Over the last few months, prior to the election, a small but vocal group has run through the streets yelling about a “council majority” is trying to turn Alameda into Walnut Creek by the Bay through overzealous development and a grand desire to overturn Alameda’s Measure A. At last Tuesday’s (11/21/06) joint City Council/Community Improvement Commission meeting the council majority put that rumor to rest.
At issue was a proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Developer Peter Wang (pronounced Wong) for a number of properties that he owns on the Northshore of Alameda. The agreement would have allowed staff and Wang to negotiate a development plan for the Northshore before any plans were brought forward to the public.
Ironically, while a unanimous council voted to hold off on any developer agreements were made for the Northern Waterfront. It was councilmember Daysog, one of the “heroes of anti-development” who took to the dais to push hard, on more than one occasion, for an accelerated exclusive agreement and process for Wang. There was strong push-back from Gilmore, Johnson, Matarrese and deHaan to the idea on the negotiating agreement moving forward without any project on paper. Repeatedly, they toed the line they have walked for years, that there is a public process that involves a number of commissions and boards in the city, whereby citizens can give input into projects as they progress through the planning stages. The description of the proposed ENA process as “backwards” was used frequently during the meeting.
Councilmember deHaan appeared to be yet again at a loss during the discussion. Loaded for bear, with ammunition provided by the 6 “action alameda” speakers, he appeared caught off-guard by the stance of his councilmates. Professing, when he finally spoke, that other council members had addressed all the points “we” (he wasn’t speaking of the council, who are “we?”) wanted to make.
The city has been in the midst of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the Northern Waterfront for years. The GPA stalled for over a year, but appears to be headed to the council in January for adoption. All 5 members of the council repeatedly stated that Mr. Wang’s plans would need to conform to the GPA, once it was approved in January.
For too long, the council’s support of one project (Alameda Theater) has been extrapolated into a pattern of voting that just doesn’t show up in the voting record.
As the recent election shows, Alamedans are very happy with the direction the city is moving. It’s not a mandate to build everything, everywhere. We need to be vigilant in making sure that projects that move forward are vetted by the public. The city needs to be willing to walk away from large scale developments that won’t bring benefits to Alameda that are enough of a trade-off for whatever increases in traffic, strain on services, etc. will obviously be part of whatever development is done.
The sky is not falling. Hopefully, in the post-election era, the rhetoric will tone down a bit and proactive, meaningful input will rule the day on all sides of an issue.
——————————————————
As an interesting side note, The project that was presented according to Mr. Wang encompasses 200 homes (of which I believe 65 are assisted living units) and 200,000 sq. ft of retail/commercial. These numbers vary greatly from the numbers put forth by the “sky is falling” crowd before the election. Their full-page ad the week before election day said that this plan encompassed 165 homes and 430,000 sq ft of retail/commercial (that’s 110% more than actually planned).
Thanks, John, for providing accurate information about current and past projects. I am sooo tired of the fact-less rants from the “action alameda” group. Your blog is a great antidote for my frustration.
Your first two posts are very informative. Lest you get caught in the trap of “defending” the City Council, I would suggest that you use this blog as your opportunity to present your point of view regarding Alameda. You are very involved in transportation matters and I would especially like to read your comments on transportation matters. Of course, if exposing the “truth” is your passion then go for it.
John: I wish I had the time and ability to present the facts as you are doing here. I will make sure to pass along this site to David K. perhaps it will help him with things like the “truth” John P.
In the beginning I tried to follow the Nothern Waterfront Specific Plan and went to at least three of the meetings before I lost track of it over a years time That was at least three years ago I think.
I ran into one of the staff of the consulating firm LSA who took the contract and asked after the process, and this person told me that it was up for a contract extension and they walked away and did not want the work. The exact reasons and status of the NWSP were not clear, but I understood that the reason was shear frustration, though I’m not sure if it was with the citizens on the committee for the process or City staff, or maybe both? I would like to know the gory details.
A note about Peter Wang. I think he is a charater. He was one of the stake holders who got to be on the NWSP committee. At the first meeting he expressed the opinion that property holders on the committee should have a stronger say in other members because of their “investment”. Nice try Peter. It seems completely within Mr. Wang’s style of doing business to have attempted to get this exclusive agreement without doing all the leg work first, though it’s easy to see his point of view with regard to lenders.