Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 5, 2013

Giving me the shingles

Filed under: Alameda, Development — Tags: , , , , — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

Tonight the Neptune Pointe parcel is up before the Planning Board for the EIR scoping session design review, but they’re calling this thing “Neptune Beach” which I’m sure will annoy some people with great fondness for the old real Neptune Beach.   Here’s the number you are looking for: 48.   Thats how many units are slated to be built, 15% of those would be available for low income housing.   It appears that Tim Lewis Communities, the developer, will not be seeking a density bonus on this sucker.

But, to the graphics…

Site plan, aka how the units will look on the parcel:


June 4, 2013

One Bay Area Direction

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Point, City Council, Development — Tags: , — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

Tonight on the City Council agenda will be a public hearing for Alameda regarding the draft One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area/whatever plan.   For those that are unsure of what the One Bay Area plan is, here’s a synopsis from KQED:

[B]y 2040, the Bay Area must cut its greenhouse gas emission by 15 percent. It’s part of SB 375, a state law requiring local communities to help meet California’s climate change goals through land use and transit planning.

The Bay Area’s effort is being coordinated with Plan Bay Area, a region wide development plan being put together by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).


June 3, 2013

Negative percent

Filed under: Alameda, School — Tags: , , — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Last Tuesday’s School Board meeting there was an agenda item with recommended budgets by school site, the short summary is that most schools sites have cuts.

I put into a spreadsheet the numbers from last year’s budget and compared it to this year’s budget.  The stuff in the light pink is for 2013 and the blue compares this year’s numbers to last years:


May 23, 2013

But it won’t do that

Filed under: Alameda, Election, School — Tags: , , , , — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

If you all missed JKW’s comments yesterday about AUSD’s Measure C and what the sort of main talking points were, you can revisit them here.  So given that he shared a copy of those campaign materials with me, the first thing I did was drop all the text into a word cloud generator to pick out the top 50 words that cropped up in relation to the campaign:


Notice, not one of the top 50 words included “Historic” anywhere.

Most of the words refer to basic things like “plumbing”, “electrical”, “air conditioning”, “heating.”


May 21, 2013

Brick by brick

Tonight the School Board will meet to talk about, what else, the Historic Alameda High School under the “Shared Interests/Principles Meeting” headline.   Whatever that’s supposed to mean, I imagine that people will say the same thing that they’ve said at all the other meetings.

But I’m going to draw your attention across the Bay to San Mateo County where the passage of a two huge school construction bonds have amassed a staggering amount of money to renovate and modernize a ton of schools in that area.  From the San Mateo County Times:

The San Mateo Union High School District and San Mateo-Foster City elementary district are engaged in a building and renovation frenzy fueled by voter-approved bonds.

The money is coming from Measure M, a $298 million bond measure passed by voters in 2006.


May 15, 2013

There’s too much confusion

Filed under: Alameda, School — Tags: , , — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

While researching costs for school construction projects I came across information about a huge bond floated in Portland to modernize and renovate their schools.      Portland residents agreed to fund a $528 million bond to renovate six schools.   Got that?  Six.   So for people thinking that Alameda’s Measure C $63 million would have been enough to completely renovate the Historic Alameda High School, get real.  Based on the rates to seismically upgrade the HAHS just that alone would have eaten up half of the bond money and that didn’t even include modernization of the building.   So for those out there that want to talk about money being diverted away from students, what would have been a bigger example than seismically upgrading the HAHS and it not being modernized for student usage.

Add in the potential modernization cost and it would have eaten up the bulk of the funds for only one school.  Where’s the equity in that?

But I digress.   Anyway, I thought I would feature this project also in the Pacific Northwest, but in Seattle.  Garfield High was built in 1923 with an addition in 1929.  The initial cost to renovate and rehabilitate AND build a new performing arts center.   And Garfield High has some pretty famous alumni like Quincy Jones and Jimi Hendrix.


May 14, 2013

Field Act of dreams

Filed under: Alameda, School — Tags: , — Lauren Do @ 6:04 am

So, seriously, who’s been going around telling people that Kofman Auditorium is at the business end of a wrecking ball?   Because when I watched one of the meetings about the Historic Alameda High School practically all of the letters read by Alice Lai-Bitker — who is the representative for the rest of us who are not represented by some stakeholder group — everyone seemed to refer to how special the Kofman auditorium is, smells and all.

Because if you notice, the Kofman Auditorium is not listed as one of the affected buildings because that is one of the few buildings that IS Field Act compliant.



May 13, 2013

Bring it on home

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Development — Tags: , — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

All right, I meant to write about this earlier, but the week got away from me.   Tonight the Planning Board will have the Design Review for the Alameda Landing residential on the agenda.   Which means that there should be some serious nit picking (in a good way) from the PB, but of course there should be a few “I hate it all!” type comments as well.  Personally, there are no major revelations, no “Oh my god, that is amazeballs” it’s all pretty non offensive and should appeal to average family that typically shops for new construction, eg. not people who tend to buy old homes because they love that sort of type of thing.   No, it will be families like mine with people who have no fix-it skills whatsoever and look at old houses not as a project to be loved and nurtured, but instead as a potential pain in the ass.

But enough about that, here are the renderings, first up, the multi-family buildings.   Before you freak out about these and worry that these will pop up everywhere, in this and this this document it details where each type (and each style) will appear in the community.


May 1, 2013

Animal farm

Filed under: Alameda, City Council, Public Resources — Tags: , , — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

I think the discussion about backyard farm animals is getting a bit into the weeds, even though it’s been really helpful to identify issues that arise around this topic.

A few commenters have identified three distinct issues that could be (should be?) taken up separately.   Because I don’t really think that these other issues necessarily need to be addressed in conjunction with that is being presented right now.

So the distinct issues are:

  1. Keeping of backyard farm animals (distance from neighbors, notification, how many, etc)
  2. Public health issues
  3. Backyard slaughter

The ordinance that was presented the other night was to create rules to deal with number 1 only, and allow existing laws to cover the other two.   Right now, Alameda has some rules around the keeping of backyard farm animals, but they are really outdated and in need of refreshing.   Some commenters have suggested — maybe not outright suggested, but hinted at — that we should be having a discussion whether farm animals should be allowed in Alameda at all.   Personally, given the fact that some types of animals are allowed — and since the law is silent on other animals, I would say that they are allowed — having that discussion is unnecessary.


April 8, 2013

West End work

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Alameda Point, City Council, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

Here’s a date for you: October 13, 2013. According to a construction update from Catellus that will be the opening date for Target at Alameda Landing. The sidewalk improvements for the Alameda Landing side of Stargell should be finished in August, although no work has commenced just yet on that part of Alameda Landing. It appears that the date to hear more about the retailing strategy for the remainder of Alameda Landing will be April 16 at the City Council. Hopefully they’ll reveal if they have signed any contracts yet and maybe we’ll find out about the grocery store. Those improvements are scheduled to start in the Fall.

As to the residential portion, Tri Pointe homes has been selected and have been actively working on the design for the residential section which went from really bad to pretty good. Design review (meaning this is where you get to bitch about the cookie cutterness of the homes) will happen on May 13 at the Planning Board and if all goes to plan — meaning that nothing is so viciously objectionable — they’ll start vertical development in the Fall as well.


« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at