Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 31, 2020

Stick to the status quo

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

On the heels of SB50 failing to get enough votes to pass on to the Assembly, this is sort of a relevant article: Bay Area has highest income inequality in California.

From the piece:

Top income earners in the Bay Area make 12.2 times as much as those at the bottom of the economic ladder, according to new research from the Public Policy Institute of California, which analyzed 2018 U.S. Census bureau data, the most recent available.

Despite California’s strong economy, low and middle-income earners have seen fewer gains than those in the top bracket in recent decades. Incomes for families in the 90th percentile have increased 60% since 1980, PPIC found, while incomes for the 10th percentile increased by just 20% during the same time.

“It’s clear that low income families don’t seem to be able to make as much economic progress as we would like.”



January 30, 2020

SB50, this does not involve sports ball

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

After much finessing, SB50 was back up for a vote in the California Senate and it failed to get enough votes to move on to the Assembly..  As a reminder this is what the new SB50 looks like:

The revisions still require cities to plan for more housing, with SB 50’s provisions to serve as guidelines. But the changes give local leaders two years once the bill is signed to create a development blueprint that caters to their region’s needs, according to Wiener’s office.

The cities would also have to “meet or beat” a goal in SB 50 to reduce car trips. The bill would forbid local governments from concentrating production in low-income areas.

Tenant protections written into the proposal would prohibit the demolition of buildings with renters and larger projects would have to designate at least 15 percent of the units as low-income space.


January 29, 2020

The secondary A/26 workaround: ADUs

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

For reasons…I have been looking into Alameda accessory dwelling unit law and how the 2020 legislation has effected the ability of property owners to, essentially, skirt A/26 and pop in a unit.

Fortunately the City of Alameda has put together a handy dandy FAQ sheet with information on ADUs.

From the FAQ:

How many ADUs are allowed?
Single Family Lot: On a lot with an existing or proposed single family dwelling, one (1) ADU and one (1) Junior ADU are allowed.
Multifamily Lot: On a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling structure (3 units or more), multiple attached ADUs are allowed up to 25% of the number of existing units. Attached ADUs must be created through the conversion of area not used as livable space, such as, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages. A maximum of two (2) detached ADUs are also allowed on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling structure.


January 28, 2020

National Horror Story: RIP irony

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

The lack of self-awareness is strong with this one.

January 27, 2020

Happy Year of the Rat

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

It’s the last day of the Lunar New Year, nothing for today.

January 24, 2020

National Horror Story: the trial thus far

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

January 23, 2020

A/26: the alternatives, part 2

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Continued from yesterday’s post

One of the concerns I’ve seen around A/26 disappearing is the potential for skyscrapers to be built next to a two story house.  A/26 does not protect neighborhoods from skyscrapers.  Alameda’s zoning ordinance does.

Each zone has a height maximum, so you’d know from the zoning what the height cap is for that parcel.   So for ease I’ve listed the maximum height limits for the relevant zoning:

  • R-1: Not to exceed thirty (30′) feet
  • R-2: Not to exceed thirty (30′) feet
  • R-3: Not to exceed thirty-five (35′) feet
  • R-4: Not to exceed thirty-five (35′) feet
  • R-5: Not to exceed forty (40′) feet
  • R-6: Not to exceed fifty (50′) feet
  • A-P: Two (2) stories, but not to exceed forty (40′) feet
  • C-1: Two (2) stories but not to exceed thirty (30′) feet
  • C-2: Eight (8) stories, but not to exceed one hundred (100′) feet


January 22, 2020

A/26: the alternatives, part 1

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

This is an excellent comment/question about what ordinances currently exist on the books to do what A/26 has been credited with doing.   So here is my attempt at trying to piece that information together, but I’m relying on this document from the City’s evaluation of A/26 to inform the research.  This will probably extend over multiple posts.

From that document:

The adoption of Measure A in the early 1970’s was just one of many changes in City and State regulations during the 1970s and 1980s related to development review, including, but not limited to:

  • Historic Preservation. The Alameda Historic Preservation Ordinance established new processes and requirements for the public review of changes to historic buildings in Alameda;
  • Design Review. The Alameda Design Review Ordinance established new processes and requirements for the public review of any design changes to an existing building in Alameda or the proposed design of a new building in Alameda;
  • CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act established new processes and requirements for the public review of the potential environmental impacts, including traffic, from any new development; and
  • BCDC. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) established new public processes and regulations for the filling of the San Francisco Bay.


January 21, 2020

The failures of A/26

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

I think this may have been the first time I’ve seen any body, who typically writes about how A/26 is integral to the character of Alameda, acknowledge the failures of A/26 to do what folks have claimed it was supposed to do for years: save historic buildings.  The Alameda Sun is planning on coverage of the Planning Board meeting from last week, but uploaded this piece to their website last week.

It picks up from previous Measure A history by discussing some industrial buildings in Alameda.  Specifically the Red Brick building.  From the piece:

In 1948, the shipyard closed its doors, although work fabricating structural steel continued in the Red Brick Building. That work ceased in 1956, and Bethlehem Steel sold the entire property that once housed its shipyards to Calpak, Del Monte’s parent company. The sale included the Red Brick Building.

Calpak planned to demolish the building and replace with high-rise apartments.


January 20, 2020

Happy MLK, Jr Day

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:00 am

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at