by phildini on March 15, 2016
Over the past couple months, it has been at times painful to watch civic discourse in Alameda. I believe the City Council has arrived at a good starting point in most of its decisions, but the path taken has often been confusing to follow.
Last night's Planning Board meeting was gust of fresh air in comparison. Two major issues were discussed by the Board: street names for the 2100 Clement Street project, and Design Review Approval for block 11, block 8, and phase 1 of the waterfront park at Alameda Point Site A.
- The Planning Board wants to put more consideration behind the street names for the 2100 Clement project. There's a worry about the current suggestions being pronounceable to the average Alamedan, as well as a worry about the appropriateness of the some of the alternates.
- The review for the design of block 11, block 8, and the waterfront park at Alameda Point Site A revolved around:
- Making sure windows are up to city code
- Close inspection of the proposed exterior construction materials
- The color of the street in the shared plaza. Earlier sketches showed a yellowish color, last night's designs had the road returning to a more street-ish gray. Based on the comments of President Knox White and others, there's going to be more thought put into this area, as many on the Board feel the street color helps dictate how the space would be used, and the apparent preference is for it to be pedestrian-focused.
- Discussion on the name of the street currently called West Atlantic, which would potentially be an extension of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway. There's a concern that Alamedans already shorten that streetname to RAMP and so the board should consider naming the street Appezzato Parkway or Appezzato Boulevard.
(To that last point: Ralph Appezzato was the first Alameda Mayor I knew personally, and during these months of turmoil in Alameda civic discourse I find myself missing his presence strongly. I am immensely glad the Planning Board is doing what it can to keep his name in the memory of Alamedans.)
The Planning Board voted to approve the proposed design for the pieces of Alameda Point Site A mentioned above, and I believe the vote was unanimous. In both discussions, President Knox White and the other board members asked informed questions, voiced solid points, and arrived at conclusions that balanced a push for future improvements to Alameda with a sense of keeping Alameda's history and character.
It may seem like I am being extraordinarily complementary to the Planning Board, or that I'm being far too friendly with them. To that I would say: The Planning Board accomplished the business they came there to do, including time for public comments, and did so in less than 90 minutes.
It will be interesting to see how tonight's City Council meeting compares.
by phildini on March 11, 2016
One of the most common concerns I hear about Alameda growing as a city is the congestion at our bridges and tunnels, and the difficulty people have getting on and off the island. To me, it feels like we need a comprehensive plan that increases public transit access and thinks about access to and from Alameda in terms of the whole island and the whole region. Public transit is critical if Alamedans want to maintain the quality of life the island has to offer.
The speakers at Wednesday night's City of Alameda Democratic Club meeting agree that public transit is essential. Speakers from all the transit agencies that serve Alameda spoke in turn about what they're doing already to serve the area, and how they would like to improve.
- BART has about 430000 riders every weekday, riding on an infrastructure that was built in the 70s, and in train cars that are about as old. They want to spend 9.6 billion in improvements, mostly in purchases of new train cars and infrastructure improvements.
- BART has about half the money they're looking for, and will most likely be putting a parcel tax or a bond measure on the ballot in November for the other half.
- AC Transit has about 179000 riders every weekday, mostly people going to work and schoolchildren. Schoolchildren alone make up 30k of their riders. AC Transit's main goal is to increase service by working closely with the City of Alameda; they're expanding lines that run through the city and collaborating on a city transit plan.
- AC Transit hopes to improve its service and its fleet with the funds it already has, although they are also investigating a parcel tax.
- The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA, the agency in charge of the San Francisco Bay Ferries) sees Alameda as its greatest-service city, and wants to deepen its commitment to Alameda by building a maintenance facility and another terminal on the Southwest side of Alameda.
- WETA knows that transit to the terminals, as well as parking at the terminals, is the greatest challenge their ridership faces; they're hoping for stronger collaboration with the other agencies and the city to make it easier to get to the existing Alameda ferry terminals.
- The West Alameda Transportation Demand Management Association (TMA) is running a series of apparently ridiculously successful shuttles from the West End of Alameda to 12th St. BART in Oakland, and wants to see their service expand as well.
- TMA's main focus right now seems to be on education, getting Alamedans, Alameda businesses, and the employees of Alameda businesses thinking about public transit options and how we can all better utilize public transit.
It was an information-dense first half of a meeting, to say the least. The major takeaways for me were:
- Public transportation is on the up in Alameda, and many want to see it increase.
- The transit agencies see themselves in cooperation, not competition. They understand their inter-connectedness to each other, and seem to want each other to thrive.
- They're all trying to buy American and bring jobs to Alameda.
As I am unabashedly in favor of more public transit, I'm thrilled to hear about the programs currently in place, and that those programs are trying to expand. I want Alameda to be more walkable, and bikable, and I want public transit to be a deeply viable option to owning a car in Alameda.
I said above that public transit is critical to the quality of life for current Alamedans, and it will be just as critical for future Alamedans. The second half of the meeting was dedicated to presentations from property developers, specifically the organizations behind the Del Monte project, the Encinal Terminals project, and the Alameda Point Site A project.
I'm not going to go too much into the projects here, mostly because I don't have hard numbers like I have with the transit agencies, and partially because growth in Alameda, and in the Bay Area, is a thorny subject. I think more growth is good for Alameda, and I think these projects have a shot at being a massive net positive to the city. Others feel differently.
What I can say is that both projects feel public transit is a critical need for their developments to succeed, and both are putting plans in place to improve transit in their development. The group in charge of Del Monte/Encinal Terminals seems a bit more on the ball in this regard, as they talked about having an organization like the TMA (potentially joined with the TMA) to continually improve transit in that part of the city, but both groups stressed how transit would be integral to what they're building.
I've talked so far about increasing public transit because it will ease congestion, and make Alameda an even better place to live. But there's another benefit of public transit that the Alameda Point Site A group drove home for me: Getting cars off the road.
The plan for Alameda Point Site A includes raising the level of some streets and buildings, and a terraced waterfront park area. Why? Because global warming has become enough of a reality that property developers are working "sea level rise strategies" into their plans. They're so certain the seas will rise from global warming that they're betting money on it.
Every train car BART adds, every bus or shuttle added by AC Transit or TMA, every ferry added by WETA gets cars off the road and less CO2 in our atmosphere. In a world where major corporations are now banking on global warming happening, increased public transit in Alameda can't come soon enough.
by phildini on March 4, 2016
The Alameda Renters Coalition has published the text of the amendment to the Alameda City Charter they're trying to add to the ballot for November. It's well worth a read, but here's the key points, as I see them:
- Renters and Homeowners should have protection under the law
- Alameda needs a Rental Housing Board to oversee administration of rental units in the city
- Evictions should only be enacted for Just Cause
- Rent should be pinned to the Consumer Price Index
The charter amendment, if enacted, will provide incredible renter protections in Alameda. I haven't read the text of the rent control measures for other California cities, but I'm willing to wager this proposal would put Alameda in the top three cities in terms of renter friendliness.
I'm biased here, but as a renter (and someone who both wants to see more people in Alameda and see the current residents protected), I'm in favor of shifting the landlord-tenant power balance a bit more in favor of the tenants. That said, there's definitely some parts in the measure that gives me pause.
The big one is capital improvements. As I read the amendment, there is no allowance for general capital improvements to a property. The amendment is very explicit about allowing relocation and rent increases for capital improvements to bring the property up to code, but what if a landlord wants to do general remodeling to make a property nicer, or more attractive? The amendment doesn't seem to allow for that. It feels like an oversight that could be taken advantage of, and which would decrease the overall appeal of the housing stock in Alameda.
Also, the Rental Housing Board, again as I read the amendment, seems to operate with absolutely no oversight. They're chosen by general election, operate completely autonomously from the rest of city government, and their budget is approved only by them. Ostensibly, this is so the Board can't be influenced by a city council that is being too partisan to landlords or tenants. However, the way the amendment is currently worded, the Rental Housing Board could decide to charge a $1000/unit Rental Housing Fee, and the only recourse would be a lawsuit or another election. There doesn't seem to be a lot of 'check' to this 'balance'.
Where does that leave us? I think the debate around this amendment, especially in light of the rent stabilization passed by the City Council on March 1st, is going to be intense, and I hope it raises the level of discourse about how to prepare Alameda for the next decade and the next century. I want strong renter protections, I want myself and other renters to feel secure in our homes. Housing is a home, first and foremost. This amendment provides for that idea, but seems focused on solving the problems of the present, without considering the problems of the future.
by phildini on March 1, 2016
Here are some things, learned by myself and others, at the Alameda City Council meeting on March 1st.
- The city council continues to treat its staff in a way I find weirdly antagonistic
- Whenever a council member uses the phrase "Real World", what they mean is: "You researched presentation means nothing, city staffer. Alameda is different."
- Appropriate means you make funds available for. Those funds can be taken back, especially if they aren't spent
- The Mayor and City Council are maybe really underpaid?
- Alameda cares about golf way more than I thought it did. Like, an hour and half more than I thought it did.
- I don't understand Councilmember Daysog's long-term strategy for Alameda
- Councilmembers Ashcraft and Oddie seem like people I would enjoy hanging out with
And, the big one
- Alameda now has rent stabilization.