Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 8, 2015

The eagle site has landed

Filed under: Alameda, Development, Public Resources — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

I’m hopeful that this will be an easy agenda item to get through because it’s so needed, actually even if the housing market wasn’t as bad as it is now, this sort of housing is always in short supply.  But, given the conflict over the old Island High school site in the past and the desires of the neighborhood for that spot to be open space, I’m anticipating conflict (and a recusal from one of the Planning Board members who lives in that neighborhood).

Tonight at the Planning Board, staff is presenting the Housing Authority’s plans for a housing development on the old Island High site.  From the staff report:

The Housing Authority of the City of Alameda is proposing to construct a 22-unit rental housing project affordable to low- and very low- income families at 2437 Eagle Avenue. The 0.83-acre site located at the corner of Eagle and Everett Street in the North Park Street Residential Zoning District. The proposal includes one two-story building and two three-story buildings and on-site parking, landscaping, outdoor play area and court yard, and a community room for the residents.

Further details from the design intent statement:

Twenty-two units are being proposed, comprising of (6) 1-bedroom units, (9) 2-bedroom units, and (7) 3-bedroom units. Each of the three unit types will have a fully accessible unit on the ground floor. Also on the ground floor, there will be 5 visitable and adaptable units for a total of nine accessible/adaptable units.

Back to the staff report here’s what the parking situation will look like because, inevitably, that issue will come up:

The applicant proposes 30 parking spaces to serve the 22 units, which provides a parking ratio of 1.36 spaces per unit. AMC Section 30-7.19 allows the Planning Board to approve the proposed parking plan because of the reduced demand for parking for affordable housing. Based upon vehicle ownership in its other projects, the Housing Authority believes the 1.36 parking ratio is adequate to serve the project. The proposed parking ratio exceeds, or is similar to, other Housing Authority properties occupied by families with children. The Esperanza Apartments (1.07 spaces per unit), Roseville Village (1.09 spaces per unit), and the Shinsei Gardens Apartments (1.54 spaces per unit) each adequately meets the parking needs of the residents. In addition, the facility meets the City’s Bicycle Facility Design Standards by providing a storage area for 26 long-term bicycle parking spaces, and bike racks for six short-term bicycle parking spaces

I have to say I’m surprised at how low the parking numbers are, per unit, at the Esperanza Apartments.  But clearly the Housing Authority has reviewed the data from their developments and have a good idea of the parking requirements of their typical families.  Plus, according to the design intent statement the area is well served by public transportation and is in walking distance to many essential services:

Located nearby within walking distance are many services, such as the Bridgeside Shopping Center which is 2-1/2 blocks to the northeast, the Marketplace and restaurants on Park Street, McKinley Park which is 5 blocks to the west, the Alameda Main Library, the Alameda Cineplex, 2 elementary schools, and several churches.

2437 Eagle Avenue is located within 1⁄4 mile (4 blocks) of AC Transit bus stops that provide service directly to downtown San Francisco and to the Fruitvale BART stations to allow people to get to regional job centers.

And now: renderings!

Screen Shot 2015-06-06 at 7.04.29 AM

Screen Shot 2015-06-06 at 7.07.27 AM

Screen Shot 2015-06-06 at 7.08.15 AM

Advertisements

21 Comments

  1. The renderings look very nice, but given the shortage of senior housing I’m surprised this project isn’t a senior housing project. I’m also very sympathetic to the surrounding neighbors who wanted a community garden. It would be nice to see a housing project that gives the surrounding community some of what they were asking for. I see that raised beds are included as part of the landscape design — but its unclear if that is for the residents only, or if it can be used by the neighborhood.

    Comment by Karen Bey — June 8, 2015 @ 7:34 am

  2. I think we have a lot of low and very low income housing, but what we don’t seem to be building is housing for those in-between low and very low income housing and market rate housing. Those in the middle seem to always be left out in the Bay Area. I don’t know it that is true or not…but it seems to be one of the biggest complaints I have heard recently.

    Comment by Jake. — June 8, 2015 @ 8:50 am

  3. Groooaannn. You’ve got to be kidding me — has anyone here even taken basic economics? Alameda should be building more high-income housing to attract more wealthy citizens. It’s called trickle down economics and it’s a fact. Bussing in low-income persons brings in no money to our economy and drives down current house prices! Are the readers of this blog not home owners? I bought my house for $3MM two years ago and I’ll burn in the deepest levels of hell before I realize less than a 7 figure profit from it.

    And don’t say there is no interest, there are at least 5 people at my country club that want to move to Alameda but can’t find a big enough house.

    Comment by Rodney — June 8, 2015 @ 9:57 am

  4. The low income housing is built to meet quotas. The higher income housing to make money. There’s no incentive to serve the middle class.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — June 8, 2015 @ 10:00 am

  5. 3. Big enough for what?

    Comment by Denise Shelton — June 8, 2015 @ 10:04 am

  6. If you have several million to spend on a house, just buy the land and hire a contractor. Why the hell would anybody with real money want to live in a development? I guess money can’t buy either taste or imagination.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — June 8, 2015 @ 10:10 am

  7. The building being proposed would be a complete departure from that neighborhood and would at all look good. I’d be surprised if the neighbors there did not fight this.

    Comment by Bill — June 8, 2015 @ 10:33 am

  8. #3 Two years ago–what house sold for $3,000,000 in Alameda?

    Comment by A Neighbor — June 8, 2015 @ 10:50 am

  9. I’m thinking #3 is a parody post, folks…

    Comment by Kristen — June 8, 2015 @ 11:06 am

  10. A few folks here need to check the batteries on their sarcasm detectors.

    Comment by dave — June 8, 2015 @ 11:08 am

  11. #8 I know of several houses which sold for more then $3,000,000 mostly associated with the Gold Coast. Denise not everyone wants a custom house. Just because that is your taste…not everyone is like you, thank God.

    Comment by Jake. — June 8, 2015 @ 11:26 am

  12. Rodney’s for real. He’s a retired Alameda Fire Captain and has a get-away bungalow on Maui as well as a casa in SMdeA that he rents out. We rented it.

    Comment by jack — June 8, 2015 @ 11:37 am

  13. We build more senior housing than we do build low income family housing. Seniors are important and we have two great developments on the way for them. You know that als a whole our region is not building enough housing for anyone so we need to stop pitting the needs of different groups against each other. Who needs that kind of divisiveness anyway? It’s not serving our needs in our federal government and has no place in a progressive society.

    Comment by Angela HOckabout — June 8, 2015 @ 1:44 pm

  14. 7. I think the Wedge neighbors have already taken a pass at making this housing a Wedge issue.

    Weird coincidence that I drove past it this site this a.m. on the way to work. I took in the surrounding neighborhood, which is predominantly commercial of some sort with existing residential, and did a little picture in my head of where it might be headed. I believe the zoning is actually M, but we all know there is no real manufacturing any more.I may have been I and still may be) naive about real estate, but it is the neighborhood where I looked for funky bungalows sandwiched between industry when I was single in 1980s, before I married and was first time home owner in North Oakland. I was living in totally industrial warehouse in Oakland and the idea of a house between industrial uses seemed fine and I found they were more affordable. If I had succeeded in purchasing, I don’t know what I would think of this proposal, but this morning the mental picture didn’t seem jarring. The hypothetical question is whether I would be pulling for maximum gentrification and upgrade with all the improvements which have been happening on Park street lately? I honestly haven’t ever been that good with money and think I would have been happy if I could have purchased there at all, so I don’t think I would be pining for maximizing the property value. If you like the idea of community gardens and industrial/residential neighborhood there are still great opportunities in West Oakland. Ya’ll can hang with cutting edge Urban Farm hipster Novella Carpenter (http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Urban-Farmer-Novella-Carpenter/dp/0143118714/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433806903&sr=1-2&keywords=Urban+agriculture)

    There are at least two sides to everything. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/gentrification-and-the-urban-garden

    Comment by MI — June 8, 2015 @ 4:48 pm

  15. I can understand why you have a “little” picture in your mind. Nineteen I’s in one obscure paragraph leaves little room for anything else.

    Comment by jack — June 8, 2015 @ 5:21 pm

  16. Jack when you are expressing your point of view, it should contain a lot of I’s. I think the purpose of a blog it to express your point of view, or learn about others point of view. When you express your point of view or experience it should be “I” statements.

    Comment by Jake. — June 8, 2015 @ 6:02 pm

  17. Good job, Jake, you only used one.

    Comment by jack — June 8, 2015 @ 6:32 pm

  18. 1, 2, 3, 13: Angela is correct. We need a to build a lot of housing–especially affordable housing for families, seniors, and those in the workforce–all over the Bay Area to make up for the gap we have created over the past 40-50 years with a number of local and regional NIMBY initiatives. This development WILL change the neighborhood–but so did Island High and what was built there before the alternative high school arrived.

    As to parking, it’s important to remember that we are seeing mode shares shift fairly quickly as people realize how inefficient single-occupancy car travel is. Over the coming decades Alameda will need *fewer* auto parking spaces per person, per capita, and per residence, not more–especially once our island-wide and citywide transportation management study and plan(s) are implemented…

    Comment by Jon Spangler — June 9, 2015 @ 7:26 am

  19. very good point Jack. I was making a point about what I was seeing as I was driving to work and thinking how I would feel if that lot were next door to a building I owned. My perspective is all about me, but hopefully not irrelevant for comparison by others. I disagree that the content is otherwise obscure on account of the links.

    Comment by MI — June 9, 2015 @ 8:19 am

  20. “Why the hell would anybody with real money want to live in a development? ” And then there’s Blackhawk…
    To save time for their real career? By “real money” you must mean investment wealth possessed by people who don’t contribute to society through their work? A tres expensive apartment in New York or San Francisco, where most of the movers and shakers live, is in a development.

    Comment by vigi — June 9, 2015 @ 9:12 am

  21. Do:
    “…actually even if the housing market wasn’t as bad as it is now,…”

    Reality:
    94501
    Average listing price $766,894
    +5.3%

    Comment by jack — June 9, 2015 @ 12:15 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.