Going Forward – Mastick Center

On Thursday evening at the Mastick Senior Center, the second in a series of meetings concerning the planning for the future of Alameda Point was held. Approximately seventy people were in attendance, including community activists Gretchen Lipow and Ash Jones, current City Councilmember Doug de Haan, and former Councilmember, Tony Daysog, both recent Mayoral Candidates.

Attendees were welcomed by Interim City Manager Anne-Marie Gallant, and asked to see, “What we can do as a community to actually take this back and see if we can move forward with a vision that works for everyone and reflects everyone’s interest.” Deputy City Manager Jennifer Ott then introduced the planning team the City had hired and the workbooks to be used during the evening.

Six discussion groups were available: Transportation and Access; Land Use was so popular it broke into two groups; Historic Character, Preservation and Adaptive Reuse; Parks and Open Space; and Building Types and Neighborhood Character. Planners hired by the city worked with each group as facilitators, directing and guiding each discussion.

Each group worked for about an hour, discussing each specific topic, going over an agenda directed by the planner/facilitator, looking at options for Alameda Point. Although there was a lot of very direct and specific input from the community and individuals, it seemed fairly plain that the facilitator, at least at the table at which I was seated, was looking to get specific answers validated, not to get new input.

After the hour of discussion was up, a person from each group was nominated to report back to the general assembly as to what each table had discussed. Among the people nominated in their groups to speak, David Burton, speaking for one of the Land Use groups, mentioned the general discomfort most residents have with new building above three stories, and the need to maintain the current character of Alameda’s architecture. The other Land Use table recognized environmental concerns inherent to the area, including the habitat of the Least Tern and the incursion of toxic plumes from hazardous waste left behind by the US Navy that needs remediation.

Diane Lichtenstein spoke for the Building Types and Neighborhood Character table, and brought up the issue of scale for buildings and businesses proposed for the Point, as well as the issues regarding transit to and around the area. One of the most interesting ideas floated for building types by the moderator was that of a ‘Signature Building’ like SF’s Ferry building, or a hotel tower. Beth Greene represented the Adaptive Reuse table and mentioned issues concerning the practicality and feasibility of the subdivision of the NAS, and the importance of continued use of the buildings that are now in use.

The theme that was repeated by table after table, group after group was that if the Point is to be developed, people want it to be developed with sensitivity to our existing community. People want something that adds to the City of Alameda, not that ruins it or overwhelms it.

As the ICM alluded to in her opening remarks, the Citizens are gun-shy about development after such nasty previous experiences with the Point. It will take a lot of community input to keep the plans for Alameda Point on track. The third in these series of meetings will be held at The O’ Club, 641 West Red Line Drive on December 8, 2010 from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Recent posts from the same author: