Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

What Sort of Plan Would You Support For Alameda Point? Vote in a Straw Poll

With SunCal delaying – possibly forever – their ballot initiative for their Alameda Point Revitalization Plan, it’s worth using this time to consider other alternatives for Alameda Point. SunCal promptly threw out the 2006 Final Preliminary Development Concept plan that was generated with true community input and support – not the choreographed “community support” that SunCal orchestrated over a mere three public meetings – over several years. Perhaps that plan deserves a second look. Or maybe a plan that focuses on job growth and economic growth at Alameda Point through adaptive re-use of the existing light-industrial buildings there. What sort of plan would you support?

(i) SunCal’s plan for over 4,800 homes at Alameda Point, plus another potential 1,500 to 1,600 additional homes through an abuse voter trust, and of the density bonus law. That would translate to between roughly 11,000 to 15,500 additional people on the island of Alameda, or as much as 20% of the existing population. SunCal’s plan would exempt Alameda Point from Measure A. Take a look at Emeryville to get an idea of what Alameda Point might look like under SunCal’s plan.

(ii) The 2006 Preliminary Development Concept which was developed over several years with broad community support. It doesn’t require a change to Measure A, and provides up to 1,800 new homes and “3.4 million square feet of job generating non-residential uses, including industrial and manufacturing businesses, marina and maritime related businesses, research and development businesses, office uses and other commercial enterprises” and “Approximately 149 acres of public parks and open space and approximately 2.8 miles of waterfront promenades.” Marina Village in Alameda is Measure A compliant and won design awards.

(iii) A plan very much like the PDC above, but one which uses the State-mandated density bonus law responsibly – not to abuse voter trust and sneak an additional 1,500 to 1,600 additional homes into the project – but to do what the density bonus was intended to do, provide affordable housing subsidized by market-rate housing. Such a plan – which SunCal so far has refused to study – would keep the total number of new homes at Alameda Point at 2,000 or fewer, but allowing transit-oriented multifamily units on locations where a mix of genuine low-income housing (or senior-housing) and market-rate housing is provided. The highest density under such a plan would be less than half of the highest density proposed in SunCal’s plan. (30 dwelling units/acre vs. SunCal’s 70 dwelling units per acre.)

(iv) A plan such as that from Save Our City! Alameda that focuses not on housing but on job creation and the use of federal money to fund research in cleantech and green technology, sustainable energy and other ways to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. The recent announcement by the Obama Administration of a federal loan of $465 million to Tesla Motors – the makers of an electric car – provide a perfect reference model of how federal R&D money could be funneled into Alameda Point to re-use existing buildings and create jobs on the island so fewer people would have to leave the island for work each day.

(v) Or something else?

Let us know what sort of plan you could get behind by voting below:

What sort of Alameda Point redevelopment plan would you support?

  • (iv) Next-to-none homes, focus on job-creation and green technology research. (44%, 33 Votes)
  • (i) A plan like SunCal's - 4,800 homes, an additional 11,000 to 15,500 people. (31%, 23 Votes)
  • (ii) The 2006 PDC - 2,000 homes, maximum, <5,000 people, 149 acres of parks. (11%, 8 Votes)
  • (iii) 2,000 homes, max., with multifamily units where genuine affordable housing is provided alongside market rate homes. (9%, 7 Votes)
  • (v) Other. Use the comments below to explain. (5%, 4 Votes)

Total Voters: 75

Loading ... Loading ...

13 comments to What Sort of Plan Would You Support For Alameda Point? Vote in a Straw Poll

  • Anonymous

    Public Trust, open space, light industry

  • It has been well publicized that veterans, like myself, prefer builind the VA medical clinc/columbaria on the land currently negotiated with BRAC/Navy in a federal-to-federal land transfer. In addition, we anticipate a helicopter landing site that would support the clinic and Alameda Hospital on an enhanced use program as well as provision for government administrative offices, a long term care facility along with provisions for a teaching venue for future nurses. This initiative would be an incubator for light industries that would support the clinic/hospital as well as establish future employment for other light industries. Two-thirds of the former Navy base structures were built on land-fill, and the rest, although built on bedrock, contains hazardous waste that has been absorbed over the past sixty years. Allowing a developer like Suncal to use Alameda Point for a futuristic case study that can end up in some silly comic books is a disgrace to the citizens of Alameda and a slap in the face of the rich history that Alameda was founded on. The city needs the leadership and foresight of a man who helped develop the Navy base in the late 1900’s – John J. Mulvaney. The Veterans Administration has taken up the charge and has the leadership of Larry Janes; Capital Assets Manager for the VA. Alameda does not need more homes or population. It needs revenue – jobs and sensible financial management. And above all – it needs leadership and intelligent planning. (Instead of forcing thousands of ailing veterans to travel too many miles for medical treatment – keep down the traffic and save Alameda!

  • anonymous

    A combination of (ii) and (iv) if toxins and other contamination can be remediated – that has to be job 1. If homes are to be built there, they should comply with measure A – end of story.
    There is great potential as well for wind and solar power generation which should be a part of any development as well.

  • anonymous Alameda resident

    This “straw poll” is obviously biased, but anyone with a head and/or a heart can see that the SunCal plan is ridiculous.

  • That’s why you can vote “other” and put your own proposal out there…or, er… out here….

  • Anonymous

    Would like to see only enough housing as there are jobs to employ additional residents and as much existing housing resused as possible. Optimal would be to have entire area become a land trust and used much like the SF Presidio where income produced from tenants and unique (green) businesses would cover the costs of upkeep.

  • Rosemarie Winegarner

    If we are going to consider adding additional housing to the island, we must consider the traffic delays that already exist when trying to exit through the tube and across the bridges during commute hours. Multiply that by thousands of additional commuters and it will be a lost cause. Additionally, what will we do in the event of a disaster?

    I agree that the Presidio is an excellent model and is in keeping with the uniqueness that is Alameda.

    Additionally, the housing developments constructed in recent years are totally inconsistent with the architectural style that is Alameda.

  • anon

    I’m pro-military, but why do we need a graveyard with a view of the bay? That makes even less sense than having a post office and a courthouse facing the beach. (I think that’s why proponents of the graveyard call it a columbaria, so people won’t immediately think, are you joking? you want to put a graveyard on prime bayfront real estate?) At least the courthouse and post office have live people in them. Only in Alameda! Hey, even I don’t have such an inflated ego that I think my dead body ought to occupy a plot on the bay. How about a nice marina and some cafes for people who, you know, live here and pay taxes, why does everything have to be about social services?

  • steve jones

    I was born in Alameda in 1950 and have lived and worked in Alameda my entire life with the exception of military duty (US Coast Guard 1968-1974. My desire for the Point would be to have a mixed use with the max housing untis at 1000, green tech which makes sense, ( i know we have enviro folks on both sides of common sence, i fall in the middle) JOB CREATION-my MOST IMPORTANT issue. Also, PLEASE have a mix of people who understand what development should look like. I do not want to have a conversation with my friends in 2015 about what the Point will look like. I want the topic to be what a wonderful job was done on the project.

  • barb

    We should build the marina and rent it ASAP. Then see if we could get that museum and art that SF doesn’t want. The VA hospital sounds good. The rest we could do as we got money and interest to build without changing Measure A. Anything that doesn’t create peak hour traffic.

  • Kate Quick

    Good idea to poll. Bad idea to structure poll questions as these are structured. “Do you want this (sounds very bad) thing?” “Do you want this (sounds very good) thing?” Your poll results will be very skewed. It is important, while polling, to insure that the questions are neutral. Otherwise you are just insuring that you get the answer you have already decided you want. Could you try again and phrase the questions so that they are neutral? I’d very much like to see the results of such a poll.

  • Kate – we learned from SunCal, how they structured and choreographed their 3 public meetings.

  • DL Morrison

    I think at bottom I’ve always been the most concerned about the physical constraints of the site — traffic constraints, elevation, soil stability/risk of liquefaction, and toxic contamination (to name a few…) Those are real concerns, and to be honest, I think they apply to any sort of construction. I think anything built there, ideally, should be able to adapt to these constraints — rising sea level especially, even if it is more a long-term concern.

    I don’t think it makes that much sense to put all the energy and resources into constructing something which can’t survive in the long run.