Revisit our quarry for creative solutions? (Jim Wagner)
San Francisco Chronicle/Carolyn Jones, 5/2/14. "Alameda intends to bypass housing ban, develop ex-Navy base."
 |
| Alameda in the larger Bay Area |
| Former Navy base land |
The move comes as the demand grows for housing in San Francisco and Oakland, and it's expected to draw strong opposition from residents due to the limited access - three bridges and a tunnel - to the city.
.... "The economy is very good right now, and we want to take advantage of that," said Alameda Point's chief operating officer for the city, Jennifer Ott. "Our hope is that these projects serve as a catalyst for the rest of the Alameda Point development." Ultimately, Alameda Point will include 1,425 housing units, 250 acres of open space and a mix of light industry, offices and retail. Google recently signed a lease at the point for a renewable energy lab." Read article.
Related article - Business Journal, 5/2/14, "Alameda Point open for new development plans."
Reference - Science education for new civic engagements and responsibilities (SENCER), "Abstract". ".... A
federal mandate requires that such sites negotiate with Homeless
Service Providers (HSP's) to explore their potential as a source of
new housing. As a result, such sites present real and immediate
civic challenges that demand both scientific knowledge and a
broader understanding of how environmental science is bound up with
ethics, history, culture, politics, and economics."
Note photographs: Alameda point from San Francisco Chronicle blog, 1/29/10, "Measure B"; Alameda area from the SENCER "Abstract" above.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
43 comments:
SF is on a major building spree. Every other city can but Pacifica.
Gee, Alameda wants to be a housing resource for commuters to all those SF jobs. We'd be an easier commute. Of course we don't have all that developable space in one big bloc, but we might be able to squeeze in a few condos and apts and retail space around town. The quarry? That would be a miracle, but we could get real and add hundreds of units among the OWWTP, Fassler, the Rock, on city-property on Oceana and Francisco, Oddstad school site, Oddstad where the assisted-living project failed, Palmetto, etc etc. None of it will happen, not one blessed thing unless city hall gets serious and honest about development and hires a fucking economic development director! We are being given the old runaround by a bunch of self-serving politicians who refuse to act because they either are closet nimbys or they fear the nimby backlash. This ridiculous New Council is nice and comfy at city hall knowing we'll just blame the usual nimbys for the lack of progress. They got that right.
The natives are getting restless.
The plot thickens....
Ehh, so does jello. This is Pacifica, no improvement in sight even when we know full well what needs to be done.
Woohoo! Another in a long line of realtors, etcetera, who'd like to wake up Pacifica. Not happening. Pacifica slumbers on.
Anyone know if council can vote to rescind the poison pill on the quarry?
Yes 1:25 the council can rescind the quarry's need for Coastal Commission review by incorporating it into the city local programs.
I have heard it 3 different ways.
1. Being the City Council was the redevelopment agency, and they put the poison pill on, the redevelopment agencies and debt all rolled back on the city.
2. I hear it is null and void.
3. I hear it is up to the city to cancel the poison pill.
125 Oh please, leave us our illusion that they would if they could. We've so little to believe in. This way they can forever trot out Loeb and pals to hide behind. Ask a councilperson. Or maybe ask on the record during a council meeting. If you get a real answer, the world could use your help with Putin.
http://www.pacificaindex.com/reports/6614-2-14-15BudgetDevelopmentPresentation.pdf
You mean put out the welcome mat for development? They could but they won't. And their fingerprints aren't on it.
I thought the poison pill was requiring voter approval for any housing in the quarry. Commercial development would not require voter approval. Coastal Commission does their thing regardless.
The "poison pill" is the growth control ordinance. It requires a public vote on housing in the quarry. It has nothing to do with redevelopment or the Coastal Commission.
You cannot rescind the requirement for Coastal Commission review of development in the coastal zone. The quarry is already in the local coastal land use plan. Any development there still has to be reviewed by the Coastal Commission.
Now that we've got that straight, back to the question. Can this city council act to remove the growth control ordinance requiring a public vote on housing in the quarry? Cities enact, change and abolish public ordinances all the time. Is this ordinance somehow different? If council can repeal it, or set in motion the process to repeal it, why haven't they? We're all very clear on who cooked up the poison pill and why, we talk about it endlessly, but why is this council supporting it? I'd love to know if there is any reason other than the fact it's political kryptonite in this town.
So, it sounds like council can rescind the poison pill if they choose? if that is the case, shouldn't those of us that would like to see some smart development there start lobbying council?
How about some proof this council doesn't actually support that poison pill? Either explain why they can't make it go away or why they won't. Nothing makes a politician happier than hearing the public bash their predecessors. It's the equivalent of a free pass. They don't have to do a thing and they won't until the fire is lit under their asses. I'm not excusing previous councils in any way, but at some point the spotlight and the criticism has to be on those in office now. Get off the sidelines and do your job!
Lobby Mike O'Neill. If he starts to run with it, the prima donnas won't be able to get in front of the cameras fast enough.
Hold on a minute. In 2006 the Measure L ballot info (that was the Peebles matter) stated that Pacifica Ordinance No. 391 C.S. was adopted by the voters on 11/8/83 and specifies any residential development in the quarry shall require a vote of the people. Adopted by the voters. Can council undo something the voters put in place? I dunno but I'm thinking they can't. Was there a sunset clause? If it requires a public vote to undo the poison pill, then let's get 'er done. Measure L almost passed so maybe our scaredy-pants council just needs a shove to start the process. Any experts out there who can answer with certainty, chapter and verse?
Pretty sure it would have to go to a vote to remove restrictions on the quarry.
IMO a vote for reasonable housing there would pass this time. It was close in 2006 but that was then.
A vote for reasonable housing might well pass. The question is how many is reasonable?
Yes, of course it has to go to a public vote once housing is proposed, but what I'm saying is repeal the ordinance itself by a public vote. That ordinance was put in place in 1983 specifically to control growth. I'm not aware of any sunset clause. It has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Times and attitudes have changed. The quarry could be Pacifica's last hope. Nobody is voting for more taxes but this they might support. Remove this notorious impediment to development and developers will take notice. Any project would still have to meet zoning and planning regulations and of course the CCC. Isn't that enough regulation? If the voters decline to repeal it, then we are no worse off. Shouldn't cost much to put it on a regular ballot if Council feels the ordinance has outlived its use. I'm afraid that might be a big if.
What has this council done to get any potential buyer to come take a look at the quarry. Nothing!
What will be done in the quarry under the sitting city council. Nothing!
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sm/meas/L/
8:38
reasonable amount of housing for the nimbys,nooobees, and hippies.
0
838...It is not the city's or council's job to market privately owned properties and The Quarry is privately owned. This site in Alameda is a bad anology for the Quarry, other than its a big vacant piece of land. Focus on the quarry owners and their behavior. They are back east. They have a broker who put signs up on the property and maintained a website for some time. They have a portfolio of properties and Pacifica is not a low hanging fruit. So they don't care.
They have not brought a buyer, but maybe have brought a lot of tire kickers who have walked away due to what they perceive to be a tough environment. When we had a redevelopment agency, maybe there was an opportunity for some "public private partnership" but as there is no agency, and more importantly, no possible tax increment, that opportunity has blown away like dandelions in the wind. The Council of course could be more pro-active or hire a professional pitchman or woman of its own (ED Director) and that all looks really good but the long and short of it is that it is politically risky for the council to endorse development of any kind on the quarry as the most noisy and politically charged Pacificans happen to be neighbors who wish to maintain it as open space and habitat.
This council is more likely to find MH370 with Amelia Earhart at the controls than do anything to enable development in the quarry. My dear, it's the backlash, tsk tsk. I wonder if this Growth Control Ordinance 391 C.S. is something that would be vulnerable to direct democracy, ie, the CA Referendum and Initiative process? That's how we got term limits in place. In fact, that's the process that was used to get the poison pill on the ballot in the first place. Ballot-box zoning was very popular in CA cities in the 80s and 90s. Can it be undone by the same process?
Reading the ballot argument for term limits is a hoot. It said term limits were needed to prevent the do-nothing dynasty in Pacifica. Hilarious.
1224 Oh tell us something we don't know. Like how to repeal the poison pill.
1254 You saved the good stuff for last...this council is inert because they fear political backlash, Loeb and Bray. That's good enough for me! The Nimby's don't even have to run for office to run Pacifica. And it's a two-fer because when council is criticized they can blame those very same nimbys. It's somehow very fitting that the city's financial survival has come down to the sewer fund.
@1254 The only thing this council knows about pro-active is it's good for zits.
An inert and impotent council that panders to the noisy minority, instead of what is best for the whole city sounds like a recipe for advocating District Elections. Remember that fellow from Vallemar who complained his hood was looking ghetto? Let's help that guy out and give him a Vallemar district councilman to whine to. Let's follow in the footsteps of the County and elect council members by district. Let's divy up the city into five or more districts. District elections would dilute the influence of the vocal minority. Council members would need to wheel and deal with each other for scarce resources. They would need to be accountable to the districts that elect them. How much wheeling and dealing do we see today? I just see our city wallowing in a quagmire and moping in the shadows of the twilight. It's a crying shame. Let's foster "democracy" here!
The Vallemar nimbys own city council.
It's a nimby town, always has been. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Nimbys will let you do that now and then. Somehow they're just, IDK, smarter? Definitely better at working the system. It's that old organizing thing. They've got it. Now we fight over scraps.
Only one nimby on council now. They are the ones fighting for scraps, frustrated that council favors widening, Filing lawsuits, revamped plan commish and open space committees. Wait until the next vote on the quarry.
852 Got your Sunday night buzz on? You can't be sober and that naive.
8:52
Look at who endorsed Mary Ann and Karen. You people are so damned naive.
What has Lennie done for Pacifica financially? Goal setting, please. What has Mr ONeil done? Nothing.
What have Mary Ann and Karen doing to improve the city's bottom line?
The NIMBY's hate Mary Ann, Mike, Karen and Len. You have to be stupid not to know that. You think Loeb is happy with our council? Look how Todd Bray rails against them all except Sue. They regularly praise Sue. She is the only one in their corner. 716 & 1128 you are confusing politicking with supporting.
716 Mary Ann, Len, Karen and Mike are for highway widening. Sue is not. Sue is the only one asking for public hearings. It's obvious they are not in the pockets of the nimby's. Mike O'Neill has done plenty. He's worked hard to make projects more transparent by holding several public meetings on his own.
716, You sound like you're trying to throw a wrench in the system. You sure YOU aren't a nimby?
I love to watch the circular firing squad.
This is a council with something for everyone, but not too much for anyone. Such delicacy! Do they know the campaign is over and they're late to work? Many years late. Avoid enough decisions and you're irrelevant. This bunch is irrelevant. That level of political self-interest deserves our contempt, not our defense, but this being Pacifica, we naively rationalize council's inertia and fawn over their truly minimal performance.
They sure to know how to sit a fence
well. Four Fence Sitters of the Apocalypse? Nah, too grand for a dump like Pacifica. Just a bunch of pallbearers.
Quick Squiggly, they're getting restless. More proclamations, lamentations, reports, plans, dooo something!
Wrenches, bull, excuses, everybody's throwing something. Council is counting on it. Good for the old inertia.
Is it time for the flying shoes to start?
time for the flying monkeys
Post a Comment