“With all precincts reporting, Measure B in Alameda lost, 85 percent to 15 percent. It would have allowed a one-time exemption to Measure A, a 1973 ordinance that bans anything larger than a duplex on the island.”
“If it had passed, Measure B would have allowed a development at Alameda Point with 4,500 units of apartments, condominiums and single-family homes, as well as offices, parks, a ferry terminal and other amenities.”
∙ Voters rejecting Alameda development project [SFGate]
∙ Alameda Point Redevelopment [alameda-point.com] [Master Plan (pdf)]
we need that space for the Mythbusters anyway.
although interesting, I doubt I’d like to have my back yard next to runaway remote-control rocket cars!
🙂
The western edge of Alameda is technically part of San Francisco, the easternmost part of the city.
Alameda island is at times full of charming Victorian streetscapes and quaint shopping districts where streetcar trolleys once ran, and at other times it’s got a mythbusters apocalyptic feel to it. I guess that won’t change any time soon.
They already have at least one ferry terminal there. What would the new one have offered?
Hopefully this is a harbinger that the shadow ordinance on the June SF ballot will pass.
I think it will win in the west of Twin Peaks sections of SF as these SFR neighborhoods are increasingly concerned about how the push for high density residential development will impact them.
As long as they leave Bladium alone, I’ll be fine.
Although the first paragraph leads one to believe otherwise, this wasn’t a referendum on either high density residential development or new urbanist planning principles. From the SF Gate article (link above):
In other words, the developer wanted to circumvent the normal approval process and cut themselves a special deal.
Supporters of Measure B, including the developer spent twenty four times as much money on the ballot measure and lost. Voters aren’t stupid. cf San Francisco, Proposition D, Nov. 2009.
“They already have at least one ferry terminal there. What would the new one have offered?”
The current one is @ Harbor Bay Isle — a far-ish bike ride from the proposed northern part of island; this would have been ideal to help get people out of their cars over to S. SF, SF, Berkeley and around the bay. Any vision in these parts?
I commuted using Alameda ferry for 3 years — it was a pleasure; one week in and I used to cringe @ the thought of the bridge car thing as an alternative.
More ferries please.
“The western edge of Alameda is technically part of San Francisco, the easternmost part of the city.”
Wow, I learn something new every day here. Thanks Mo.
There are two ferries – the other one is right across from Jack London Square and stops on the Oakland side as well. It goes from Alameda/Oakland to the Ferry Building and then Pier 39. That terminal is really cruddy on the Alameda side though.
That end (actually the middle) of Alameda island is connected to the mainland by four lanes of tunnel. They’re already saturated during the rush hours. Only other option are the bridges down at the east end of the island.
Any development project on the former naval base without a new bridge or tunnel is DOA. The residents of Alameda have a good quality of life thing going, and they’re not stupid. Perhaps when (if) a second transbay BART tube is built it can surface a station on the west part of Alameda Island.
“Perhaps when (if) a second transbay BART tube is built it can surface a station on the west part of Alameda Island. ”
Should be a quid pro quo for those NIMBYs. BART for them, but only if they increase and create denser development on Alameda.
Golf courses are toxic. Can’t we ban them?
Kathleen, I’m not a golfer but are you serious? On what legal grounds should they be banned? I’m sure there are quite a few land uses that you or others don’t agree with, but give us a break. There are over 6 million people in the Bay Area. We’re not all here to accomodate your narrow interests.