Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 16, 2021

New overlay who dis?

Filed under: Alameda — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

Someone decided to open a PRA on South Shore Shopping Center and any correspondence about between the City and the owners. I guess this was to try to sort out if there are any active plans or possibly active collusion between the City and the owners. In case you’re wondering if there’s any juicy gossip in there, I’ll save you the time of scrolling through 600 pages worth of responsive records. There’s very little in there except for huge sections of people trying to schedule a meeting. I hope the PRA requestor didn’t sprain a finger scrolling through all 600 pages.

Of course even though Tony Daysog promised that there would be no multifamily housing overlay at South Shore Shopping Center it looks like the shopping centers in Alameda are getting closer to a housing overlay that will pave the way there for future development. That was the only juicy part from the PRA response. The City has a brand new overlay they’re whipping out and it will just be for shopping centers: the shopping center overlay (which will allow housing that is not compliant with A/26). Essentially all shopping centers will get covered by the overlay but I don’t know if the City will be able to count the units unless they get an okay from the owners of the shopping center that they’re actually interested somewhere in the possible future to re-develop their sites and include housing. The City can’t just zone something housing, like an electrical substation, and add it to our inventory list knowing it will never get developed. So that work has to be done too.

Folks like ACT and AAPS should be cheering, between the shopping center overlay and their ACT/AAPS SunCal Plus Plan (trademark pending) maybe the City won’t need to touch the R-2 through R-6 districts after all. We should be revisiting some of those old South Shore renderings that people were balking at just a few years ago. I remember getting really lost trying to find the tent where they were hosting their open house but being able to catch some sweet Pokemon in the process of finding the tent. If I remember correctly, it wasn’t that aggressive of a plan, I think they could do better and bigger.


  1. Speaking of rezoning housing for an electrical substation, i have some winter writing to do.

    Comment by Rasheed — December 16, 2021 @ 6:46 am

  2. I don’t know if the City will be able to count the units unless they get an okay from the owners of the shopping center that they’re actually interested somewhere in the possible future to re-develop their sites and include housing.

    Considering the levels of vacancy at many centers vs the high valuation of housing, I’ll hazard a guess that most if not all are quite interested.

    Comment by dave — December 16, 2021 @ 7:21 am

  3. I know it was ‘shocking’ to some, but it really wasn’t that intense. I thought the design was very interesting and could have more housing. The then owner, Jamestown, is known for some great projects. Hopefully new owners are interested and also high quality in their designs.
    Then all we have to worry about – a significant worry – is that the then Council won’t fall victim to the ” … how will we ever get off the island / you can build over one story on sand … ” crowd.

    Comment by Ron — December 16, 2021 @ 7:57 am

    • It’d be nice if the progressives on the council gave the rein to the conservatives just for the 2022 election, and then step aside while the state runs roughshod on them with these new housing laws. With the ACT/AAPS being in power, they will have no one to blame and realize how inevitable it was all along.

      Comment by Reality — December 16, 2021 @ 9:02 am

  4. I love the ACT/AAPS SunCal Plus jab. You’re not wrong. I think the ACT/AAPS crowd is starting to see the noose tightening by the state and are now trying to stack new housing to one or two parts of the town as much as possible. A huge capitulation compared to their “No on Z” messaging last year.

    Comment by NIMBYs Gonna NIMBY — December 16, 2021 @ 8:57 am

  5. The city will still have to look at more than the shopping centers. Not only because AFFH but because even if we dial them up, we are still sitting pretty short a few hundred units.

    Comment by zbowling — December 16, 2021 @ 6:55 pm

    • Look at you, Measure Z Bowling! Wanting to build ridiculous highrises all over Alameda like Miami Beach. To protect our historic neighborhoods, better to just put them all at just the shopping centers. If we’re still short a few hundred units like you said, we can just stack on more floors. Wait, did you just trick AAPS into supporting highrises?!

      Comment by Carmen the Spanish Civil War Veteran — December 16, 2021 @ 7:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: