BeerPal

Plans To Redevelop Alameda Marina In The Works

Recommended Posts

Well, I read that whole thing. Wow, that sucks. I hope people mobilize and put a stop to it.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any stopping it, unless enviro remediation costs too much.

 

What would be KICK-ASS is if the marine community could leverage this to develop the Seaplane Lagoon(Also in the City/County of Alameda) and surrounds into a real marina, marine industry AND dry storage space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better get used to it - heavy industrial situations on the water like boatyards simply don't bring in as much money as condos so they can't survive in the middle of urban areas. The small ones that do are exorbitantly expensive and inconvenient - like Granville Island here. Pretty well all that gets done there are quick bottom jobs, prop changes and prepping of new boats for the dealers there.

 

The land is simply too valuable for our uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better get used to it - heavy industrial situations on the water like boatyards simply don't bring in as much money as condos so they can't survive in the middle of urban areas. The small ones that do are exorbitantly expensive and inconvenient - like Granville Island here. Pretty well all that gets done there are quick bottom jobs, prop changes and prepping of new boats for the dealers there.

 

The land is simply too valuable for our uses.

 

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought there would be issues with the California Coastal Commission. I tried to read the California Coastal Plan years ago but I recall that development near the water front has to get approval from the Coastal Commission and that the Coastal Commission has a hierarchy of priority uses - such that marine dependent uses (like boat yards) had priority over golf courses. The purpose of the Coastal Commission was to make sure that money did not drive out public uses - which is why they are so involved in public access to beaches.

 

Alameda Marina is irreplaceable. It seems like there are so many other places to develop on the island and build housing. Although I am not a big fan of the housing built northwest of Webster Street - just a bunch of cookie cutter houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like what has happened to heaps of working yards all over the place, ala Yacht Haven East and now West in Stamford.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they either don't look at their "pretty pictures" before they write stuff up, or they

ignore the stuff they write up. They state "The visions, developmental alternatives, and policies

outlined in this masterplan establishes a strong planning framework by defining goals and

objectives to support significant development and new public waterfront open space while

maintaining marina and boat repair operations..."

 

Someone out there should ask them how their pictures do that.

 

Just my 2 cents as someone who has designed universally accessible public waterfront

facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BB and also think that anyone who writes like that needs their ass kicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will stop this within the next weeks. Perhaps going to the Commodores of local alameda yacht clubs to give the mayor a call and give/demand her support to stop them.

 

There is no relocation of these established businesses, there is not true affordable multi unit housing proposed in this package (or anywhere in Alameda) and the toxic waste (mercury and lead) clean up for this site will break any developer who will be burdened with the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They want the "atmosphere" without the facilities. Same deal in SD when they closed Kettenburg's yard. I was on the local planning board at the time with one other member who could actually tell the pointy end from the square one. All the local merchants came in singing praises of "visual corridors" to the bay and getting rid of the dirty yards that inhibited pedestrians from accessing their business up the street. The two of us argued that without the boats and their owners who dropped cash in their stores, the best sales they were going to see were T-Shirts to the tourons from the Midwest who would figure out there was no beach and go back to their hotels. I asked for a show of hands how many of these "marina village concept" retailers actually owned a boat big enough to keep in a slip. Not a friggin' one!

 

We got outvoted and took our case to the Port District which supported the waterfront business for a while but eventually, the "we need some more cobblestones and gingerbread trim down here" lobby won out. Now it's all condominified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the plan that was presented to the "Community" a couple of weeks ago is implemented, then in fact Svendsens will close.

--As will Hogin Sails, Doyle Sails, DOAR Marine, the Island Yacht Club and other businesses that employ about 240 people within the marina.

Regarding the actual slips: The developers representatives at the EDD-whatever design company swore up and down that the slips will remain. In fact, that's probably true....for a while. See, this is how it'll work.

The developer builds townhouses and condos up the ying-yang. They sell them and take home more money than most of us can conceive of. At that point, the developing company...which is a DEVELOPING company not a PROPERTY MANAGEMENT company.....sells the land on which the Marina sits, plus the lease with the City of Alameda, to the Homeowners Association for a piddling sum. Fine. And then, in six or seven or ten years when the slips need some maintenance, the Developers company will be nowhere to be found. It will be up to the Homeowners Association to maintain the slips. Now, do you REALLY think that all the condo and townhouse owners are going to want to shell out thousands of dollars to maintain boat slips?

Remember, there is NO provision in the Developers plans for A.) a harbormasters office or B.) parking for the marina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Are you accusing the land developers of being greedy and duplicitous?

 

Whodda thunkit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm a capitalist, generally speaking. I mean, Polen or his company bought the land. Details are at that "other" forum, but upshot is that they own the land. So they should get to do something with it...you know, make some money on it. I don't hate people for making money.

It's just that so far they've rolled out a couple of real whoppers (lies) about the zoning, and I'm feeling a whole lot less charitable.

"Work, live play"? Bullshit. The minimum wage Starbucks baristas and retail workers and busboys that will be in the 2-3 stores and tony waterfront restaurant they'll have won't be able to afford those townhomes. 390-something townhomes and condos will hold probably 1,000+ people. Is there going to be good-paying work on-site for those 1,000 people? Not flippin' likely.

Traffic? OH, they will ask BART to run a bus line down there. Not that they'll PAY for the bus line, mind you. Not gonna happen. Will they pay to completely re-do the entire length of Clement street? What do the neighbors, who live in small homes half a block off of Clement think about this? Besides, if there's such an enormous need for housing, go two block down the street and there are about 15-20 acres of available land on which to plant a crapload of condos on the water without destroying something that's completely irreplaceable.... The Alameda Marina.

No. I don't begrudge the guy and his company an opportunity to make some money. Just don't completely destroy something that can never be replaced in order to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one will ever be able afford to build another marina and yard in Alameda. The State, BCDC and toxic waste in any place including the current slips in front of Svenson's will close that section for ever. The old navy base superfund site proves that only federal money and huge concessions have to be made to make any development be made. A collection of yacht clubs, businesses and yacht owners need to show up at city hall. The mayor would love to get support. If she did, the developer would have to go back into the shadows. Maybe the developers could build on Bayfarm - there are so much space available for development, transporation and city views - perhaps we could get the Raiders could build a stadium right there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The highest and best use of a harbor is to provide nice views for rich people out the windows of the offices and condos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent success story of a similar nature here in SE Connecticut. Lehman Brothers Holdings wanted to build a golf course and gobs of mansions and other single and multi-family homes on an unspoiled 1000 acre woods near where the CT River meets Long Island Sound. After years and years of fighting this development, the land has finally been purchased by environmental groups and "The Preserve" will forever be wild, unique, coastal forest land, open for passive public recreation. Of course the Great Recession brought on us all by the Wall Street Banksters, caused Lehman to fail which certainly had a large part in this saga. Silver lining in a large ugly cloud.....

 

Perhaps sanity will prevail and you will not lose your priceless maritime resource, but I kind of doubt that will happen... Good luck!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This just in from another forum:


We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign and the Harbormaster, Brock Delappe has been terminated from duties.


Apparently the primary developer Bill Poland is is axe swinging mode....stay tuned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's obvious! Svensen had a conflict of interest, and since there is no longer any harbor, Delappe got flicked!! Lots of money being passed around behind the scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's obvious! Svensen had a conflict of interest, and since there is no longer any harbor, Delappe got flicked!! Lots of money being passed around behind the scenes.

 

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast,

 

You wrote "We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign"

 

Resign from ... what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This just in from another forum:
We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign and the Harbormaster, Brock Delappe has been terminated from duties.
Apparently the primary developer Bill Poland is is axe swinging mode....stay tuned...

 

 

Looks like your city councils are owned by land developers every bit as much as here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This just in from another forum:
We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign and the Harbormaster, Brock Delappe has been terminated from duties.
Apparently the primary developer Bill Poland is is axe swinging mode....stay tuned...

 

 

Looks like your city councils are owned by land developers every bit as much as here.

 

makes ya wonder how milltown marina got fast tracked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast,

 

You wrote "We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign"

 

Resign from ... what?

 

Unclear, but I would assume it was from a board position with Pacific Shops, the parent company of Alameda Marina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This just in from another forum:
We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign and the Harbormaster, Brock Delappe has been terminated from duties.
Apparently the primary developer Bill Poland is is axe swinging mode....stay tuned...

 

 

Looks like your city councils are owned by land developers every bit as much as here.

 

 

Maybe the best thing we have going for us is the apparent fact that the city officials are not on board with Poland's plan and have publicly stated that his vision for the property does not jibe with the City's plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from that other forum:

If you're sitting here reading this thread and you haven't done anything like write to the Alameda City Council members, with a copy going to the City Clerk, then...ahhhhh... well, you think about that.

Here's the City Council: City Council | City of Alameda
http://alamedaca.gov/node/860


Each council members name is a link to their own page which has an e-mail address in it. Keep in mind that e-mail is nice but e-mails can be deleted. However, WRITTEN LETTERS especially if a copy is sent to the City Clerk, can not be ignored or deleted.

Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer
Vice Mayor Frank Matarrese
Councilmember Tony Daysog
Councilmember Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Councilmember Jim Oddie

AND send copies to the City Clerks office --

2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501

I would suggest that folks keep letters to two paragraphs and stick to two or three salient points. Half a page or three-quarters of a page is plenty. Do not imply that you are from Alameda if you don't live there. For heavens sake don't write four pages including your conspiracy theories about the Feds and aliens, OK?

I can hear it now... "I'd write but I don't want to get booted, too".

My friend, are you not paying attention? If Alameda Marina Development LLC is not stopped, you're going to GET BOOTED ANYWAY. Keeping your head down and doing nothing makes you the little puppet, squeezing out another 12 months (maybe) of relief from the merciful hand of the Developer. How long until YOUR 30-day notice is in the mailbox, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This just in from another forum:
We have just learned that Sean Svendsen from Alameda Marina has been forced to resign and the Harbormaster, Brock Delappe has been terminated from duties.
Apparently the primary developer Bill Poland is is axe swinging mode....stay tuned...

 

 

Looks like your city councils are owned by land developers every bit as much as here.

 

 

Maybe the best thing we have going for us is the apparent fact that the city officials are not on board with Poland's plan and have publicly stated that his vision for the property does not jibe with the City's plans.

 

 

Then what's the problem? How can anything happen if the council doesn't want to let it? Sounds like rezoning is required, permits, all that stuff that can kill a developers plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what's the problem? How can anything happen if the council doesn't want to let it? Sounds like rezoning is required, permits, all that stuff that can kill a developers plan.

You thnk a guy who makes his living doing this is going to walk away from a $100,000,000 payday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then what's the problem? How can anything happen if the council doesn't want to let it? Sounds like rezoning is required, permits, all that stuff that can kill a developers plan.

You thnk a guy who makes his living doing this is going to walk away from a $100,000,000 payday?

This^^ Hate to tell you, but this deal was all locked down before any of us ever heard of it. I had thought this was Sean cashing out but maybe not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to tell you, but this deal was all locked down before any of us ever heard of it. I had thought this was Sean cashing out but maybe not

The developer hasn't even filed an environmental impact report yet. That, combined with the city council's surprised reaction to the redevelopment plans tells me it's a bit premature to say that the project is "all locked down."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alameda needs affordable housing. This plan does not give it to them. City has to change lots of policies as more rental units are needed. Most importantly - as of right now the housing market is beginning to free up. The Mayor likes slow growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hate to tell you, but this deal was all locked down before any of us ever heard of it. I had thought this was Sean cashing out but maybe not

The developer hasn't even filed an environmental impact report yet. That, combined with the city council's surprised reaction to the redevelopment plans tells me it's a bit premature to say that the project is "all locked down."

Look, I'm against it too. I live around the corner and have to commute through the tube every day (and shop at Svendsens). The new Lennar million dollar cracker boxes, the condos coming to the old Del Monte plant, and now this. It sucks. But I do know that a developer doesn't buy a patch of dirt like that unless and until it's sure it can build ASAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hate to tell you, but this deal was all locked down before any of us ever heard of it. I had thought this was Sean cashing out but maybe not

The developer hasn't even filed an environmental impact report yet. That, combined with the city council's surprised reaction to the redevelopment plans tells me it's a bit premature to say that the project is "all locked down."

 

 

That's my point - nothing happens in a municipality that the council doesn't want to happen. Just because this guys looking at a megabuck payday doesn't mean it will happen - unless the council is bought & paid for like here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alameda needs affordable housing. This plan does not give it to them. City has to change lots of policies as more rental units are needed. Most importantly - as of right now the housing market is beginning to free up. The Mayor likes slow growth.

 

That's the excuse they use here - increase the density until the place is ruined in the name of "affordable housing".

 

It's bullshit - a bunch of $million condos do not make anything affordable, they just make money for a very small group and otherwise fuck up a nice neighbourhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last month the city of Alameda extended rent control after a small riot broke out and folks were arrested. It was unusual of our small hamlet.

 

As anyone here is aware, people of more limited means are getting squeezed out. Building town homes and apartments for Chinese Nationals business speculation and their economic investments is not an answer to this serious problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fact is, bay area developable land is limited, and the demand for housing is increasing.

 

Increase supply, or decrease demand.

 

Alameda (and Marin) try to keep demand low by making it difficult to get there, but it seems folks are willing to deal with more and more congestion.

 

Rent control will just create shitty housing.

 

Only way for a gov't agency to actually make housing affordable without destroying the housing stock is to decide up front to subsidize low income workers.

 

Or maybe increase minimum wage....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fact is, bay area developable land is limited, and the demand for housing is increasing.

 

Increase supply, or decrease demand.

 

Alameda (and Marin) try to keep demand low by making it difficult to get there, but it seems folks are willing to deal with more and more congestion.

 

Rent control will just create shitty housing.

 

Only way for a gov't agency to actually make housing affordable without destroying the housing stock is to decide up front to subsidize low income workers.

 

Or maybe increase minimum wage....

Or allow more live aboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fact is, bay area developable land is limited, and the demand for housing is increasing.

 

Increase supply, or decrease demand.

 

Alameda (and Marin) try to keep demand low by making it difficult to get there, but it seems folks are willing to deal with more and more congestion.

 

Rent control will just create shitty housing.

 

Only way for a gov't agency to actually make housing affordable without destroying the housing stock is to decide up front to subsidize low income workers.

 

Or maybe increase minimum wage....

increasing the minimum wage will not work to solve a housing shortage; all it will do is create higher rents since at this point the only thing keeping rents from going even higher is the fact that people can't afford their current rents. if you pay more to the minimum wage earners they will be able to afford more but then the landlords will then charge more, leaving the poorest in our society with no more spendable but more inflation in the cost of every day necessities because the workers promoting those every day necessities are being paid more to promote them so it drives the costof those every day necessities up

 

The only real solution is to increase the supply of housing which, at its bottom line, means making it easier and cheaper for developers to build apartments. Not condos, apartments.

 

rent control is good for those who are already in place but is actually murderous for anybody looking for or to move into a new place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify....

Pacific Shops, Inc. is the company that owns about 5/8ths of the land that the Alameda Marina sits on. The other 3/8s, and the "tidelands" where the boat slips are, are managed by Pacific Shops, Inc. through a lease with the City of Alameda. The City of Alameda actually administers the land, including the stuff underwater for the State of California. There are provisions to that lease which require maintenance of the facilities etc. Some of the buildings on the property are partly on the leased land and partly on Pacific Shops "owned" land.

Pacific Shops, Inc. was founded by John Bentzen, back in the day...in the late 1950's. Practically on his deathbed, he sold the company to Svend Svendsen, Sean Svendsen and Bill Poland. John and Svend were buddies going back 50 years. John realized that Svend shared the same vision for the Marina. Problem was, Sean and Svend didn't have the capital to buy it outright. So some broker/shark guy from the City brought in Bill Poland. Nothing really happened while Svend was alive, but we all know that he passed away a couple of years ago. Well, Bill Poland is the 52% owner. Sean is now the 48% owner. So Bill Poland calls the shots.

However, Sean was also the Marina Manager...meaning an employee of Pacific Shops, Inc. He had an office in the Harbormasters building, until Thursday, when "technically" he resigned that job....but it's quite obvious that Poland threatened legal action and Sean resigned. Two days later, Brock de Lappe was fired for "not being supportive enough of the development plans".

And of course, some asshole guy who doesn't like shit like this, who made a bunch of noise about it, and who had just moved his boat to the dry storage at the Marina got a 30-day eviction notice. Yeah, that's me.

So as it stands now, the new Harbormaster is Bill Polands dude. This doesn't mean he's an asshole, OK? I don't know Paul Houtz at all, he's probably a great guy. Sean Svendsen has almost certainly been under some significant legal pressure to not say a damned thing, so don't go looking for him to start making a bunch of noise about all this. He's no longer the day-to-day manager at the Marina. However, he owns Svendsens Marine...the boatyard, rig shop, chandlery and so on. That's by FAR the biggest tenant at the Marina. He's also the MINORITY owner of Pacific Shops, Inc.

The scene is somewhat complicated by the existance of a company called Alameda Marina Development, LLC. Bill Poland is the President of that company, and last I looked a couple of days ago, Sean Svendsen was still the Agent. That doesn't mean that he's a part-owner or anything.

The company who is doing the actual development, if all the permitting goes in place, etc. etc. etc. is Bay West Development. Bill Poland owns Bay West Development. There's also a PR firm, and a design firm involved, all of which are owned by Bill Poland.

Finally, as an aside, I hear from more than one source that Bill Poland is...shall we say....not really acting rationally right now. Not sure what that means or implies, but there you go. Pure hearsay as I have never met the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, "talk" on SA is fun and uhhh... "educational" but what makes a DIFFERENCE is little pieces of paper in stamped envelopes wending their merry way councilward.

Here's the City Council: http://alamedaca.gov/node/860

On that web page, each council members name is a link to their own page which has an e-mail address in it. Keep in mind that e-mail is nice but e-mails can be deleted. However, written letters, especially if a copy is sent to the City Clerk, can not be ignored or deleted and become part of the public record.

Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer
Vice Mayor Frank Matarrese
Councilmember Tony Daysog
Councilmember Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Councilmember Jim Oddie

AND send copies to the City Clerks office --

2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the naysayers.....it's quite obvious that Bill Poland does not own the City Council. Yes, there are pro-development council members, but the last election seriously changed the makeup of the Council. Alameda citizens are pissed. The next election is not likely to go well for pro-build-till-you-drop council members.

BTW, the little development over by Grand Marina? .....with all the pretty east coast bay names? TRUTH...the last council approved that development designed for 3/4 of a car per unit. Not ONE car per unit, or two, but as planned/submitted with 3/4 of a car per unit. The developer actually convinced the Council that cars were so unnecessary, and the people who were going to buy those houses were going to work SO close to their homes (where???) that one out of four of the new homeowners wouldn't even bother to own a car.

No, I'm not kidding.

Finally, I've been at the Marina a lot, getting my boat ready to get the 'eff out within my 30 days notice, and the Marina tenants know what is going on . However, there are dumb rumours going around...like the one that the "Money behind all this is a Chinese guy who walks around the marina with white gloves on".... WTF? ??? No. It's just Bill Poland.

People are running scared. They're afraid to stand up to Poland. Berth renters and dry-slip owners are afraid to make any noise, scared that they'll be the next ones to get flicked. The problem with that is that if you just roll over and die, you're going to get evicted, anyway.

A little detail has come to light recently. While the Island YC has been paying rent month-to-month for years, most of the businesses in the Marina have had longer-term leases. Over the past two years, those leases have not been renewed, and the rent has gone to month-to-month. Now, it appears that almost all the businesses are month-to-month. It appears that Bill Poland is figuring that if Plan A to evict people doesn't work, he'll just jack the rent through the ceiling and force people out that way.

Nice guy, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Sean is just another tenant now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean is more than a tenant, he is still a 48% (it's somewhere between 47% and 49.999%, I don't know the exact figure) owner of Pacific Shops, Inc. So he's still a minority owner. However, the control lies with Bill Poland, and it appears that the man is lawsuit-happy. I don't KNOW this but it appears that Sean has had enough legal crap thrown at him that to save his skin, he's keeping his mouth shut. I can't blame the guy.

Polands long-time co-worker and smooth-talking buddy John Falaschi with PR and communications consultant Becca Rosati are starting to make the round of the tenants. They've already met with a least a couple of tenants. Of course I don't KNOW this right now, for sure, but their message is almost certainly: "We're nice people! We're here to listen to you. Tell us what you think. You have questions? Gosh, we really don't know what we're going to do. What do YOU think we should do?"

So people tell them what they think and need and then they feel like Pacific Shops is listening to them...which of course they're not. Falaschi goes back to his buddy Poland with a pretty clear idea of what the tenants want and need and fear. Of course, Bill Poland doesn't give a shit what they want, need and fear, he just wants the information. Falaschi is brought on to do this because he's a personable guy. He's a good talker and he's worked with Bill Poland on a number of projects for years and years. Becca Rosati is there because she specializes in "corporate communications" which in this case is "sweet-talking tenants". Bill Poland doesn't go himself because he's already pissed the fuck out of everybody in the place with the tenants meeting, forcing Sean out and firing Brock de Lappe.

It's the absolutely classic Good Cop, Bad Cop routine.

Anyway, that's todays update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean is more than a tenant, he is still a 48% (it's somewhere between 47% and 49.999%, I don't know the exact figure) owner of Pacific Shops, Inc. So he's still a minority owner. However, the control lies with Bill Poland, and it appears that the man is lawsuit-happy. I don't KNOW this but it appears that Sean has had enough legal crap thrown at him that to save his skin, he's keeping his mouth shut. I can't blame the guy.

 

Polands long-time co-worker and smooth-talking buddy John Falaschi with PR and communications consultant Becca Rosati are starting to make the round of the tenants. They've already met with a least a couple of tenants. Of course I don't KNOW this right now, for sure, but their message is almost certainly: "We're nice people! We're here to listen to you. Tell us what you think. You have questions? Gosh, we really don't know what we're going to do. What do YOU think we should do?"

 

So people tell them what they think and need and then they feel like Pacific Shops is listening to them...which of course they're not. Falaschi goes back to his buddy Poland with a pretty clear idea of what the tenants want and need and fear. Of course, Bill Poland doesn't give a shit what they want, need and fear, he just wants the information. Falaschi is brought on to do this because he's a personable guy. He's a good talker and he's worked with Bill Poland on a number of projects for years and years. Becca Rosati is there because she specializes in "corporate communications" which in this case is "sweet-talking tenants". Bill Poland doesn't go himself because he's already pissed the fuck out of everybody in the place with the tenants meeting, forcing Sean out and firing Brock de Lappe.

 

It's the absolutely classic Good Cop, Bad Cop routine.

 

Anyway, that's todays update.

 

 

if it's less than 49.9999999%, he's still just a tenant. He'll get a % of the profits somewhere down the line but has absolutely no say if the majority owner doesn't want him to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....yeah.

(that's my shortest post on SA in a decade).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan,

 

The information on the alamedamarina.com website seems a bit confusing.

 

It states that in 2006, Pacific Shops Inc ownership breakdown was as follows:

49.999% by the Svendsen Family Trust

50.001% by the Poland Family Trust

 

It also mentions that the Svendsen Family put up 3.3% of the financing, while the Poland Family put up the remaining 96.7%.

 

However, it then states that on 01/01/2016, PSI's ownership breakdown is/was as follows:

47.5% by the Svendsen Family Trust

43.0% by the Poland Family Trust

9.5% by "other"

 

Based on what is going on now, are we to assume that Poland has since purchased the "other" 9.5%, or just that "other" is on-board with Polands plans?

 

-MH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan,

 

The information on the alamedamarina.com website seems a bit confusing.

 

It states that in 2006, Pacific Shops Inc ownership breakdown was as follows:

49.999% by the Svendsen Family Trust

50.001% by the Poland Family Trust

 

It also mentions that the Svendsen Family put up 3.3% of the financing, while the Poland Family put up the remaining 96.7%.

 

However, it then states that on 01/01/2016, PSI's ownership breakdown is/was as follows:

47.5% by the Svendsen Family Trust

43.0% by the Poland Family Trust

9.5% by "other"

 

Based on what is going on now, are we to assume that Poland has since purchased the "other" 9.5%, or just that "other" is on-board with Polands plans?

 

-MH

Now that is fascinating, that this information went up on the Alameda Marina page. I had learned this elsewhere.... Well, it's out now. It would have gotten out sooner or later, so ---

 

Yes, my understanding is that Bill Poland sold a percentage, looks like about 9.5 percent of the interest to someone else...a "silent partner". I didn't know the percentage. However, a stipulation of the sale is that Bill Poland, via the trust, retains majority voting rights. The obvious explanation is that Poland is short on cash to do the groundwork, so he sold a percentage of the family trusts interest.... but retained the control. The "other" obviously doesn't want to be named. I haven't a clue who it is and of course I don't KNOW that's why the sale took place. I'm just speculating. I'm not privy to Pacific Shops inner financial workings!.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, 'nuff about this for a while. If you don't like how this could change the face of Bay Area boating, or how it will affect traffic or anything else in Alameda, then write to the Alameda City Council.

Chitchat on SA will not change anything. Letters will. ....'nuff said....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaah Alameda, I remember that place. I lived there for a while in the 80s. Twere very different then.

 

Buena Vista was mostly industrial, West Marine was a Safeway, you could visit Jerry Garcia on Webster, Arthurs made the best breakfast around, the Rusty Pelican was going strong and most important of all, there was a bar right opposite this marina. Darned if I can remember its name but there were bullet holes in the door.

 

It all added to the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to cover up contaminated soil is to build an expensive structure on top of it. This kind of thing happens all the time at older gas stations.

 

It might be that all of the residues from decades of scraping, painting and sanding have created a cleanup liability that exceeds the value of the property.

 

Then, especially if you found some environmental extremist/nut job taking soil samples at a property you own, you might start considering possibilities, options and risk management.

 

Developing the site might be your only, even if unpreferred, course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno about Cali but here building on a contaminated industrial site is just about the worst option - years of remediation required. You can't simply pour concrete on top not matter how logical that may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a guess, but there's another site just down the waterfront that was being rehabbed from industrial to housing, and the project stopped at the base stage. That would be the worst result possible, turn a working site into a fenced off dirt lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to cover up contaminated soil is to build an expensive structure on top of it. This kind of thing happens all the time at older gas stations.

 

It might be that all of the residues from decades of scraping, painting and sanding have created a cleanup liability that exceeds the value of the property.

 

Then, especially if you found some environmental extremist/nut job taking soil samples at a property you own, you might start considering possibilities, options and risk management.

 

Developing the site might be your only, even if unpreferred, course of action.

Well, building condos on top of contaminated soil isn't the best plan from a risk management standpoint, but people do it all the tIke around here from different reasons ($$$). The next thing that happens is litigation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of several structures that were built on top of contaminated sites. In some cases it appears that the municipality went along because they did not want the LLC owner to declare bankruptcy and leave them with the toxic site.

 

In one case I discovered that the triple net franchise being sold had been built on top of an old gas station. When I dug further and contacted the retired water inspector he said "it's not possible to build at that location!" but when I looked at the development documents at City Hall there was no mention of the gas station or any contaminated soil.

 

it happens. Not saying that it's happening here but it is possible that somebody said that given the way the laws in California are trending its probably smarter to terminate the current use and go to a safer cost-effective property. For all I know they are going to treat the property according to current law and simply feel that it's smarter to get out now.

 

On the other coast just look at all of the gas stations that are left in Newport Rhode Island. Compare that number to 20 years ago, then ask yourself why. It's because the risk outweighs the gain and an alternative use was advised

 

you can argue with me all you want but I have first-hand knowledge in these matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all I know they are going to treat the property according to current law and simply feel that it's smarter to get out now.

 

 

 

Who are the "they" you are referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha! what are my choices?

 

To be clear when I say that I have first-hand knowledge in these matters I'm NOT referring to this specific site. In fact I don't know anything about this site other than what I have read in this forum.

 

But I can tell everybody that development decisions do involve considerations outside of pure profit. Risk (lawsuit) management has unfortunately become an overriding concern in the state of California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha! what are my choices?

 

 

 

Well, it seems as if you think that one of the parties involved in this situation is looking to "get out." Which makes me wonder if you even read the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding is that some of the owners of the boat yard/marina are considering developing the site into condominiums and if they do they will be getting out of the boat yard/marina business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my understanding is that some of the owners of the boat yard/marina are considering developing the site into condominiums and if they do they will be getting out of the boat yard/marina business

 

The longtime owners (The Svendsen family) wanted to update/modernize the facility but lacked the financial wherewithall to do it. They did not plan to get out of the boatyard business (in fact, not long ago, Sean Svendsen told me that the business was his legacy and he wanted his children to continue it after he was gone.) Ten years ago a broker put them together with developer Bill Poland, who was able to provide the needed funds. They sold him a 51% share of the business. All went relatively well and modernization plans were moving forward. However, Sean's dad, Sven, died a year or two ago. Last year, out of the blue, Bill Poland presented a "scorched earth" redevelopment plan, whereby the entire 47 acre property would be razed and turned into a residential/light retail development. This came as a surprise to all, including the Svendsens. Sean did not support Poland's plan and as as a result, has been forced to resign his position with parent company, Pacific Shops Inc., and now is no longer is involved in the marina operation.

 

Only one party involved wants to get out of the boatyard business and that is part owner Bill Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read all of the info about Alameda because the links didn't work but those posting should know about Alameda's incredible link to the early flights of the China Clipper and the two other M-130's - All "Flying Boats" built at the Glenn L Martin factory. I have a 12 minute video of the China Clipper's first-ever commercial flight, out of Alameda and heading across the Pacific to Manila. Perhaps this history can be woven into the development and sailors could be part of this initiative. The aircraft were called flying boats because they landed/took-off on the water and in the beginning, retractable wheels that were used to taxi up a ramp. Also, the father of the owner of the airline was a Clipper Ship captain and the name was an honor to him as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read all of the info about Alameda because the links didn't work but those posting should know about Alameda's incredible link to the early flights of the China Clipper and the two other M-130's - All "Flying Boats" built at the Glenn L Martin factory. I have a 12 minute video of the China Clipper's first-ever commercial flight, out of Alameda and heading across the Pacific to Manila. Perhaps this history can be woven into the development and sailors could be part of this initiative. The aircraft were called flying boats because they landed/took-off on the water and in the beginning, retractable wheels that were used to taxi up a ramp. Also, the father of the owner of the airline was a Clipper Ship captain and the name was an honor to him as well.

 

The Flying Clippers used what was the Alameda Naval Airstation, which is miles away from the Alameda Marina and on the other side of the island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of several structures that were built on top of contaminated sites. In some cases it appears that the municipality went along because they did not want the LLC owner to declare bankruptcy and leave them with the toxic site.

 

In one case I discovered that the triple net franchise being sold had been built on top of an old gas station. When I dug further and contacted the retired water inspector he said "it's not possible to build at that location!" but when I looked at the development documents at City Hall there was no mention of the gas station or any contaminated soil.

 

it happens. Not saying that it's happening here but it is possible that somebody said that given the way the laws in California are trending its probably smarter to terminate the current use and go to a safer cost-effective property. For all I know they are going to treat the property according to current law and simply feel that it's smarter to get out now.

 

On the other coast just look at all of the gas stations that are left in Newport Rhode Island. Compare that number to 20 years ago, then ask yourself why. It's because the risk outweighs the gain and an alternative use was advised

 

you can argue with me all you want but I have first-hand knowledge in these matters

Oh it definitely happens-happening/happened with any number of sites on both sides of the Estuary. Condos across from Nob Hill (just down from Alameda Marina) leak fuel into the water at low tide. Check Geotracker website for all the hot spots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The building over a contaminated site is part of the management phase. The extent of the removal or remediation phase that precedes that building will depend entirely on the topograpgy, geology, the nature and extent of the contamination etc etc including how it became contaminated and over what period of time is very site specific. There is no one size fits all solution. An ex boat yard is pretty easy to remediate compared to say an old waterside gas works site, the latter being very common in urban renewal areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was at a a property once where the ground was warm to the touch in one spot.

 

you could feel it when you walked past.

 

not over a water line, not over the sewer line

 

it was early spring

 

to this day i still wonder what was down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the "Alameda Magazine" for an upcoming article on the issue. I did a phone interview with the author yesterday. I mostly spoke about issues concerning boaters, but also covered a bunch of the history of the marina. I figured I'd let some Alamedans talk about issues affecting...Alamedans. You know, like traffic, over-development, stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's the call-out for people who care about the future of the Alameda Marina to attend a City Council meeting on February 24th.

This meeting is technically about zoning for the entire Alameda northern waterfront, but it will be open to public comment. You don't HAVE to comment, but you can if you want to. We want to encourage people to be succinct and to just hit one or two points if you want to speak. You'll have something like three minutes. I don't run up to Alameda for every single SAWWaction meeting, but I will be at City Hall for this...for damn sure. SAWWaction.org is the group of citizens and boaters who are coordinating the opposition to the drastic development plan.


Wednesday, February 24th.

Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA


There are a number of topics on the agenda, and the Marina topic probably won't hit the floor until about 8:00 - 8:30. It could be later but better to be there around 8:00 and be sure that you're there at the time the issue gets discussed than to wander in at 9:30 and miss it.

Coming soon will be a link to sample letters addressing specific issues, which can be sent to Alameda City Council members.

If you want to attend- the more, the better - e-mail Nancy Hird - nancy.alameda1@att.net and let SAWWaction know you're coming.

There will likely be more than one opportunity to speak to the City Council about the issue, but it's possible that a significant change or retrenching of the zoning could shut down the extreme development from the get-go. If you're concerned, THIS is a really good night to get on your calendar.

If you want to get updates and be on the SAWWaction mailing list, send an e-mail to join@sawwaction.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, if you do nothing, there's a pretty reasonable chance the Marina as we know it will just go away. Sitting in your comfy chair and saying "Aww, that's too bad. Well, the world is just screwed" and debating whether or not some property in New England was contaminated and yet built on, anyway doesn't really achieve anything, right? I mean, discuss away, that's what SA is for but if you live in the SF Bay Area and you have a boat, you really should do more than pick your nose and watch SA.

Look at it this way... if you can't be bothered to show up or write a letter or six, then keep in mind that Bill Poland is paying a dozen people a good salary to get what he wants...bulldoze the place, destroy it, and cover it with condos. Will the City let him do it? Maybe yes, maybe no. Whatever the case, there are a dozen smart, talented people working to make it happen so that Bill Polands family trust can make another thirty or forty million dollars..

If you sit on your butt and do nothing but post on Sailing Anarchy, then there's nobody speaking the other side of the issue to the City Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually have a council that listens at those public input meetings?

 

Here they are just Pro Forma - the fix has been in for years. In my municipality there are 3 or 4 big developers and they always get their way. The council and administration are totally bought & paid for. Nobody much even bothers to attend anymore because it's so widely known that it's a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually have a council that listens at those public input meetings?

 

Here they are just Pro Forma - the fix has been in for years. In my municipality there are 3 or 4 big developers and they always get their way. The council and administration are totally bought & paid for. Nobody much even bothers to attend anymore because it's so widely known that it's a farce.

No, the city council is not bought and sold.

 

In the last election two seats turned over from strongly "pro-development" to members who want to put the brakes on. Alameda city residents voted them out as a result of absolutely RAMPANT development on the island. A big development just a couple of blocks away has been put on hold and about 20 acres of land that has been cleared, that previously had only old warehouses on it, is sitting idle because the City Council changed its mind about the project approval before the drop-dead date.

 

I'll also just say it.... rolling over and playing dead because you think it's all a done deal anyway is a great way to get absolutely nothing done. It REEKS of making excuses for sitting around and doing nothing and it feels very much to me like good old "sour grapes Sailing Anarchy". If enough citizens get together they can can the fuckers at the next election. It's happened, it can happen again. So while I know what you're saying can happen, and I know that it might in fact be the case where you live, I also know that it's not the only story in town. It's tough to pull it off at a national level but at a City and County level, it can still be done...and is still being done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually have a council that listens at those public input meetings?

 

Here they are just Pro Forma - the fix has been in for years. In my municipality there are 3 or 4 big developers and they always get their way. The council and administration are totally bought & paid for. Nobody much even bothers to attend anymore because it's so widely known that it's a farce.

So my response to this is...if nobody shows up, then why do you expect anything other than the big developers getting their way?

 

If a thousand people showed up and raised bloody hell at a meeting, and then they voted out the scum that is supposedly bought and sold, then.............what would happen?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have thrown the fuckers out and replaced them with people who campaigned on slowing or stopping the densification and guess what? No fucking change - they just lied until they were in and then kept on keepin' on.

 

A great example of what we are dealing with - the main road through a huge shopping mall (Park Royal) had 2 bridges over it linking the 2 sides of the mall. Traffic flowed quickly and safely as a result of the lack of intersections. The guy who owns the mall wanted the land under one bridges ramps to build more buildings. The council actually had the gall to post a big sign board stating that the bridge was being removed to make the traffic flow better and to increase pedestrian safety!

 

That's right - a light controlled surface intersection is faster and safer than a flyover - according to these assholes. I've lived here for 25 years and every time we've changed the council we just get more of the same. "Growth"

 

If you have an honest or at least less corrupt council, I'm happy for you - Alameda is a cool spot that shouldn't be turned into more downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiousity, how many units are they planning to build and what will the sales price per unit be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiousity, how many units are they planning to build and what will the sales price per unit be?

 

The developer is looking at almost 400 single family dwellings. Regarding price- if you have to ask...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just out of curiousity, how many units are they planning to build and what will the sales price per unit be?

The developer is looking at almost 400 single family dwellings. Regarding price- if you have to ask...

The Lennar shitboxes just around the corner next to the Del Monte plant start at $1.1M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i was figuring 1.2-1.8 with a median 1.5 X 400 = 600 million - development costs.

 

that why they're developing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites