Blogging Bayport Alameda

April 20, 2015

Weekday update

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, Business, City Council, Development — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

These periodic Alameda Point updates are generally super helpful to follow along if (1) you’re new to all this or (2) you conveniently forget what has already happened and what plans have been presented thus far.

There’s a whole section on the commercial portions and business stuff which (most) people seem to want and don’t have a lot of objections to.  Of course I caveat that with “most” since as we saw from the whole WETA facility discussion apparently there are people in Alameda who don’t want business and ended up voting against the approvals to pave the way for the WETA facility which would bring with it many jobs in the form of construction jobs first and foremost and then maintenance and administrative jobs once the complex is complete.

But, I digress, anyway good update on the whole project overall, but I wanted specifically to highlight the information about the housing because that’s the stuff that the community tends to have strong feelings about.

From the staff report:

  • Of the 800 units, approximately 630 of the units will be in stacked flat buildings over parking and approximately 170 of the units will be in attached townhomes and row houses.

  • To create a comfortable transition between the adjacent Bayport neighborhood and the commercial center at the Seaplane Lagoon, the height and residential density of the eight residential blocks increases along RAMP and across Site A from Main Street to the Seaplane Lagoon. The blocks facing Main Street and the Bayport neighborhood are the lowest density blocks with three-story townhomes. The blocks closest to the Seaplane Lagoon and the commercial center of the project will provide space for the higher density multifamily housing units with up to six-story buildings that will support the commercial uses and waterfront activities.

  • To provide for a mixed income, transit orient community, the Site A Development Plan ensures that 200 of the 800 units (25%) are to be restricted to very low-, low- and moderate-income households. The other 600 units will be market-rate units.

  • One hundred twenty-eight (128) of the 200 affordable units will be permanently restricted for very low- and low-income households. The very low and low income units will be constructed by the nonprofit affordable housing developer, Eden Housing, in two buildings on a shared podium on Block 8 in the first phase of the development. Eden Housing will also provide long-term property management.

  • Eden Housing is exploring two possibilities for the project. In one scenario, all 128 units are designed for family housing, in the second scenario, 50% of the units (approximately 64 units) are designed for low and very low income seniors. In addition to the 128 very low- and low-income units on Block 8, the Site A development will include 72 moderate income units that will be dispersed throughout the market rate buildings on the other residential blocks.

Eden Housing is the non-profit affordable housing developer.

Alameda Point Partners has already sought a waiver from Measure A based on the Density Bonus ordinance, but in a twist they are not asking for any additional density bonus units to be awarded, only the Measure A waiver.

Just to make perfectly clear, APP will be using the Density Bonus application not to get additional market rate units to build because they are already providing 25% affordable units only to get a waiver from Measure A.  There’s the full application at the agenda item link.

By the way, I’m always consistently impressed by the detail of these staff reports.  Ostensibly it’s for the benefit of the public, but if it can help keep some of the members of the City Council informed as well, win!


  1. The senior housing is smart, practically and politically. Seniors drive less, and if it sways some older folks to support the project, it just might be enough to get us that 4th vote.

    Comment by BMac — April 20, 2015 @ 8:49 am

  2. The rental housing is much-needed, no matter how it is apportioned. As Lauren pointed out in her April 13 post, “Supply and Demand,” Alameda–like many Bay Area communities–has overbuilt single-family homes and underbuilt or restricted multifamily housing for decades:

    If our supposedly well-informed City Council cannot or will not produce four votes to proceed with Alameda Point Partners’ Site A proposal, they are not acting in the best interests of almost half of Alameda residents–myself included–who are in dire need of additional rental housing opportunities and are being held hostage by landlords who control an artificially-constrained resource: rental units.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — April 20, 2015 @ 12:47 pm

  3. The Alameda Renter’s Coalition has posted an online survey asking for Alameda respondents who have been either forcibly evicted or had to move within the past three years due to extreme rent increases. (They have heard from renters who were facing increases of 22-35 per cent, sometimes in successive years.) The poll is here:

    The ARC is attempting to document the degree to which steep rent increases have driven renters from
    their Alameda homes, since there are no public agencies tracking this trend.

    Please respond to the link above if you or anyone you know has had to move due to either of these conditions.

    For more information, please contact Angela Hockabout at the Alameda Renters Coalition: |

    Comment by Jon Spangler — April 20, 2015 @ 1:39 pm

  4. RE 3: Sorry the link did not copy or translate well. Try this for the Alameda Renters Coalition’s Displaced Renters Survey:

    Comment by Jon Spangler — April 20, 2015 @ 1:42 pm

  5. Do you want to know the truth, is I have known Jon Spangler for years. I never realized he was a renter and most of those years he rode the ferry he didn’t say hi. He wants me to support his survey but he has no idea who I am…he just doesn’t want higher rent. Of all the crazy bastards, I know Jack and I spent time listening to him. Do I want higher rent…that should be up to the people who own the property. Should they build higher density most likely. And is Jon as crazy a Jack probably so. Jon why didn’t you buy years ago? I worked at places such as gas stations, McDonalds, cleaning bathrooms, fighting fires, a few other places so I could get what I have…you rode a bike? So tell me why you should have cheap rent when I worked so hard and if you see me on the ferry tomorrow will you will not say hi? What is wrong about Gilmore is she didn’t put her self out there…what is wrong about Spenser she doesn’t have a clue…they probably wrong for being Mayor…Tony would be a mistake because he is sorta in the closet and the Frank and Doug are too old, Jim may fit, and Ezzy would probably be the best. When you get rid of the old guys and Ezzy become mayor who will be left…Jim maybe, Tony maybe but he needs to come out of the closet, I would like to see someone on the West End…

    Comment by Jake. — April 20, 2015 @ 8:06 pm

  6. For the record, that survey is not “Jon Spangler’s” survey- it is being promoted by the ARC and many people have been asked to put it out there so that the best data can be gathered. A lot of people are being hurt in this community and good data is required. Of course, as we all know- you have a clear track record of considering renters as second class citizens- all due to your saintly and apparently perfectly lived life which you have told us many, many times. I presume you assume that renters have never worked hard or held multiple jobs or gotten degrees, live on food stamps or whatever. Some days you sound a lot like Vigi-

    Comment by libarycat — April 21, 2015 @ 7:53 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: