

    I think the word liability was used 25 times, and by the end of the voice mail it was clear that Alameda Point’s security guards and not my daughter’s driving was the poorly managed liability.

    GZ-Wannabes now decide who has the privilege to visit Alameda Point.

    Enjoy the ice cream.

    Comment by Gerard L. — April 17, 2015 @ 7:47 pm

  10. East end, Tuckers, Webster St. Cookie Bar. sorry Cream.

    Comment by John P. — April 17, 2015 @ 9:43 pm

  11. I’m just glad there are no “GZ-wannabees” from Alameda Point despoiling the (apparently toxic-fumed–who knew?) atmosphere at Tucker’s that I love so much. I enjoyed a mid-day scoop of some of the “last of the season” Alameda Honey ice cream on their trademark waffle cones the other day–without any orange-level cardio workout, although I did ride my bike to Park Street. (BTW, there are no lines on weekdays at noon.)

    Comment by Jon Spangler — April 17, 2015 @ 11:26 pm

  12. Jon: Yes I am teaching my daughter to drive a car.

    She has also peddled her bike from Alameda to her Grandma’s house in Fremont @ 12 years old.

    Enjoy your ice cream.

    Comment by Gerard L. — April 18, 2015 @ 12:43 am

  13. Way to go and do it Gerald !
    Jon in all your missions as a bike safety expert I have not seen any post anywhere up until this very one from myself ” ;-} ” asking why since we are calling on safety for bicycle , the Fruitvale bridge does not have a bike path , they actually incorporated a chicane to make it very hard for bike to use , Just saying , I see every day and night cyclist next to 18 wheelers and car which do not give them space and cannot because the lanes are too narrow , I sincerely hope that as a safety expert you do challenge the County …..
    All of them go to the BART station .
    Jon you Tuckers Ice Cream are not made in Alameda just sold here …….

    Comment by Joel Rambaud — April 18, 2015 @ 7:39 am

  14. So it seems this man is just doing his job as he has been instructed by his bosses who have been hired by the City. I imagine that he doesn’t get paid very much. He informed you of the CITY POLICY and after explaining the limits of his authority ‘threathened’ to call the Police. You come on the Blog and refer to him as a ‘GZ wantabee’. Outrageous. Get a Life.

    Comment by frank m — April 18, 2015 @ 7:59 am

  15. Frank:

    You obviously misunderstood my post. My point was that the city should not by hiring $10/hour GZ-Wannabes to provide police services.

    Security at County leased buildings in our City is provided by the Sheriffs department. Alameda Point should be the same. Public property secured by a public police force.

    CITY POLICY… some GZ-Wannabe gets to decide you has the privilege of visiting Alameda Point.

    Dad standing up for his daughter’s rights, outrageous.

    A $10/hour GZ-Wannabe working for our community development department and I need to get a life? At $10/hour, I imagine my life would include a variety of public assistance programs.

    I think my city needs a better community development department before I am going to have a better life.

    Comment by Gerard L. — April 18, 2015 @ 9:33 am

  16. Sorry Gerard, but your daughter or anybody else’s daughter or anybody period has the right to wheel around parking lots learning to drive. Spend your $10 and enroll her in driving lessons.

    Comment by jack — April 18, 2015 @ 10:02 am

  17. If the city has to resort to private security guards for economic reasons, it would be nice if they had some good training, but at $10/hr. I suspect this guy didn’t “wannabe” there at all, let alone having had hours and hours of training.

    I came out of Safeway this week at Southshore at about 9:30 pm on foot and looked up to see a uniformed security guy. I didn’t verbalize but made direct eye contact and nodded some acknowledgement, not unfriendly, but the dude’s face remained impassive. He was African American, I am white. He is in uniform doing a job, I am Joe Blow, lost in thought doing a late shop, one of hundreds of people this guy see in his shift. No accounting for what thoughts or emotions were going through his head or the countless dozens of folks who he comes across. I imagine the possibility of dozens of little micro-aggressive interactions. The entire purpose of his presence is the possibility others are up to no good. Nothing like doing a job which makes you uptight just top be there.

    Out at the Point it is more isolated. Having to confront somebody according to job description is likely to get adrenaline going. We taught two kids to drive in the lot directly to the north of the road as you enter east gate. It was very benign and the lot is very exposed, not secluded, so I get Gerard’s frustration. Can imagine a lot of scenarios which are just unpleasant. Don’t know where you were Gerard, but was so called GZ uniformed or in a marked vehicle?

    Comment by MI — April 18, 2015 @ 10:13 am

  18. Here Gerard, you can be a GZ too.

    Comment by jack — April 18, 2015 @ 12:15 pm

  19. Jack, I scanned that link and didn’t see anything about side arm. Gerard has invoked GZ which to me implies a gun, but I didn’t initially think about that. I don’t believe the guy at Southshore was armed, but it was dark and it was not in my mind. The job qualifications at Universal Protection Services do include “running” and “climbing ramps and stairs”. I think APD are better trained but it has become apparent lately, undeniable actually, that many real police simply shoot instead of pursue, at least depending on ones complexion. Insert gratuitous doughnut comment here. BTW- I respect well trained and conscientious law enforcement, who take on about the most serious job responsibilities there are, and thank them publicly.

    Comment by MI — April 19, 2015 @ 10:25 am

  20. #19 Good CYA comment at the end, Mark. After all, APD regularly monitors this blog.

    Comment by vigi — April 19, 2015 @ 1:22 pm

  21. Frankly vigi, I comment without regard to who reads, as if the audience was just those of you who comment. I don’t mean disrespect to anybody who doesn’t deserve it so it’s not really CMA move. I’ve called APD non-emergency more than my share on noise and have been treated fairly with my moving violations.

    The broader culture of racism and police violence in this country is what it is. It’s interesting that we had our little racial incident twenty years ago and now it is a big department in liberal city like SF which is in turmoil. My son’s Little League Coach was San Leandro officer. I have no problem with police, so respect is sincere. But let’s not forget Oscar Grant, Michael Brown, Walter Scott, Eric Harris, etc.

    Comment by MI — April 19, 2015 @ 3:09 pm

  22. Gerard — just keep to the streets and out of the parking lots at the Point and you likely won’t be hassled. They can control access to the parking lots but can’t control access to the streets without probable cause. I recently taught my daughter to drive out there and we never had a problem because we stayed out of the lots.

    P.S. Watch out, Alameda! She just got her driver’s license.

    Comment by Oh the Irony! — April 20, 2015 @ 10:52 am

  23. It’s nice to have a nice big lot to teach manual transmission, but there are streets with pretty sparse traffic.

    Comment by MI — April 20, 2015 @ 3:06 pm

  24. I don’t know if I read 20. correctly but I took it to say I may have been sucking to police up to cover my ass. That observation comes from somebody who using a handle which is short for “Alameda vigilante” right? I take it your vigilance is verbal and doesn’t extend to physical realm vigi, or do you also sport a sawed off axe handle for pummeling liberals ?

    Anyhow, the comment causes me to take the digression from ice CREAM to policing a bit further. I had just emailed somebody my thoughts on police chief yesterday before I spotted 20. As vigi points out, and Rob Siltanen also asserted in his comment regarding meeting for Central Ave road diet/bike infrastructure, people in positions of authority may read this blog. Tony Daysog obviously does. I have also had sitting council persons mention my comments on occasion. A previous police chief also posted comments here in response to threads which related to his department, and that was very welcome. Was that Walter Tibbet? I don’t recall it being Michael Noonan but it may have been.

    In any event, I see current Chief Paul Rolleri was born and raised in Alameda and has been on the force for some time, so I’m sure he has a good feel for this town. I have three areas of concern with regard to policing in Alameda under his purview.

    1. When Chief Rolleri spoke at the workshops on license plate scanners I got a real sense that his first priority is maximizing the departments ability to solve crime using every available tool. I appreciate that, but I was a little bewildered by the level to which he embraced plate scanner in terms of eschewing the concern of citizens regarding privacy. I get that retaining the scanned information for long periods maximizes the likelihood the information may render itself useful, but I’m curious what the statistics might be regarding how rapidly that likelihood declines over time. I would be happy with zero retention time for scans, limiting the system response to hits on a current hot list only. This is how the scanners are implemented in New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die” state. We were told during the meeting that scanning in San Leandro had recently lead to a number of stolen cars, and if I recall correctly, some were from Alameda. The system was ultimately ratified and implemented with six month retention. I am curious to know if there has been a review of the efficacy of the system, with specific regard to ratio of hits over time. While I am not a conspiracy person with great concerns for the system being abused, the issue is really the potential. It was unsettling that a rep from the regional federal entity through which this data is coordinated initially denied there being any connection to NSA, which ultimately was a false statement. Vigi referred to him as a “narc” in comments on this blog and I concur with her sentiments about that individual. I was impressed that Chief Rolleri is completely earnest in his concern to maximize APD’s ability to protect Alameda, but that simply isn’t good enough with regard to privacy.

    2. Also under Chief Rolleri’s purview: The arrests after the arson. The day after the incident the Chief was quoted as saying that the department had reason to question the alibi of suspect Stephen Peterson against whom charges were eventually dropped. When the County D.A. filed the charges, Mayor Gilmore wrote a letter stating that should the suspects be found guilty they should essentially have the book thrown at them. When I contacted her to complain that the case against Stephen Peterson seemed questionable, and he was languishing in Santa Rita, Mayor Gilmore reminded me that the D.A. had seen fit to file changes based on police investigation and that the case was ongoing. While it is correct that care must be taken with “ongoing” investigations, there are no clear cut lines for how much information can be divulged, i.e. there is no automatic gag rule. It is a judgement call. Charges were eventually dropped yet we have never gotten any details of why they were initially filed. We know Peterson is allegedly an animals rights activist and a vegan. We know that militant animal rights activists have committed arson, but no details about this investigation have ever been released, that I am aware. Fortunately for the City, Peterson does not appear to be litigious. I understand that Peterson was rearrested, but those charges were unrelated and I haven’t heard any details on that case either.

    3. The third issue is admittedly minor, but I’m including it. The Chief appeared at Council meeting to lobby authorization to apply for grant money to help acquire a replacement for the current police boat. The department didn’t proffer a brochure with a generic model of any boat or cite the model of the current boat to be replaced nor was the chief willing to speculate on even a ball park cost for new boat. This was an issue of contention in that Mayor Spencer wished to quibble over costs, as she is want to do. The chief responded that he could not name a price range until he knew how much he would have to spend. Frankly that seemed a little lame. I don’t believe the amount spent on the current boat was ever alluded to. I forget if there was a target amount for the grant application, but $80,000 is a number that pops into my head. That amount may be completely erroneous. My point is that the appropriate boat for the job shouldn’t be determined by cost. It’s one thing if there is not enough money for a big enough boat, but how would a cost conscious member of the public mayor gauge that ? This may seem like a nit pick, but I’m picking it.

    I’d be happy for the Chief, council persons, interim or exiting City Manger to comment.

    Mark Irons

    Comment by MI — April 20, 2015 @ 4:52 pm

  25. MI: I can’t really speak to 1 or 2, but I watched the City Council on issue 3 and I believe that the reason why the Chief couldn’t give a ball park price on the boat is because he indicated that he didn’t feel comfortable shopping around for a police boat — and therefore giving a price — if the City Council opted to not even give authorization to apply for the grant for the police boat in the first place.

    The grant would pay for $x toward the boat and $x was to be determined if they were able to put in an application for the police boat. As mentioned by the Chief the issue would come back before the Council with a total cost if the grant was secured to discuss the delta between the cost of the boat and the cost covered by the grant and the City Council could still — at that time — opt to not move forward with accepting the grant and therefore purchasing the boat if they elected not to. I may be speculating but it sounds as though there’s a lot of wiggle room in the world of police boats — new or used, big or small — so depending on the amount of the grant in order to not expend any City money on the boat the Chief might choose to go old and used to allow the grant amount to cover the cost.

    I think attaching a cost to the boat would have been premature at that time because then if he had low balled then the more “nitpicky” members of the Council could have came back and said, “whoa wait a minute, you said it would cost $x and now it’s costing $y, you misled us!”

    Comment by Lauren Do — April 20, 2015 @ 5:11 pm

  26. The new boat is on tomorrow’s council agenda. basically $200k out the door, after tax. I think the $80k is the grant portion.

    Comment by BMac — April 20, 2015 @ 5:44 pm

  27. Lauren, BMac was the grant for $x, or $80K. (if $80K is grant then my memory isn’t completely shot). Total cost, $200K, $500K ? who knows? I expressly recall the chief saying he couldn’t speak to the cost until he knew what he had to spend. That still does not make much sense. So they got the $80K grant, and then went out a bought a $200K boat ? Is that because they knew they had $120K available in their budget? NO amounts were alluded to. Like I said, it was not a big deal, but seemed convoluted, not real transparent. If they’ve bought a new boat, there was no real reason not to have had specific information about make model and cost.

    Comment by MI — April 21, 2015 @ 8:55 pm

  28. 28 I guess I must have pissed someone off when, on Friday 4/17/2015, I wrote “vigi” in the newly-exposed sand at the NW corner of the seaplane lagoon beach. No one was there to ask me to leave. Sorry, Frank!

    Comment by vigi — April 23, 2015 @ 4:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: