Blogging Bayport Alameda

May 16, 2022

Four votes needed, again

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

One of the lynchpins for Alameda meeting its RHNA numbers is Site A. But Site A needs amendments to update the existing agreements to accommodate more housing. And this requires four votes.

On the City Council’s agenda on Tuesday night is this next test for the City Council who claimed (yes even Tony Daysog and Trish Spencer) that they didn’t want to fight HCD on certifying the Housing Element but did want to, indeed, comply. Of course, Tony Daysog has shown himself to not necessarily putting his money where his mouth was and voted against the Tidelands Swap for the Encinal Terminals project which — had there not been four votes — would have funneled around 600 units back into Alameda’s RHNA pot to find more land for. If Site A doesn’t get four votes it will double that Encinal Terminals number to 1200 units to find elsewhere in Alameda. So, as you can imagine, this is kind of a big deal. Anyone who votes against this should be pressed on where they would like to allocate these 1200 units.

Even though the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society has yet to put out a comment letter about this pivotal project, in the past they have encouraged a huge increase in housing at Alameda Point and petitioning the Navy to lift the housing cap at Alameda Point. As an aside, I wonder if there’s something wonky going down internally at AAPS. Under the helm of Chris Buckley it always appeared that AAPS was on top of these issues particularly when it came down to sacrificing one part of Alameda to preserve a more important part of Alameda. There’s no current comment letter about this from AAPS which is odd and notable, but AAPS did manage to update their website to add their support letter for Carmen Reid/AAPS’s nomination to the Historic Resources Commission in light of recent PRA releases which report that AAPS reps were “duped” about the McKay nomination:

So maybe there’s some internal battle for control within AAPS, I dunno, but if there is I’m here for the drama around that.

Anyway, here’s the revised plan that the developer wants to get approved:

That pink building labelled 13, 12(a), and 12(b) is that performing arts space that has been floating around.

A more illustrative map:

And the phasing, as well as what the developer will be contributing along the way:

Moving forward with this plan will also put the West Midway ReSHAP program on track because it will need developer contributed infrastructure to get the units actually built. But we know that, previously, Tony Daysog didn’t want to help out this project get built but now he’ll be torn between his desire to not help homeless people and making sure that the East End and Bay Farm aren’t touched by the RHNA hand.


  1. It’s so exciting to see Site A continue to progress, and I really, really hope this amendment gets the needed votes. When my daughter got married at the Officers Club in 2015, although the facility itself was perfect for our needs, I think the in-laws were a bit dismayed by the weedy and decrepit surroundings. I am so happy with the new community so far that I see nearly every day on my way to the Main Street Dog Park.

    Comment by kevisb2001 — May 16, 2022 @ 8:01 am

  2. I sometimes despair that Alameda’s future is still influenced by a vocal minority of voters with closed minds and what seem to be mean-spirited and cold hearts. (We mirror the national divide in this respect.)

    It would be nice to be able to relax and know in advance that this vote would be either 4-0 or 5-0 — instead of a cliffhanger or a 3-2 loss for sanity and good planning. (We have had such City Council votes on occasion in the past, although it has been a while…)

    Comment by Jon Spangler — May 16, 2022 @ 8:13 am

  3. Happy to see the Site A amendments before the City Council.

    It’s been 25 years since the closure of the Alameda Naval Air Station in 1997. To date, only 454 housing units have been constructed; but with the approval of the Site A amendments, we will be able to continue redeveloping Alameda Point.

    The approval of the Site A amendments will allow the Site A developers to add additional housing units in Phase 1, and it will allow them to start Phase 2 of their master plan.

    Moving on to Phase 2 means new infrastructure will be constructed on West Tower, which will allow the long awaited West Midway Project to proceed.

    Also, happy to see the waterfront retail in the plan. Creating a vibrant waterfront on Site A, will create a sense of place at Alameda Point.

    Comment by Karen Bey — May 16, 2022 @ 9:26 am

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: