Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 18, 2016

The connection is made

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

The Planning Board will get a first look next Monday at Catellus’ plans for the other Alameda Landing parcel, you know the one where ClifBar was supposed to go.  The scope and scale of this new project is greatly reduced from the one that was envisioning 345,000 sq ft of commercial.  From the staff report this is what is being planned for that waterfront section:

375 housing units;
A 124 room hotel;
15,000 square feet of retail/services;
10,000 square feet of office/work, and
An 8-acre waterfront park.

So this vastly different plan will require a new development plan, but as with anything in Alameda, this will require many levels of approval (and appeals) and will probably stretch on, here are the steps:

The current Catellus land use proposal for the waterfront differs from the land use plan originally envisioned in the Master Plan adopted by the Planning Board and City Council in 2006.  Catellus is proposing to change the uses in the waterfront area to maximize the value of the land. Catellus has notified the City that it is necessary to increase the value of the 40-acre property in order to financially support redevelopment of the property and construction of the public waterfront park.

Catellus intends to submit applications for Development Plan approval by the Planning Board.  The Planning Board retains the discretion to approve or deny the proposed changes after considering whether the changes are in the best interests of the larger Alameda community.  The Planning Board may approve the future Development Plan application without amending the Master Plan if the Planning Board is able to find that the Development Plan is generally consistent with the General Plan and Master Plan and will not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts than were disclosed in the prior EIR for the project.

So here are the general plans that the Planning Board will give feedback on:

AL1

AL2

AL3

AL4

AL5

AL6

AL7

AL8

I guess, much like the Alameda Point Site A projects, I’m just going to reserve judgment because I’ve gotten way too excited about plans that have gone nowhere in the past.  But  I have to say that I like the circulation plan particularly the off street bike path extending from the waterfront to Willie Stargell which will give a perfect protected bike access path.  That’s the part that I’m really excited about particularly if the waterfront park is as amazing as the renderings make it seem, and a water taxi to Jack London that can be accessible by bike.  That would be amazing, but, again, something that I won’t get overly excited about until we get through all these painful approval steps.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. and eh is there any mention of how the increased volume of traffic will be handled on and off the island?

    Comment by Adrian Blakey — May 18, 2016 @ 10:09 am

  2. Not to worry, there will only be one additional car. 🙂

    Comment by dave — May 18, 2016 @ 10:17 am

  3. My problem is it doesn’t seem to be to scale. They say the park will be 8 acres and it appears that the where the water shuttle would be would be under 2 acres so they must be including all the waterfront area which is not that wide similar to the with of the cross Alameda trail from Main to Webster…it is hard to tell from the drawings. The Target store is 140,000 sq ft and is about 3.2 arcres and the park at the end of 5th street looks to be quite a bit smaller. There really isn’t enough information and I preferred the original plan over this new one.

    Comment by joelsf — May 18, 2016 @ 11:02 am

  4. I have been a little uncomfortable with the assumptions about people diverting to other crossings from the tube as part of calcs for mitigating increased volumes. There was work on both side of the Park Street bridge recently which caused some delay. I have an end run I employ which makes me feel like I’m not sitting in traffic , but it probably only saves me 5 minutes on the worst days. I observed that even removing one lane for several blocks at the bottom of Park didn’t really make for extreme delays. The lane blockage requires merger which I imagine has a greater negative impact than increased volume but perhaps it is a wash. The lane blockage right over the bridge on the Oakland side had much worse impact because the same merger had to occur on the bridge itself. This is anecdotal and based on subjective observation, but I thought it was still worth commenting. The lane blockage further toward the freeway in Oakland past Nikko’s was really awful. Ir was so bad that my solution was to head south bound on 880 but never get on the freeway, then cross under the freeway and double back north bound.

    Comment by MI — May 18, 2016 @ 11:11 am

  5. They will have to demonstrate that their vehicle trips will fit within the numbers planned for in the original commercial heavy plan and approved EIR.

    Part of me would rather see them go for a new EIR and go for the full amount of units it could handle at 30/acre. Oh well. We shall see.

    Comment by BMac — May 18, 2016 @ 11:12 am

    • Oh Brian,

      You want to shit on this town by over building or rent control!!! I have a secret , when people with $ want to live somewhere ….. It becomes really expensive in that area. But the way I signed your petition as Master Blaster and the signature gatherer couldn’t care less. It’s not going to pass the smell test

      Comment by Master Blaster — May 19, 2016 @ 5:51 am


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.