Albany City Council votes to move forward with waterfront planning
Artwork was created out of trash by amateur artists at Albany Bulb, a former dump sprouting half-a-mile out into the Bay. To the south is Golden Gate Fields racetrack. The Albany waterfront has been the focus of a bitter community fight for years. Photo by Linjun Fan.
Albany took another “baby step” toward planning its waterfront as the City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday to start a public engagement process to figure out what to to with the land.
The council is trying again after the 160-acre land, which is largely occupied by Gold Gate Fields racetrack, became the center of a bitter community fight in 2006 over commercial development proposed by Magna Entertainment Corp., owner of the racetrack.
The company dropped its proposal after it was opposed by a large number of Albany residents. But the community is still deeply divided on what they want to see on the land.
“What we are moving towards here is an Albany plan, and we are looking to have some kind of consensus and vision within the community, “said Albany Mayor Robert Lieber.
The grounded visioning program, which costs several hundred thousand dollars, will include public opinion surveys, meetings and waterfront tours as described by consultant Don Neuwirth in a September report submitted to the city. Neuwirth also recommended a design competition, which was not endorsed by the council.
Lieber wants to see “maximum open space” on the land. He said that Albany should start its own waterfront planning because he didn’t expect Magna to come up with a good plan.
Three other councilmembers voted for the program, including Councilmember Farid Javandel who had been neutral on commercial development on the land.
“If Magna comes forward with a plan, it will be very nice for us to have a vision in place to judge that plan, ” said Javandel.
But pro-development Councilmember Jewel Okawachi voted staunchly against the motion.
“I really truly believe that this visioning process is premature, and we should wait for some kind of commitment from the property owner, ” Okawachi said.
More than 10 residents spoke at the council meeting, debating heatedly on whether it’s a good idea to spend several hundred thousand dollars to conduct the program.
“It won’t work, it won’t resolve the controversy and it won’t generate any new ideas, “said Clay Larson, a member of Albany Waterfront Committee, referring to a point made in Neuwirth’s report.
About half of speakers argued that it would be futile for Albany to conduct any planning work without participation of Magna, and the other half believed that the city should start planning work for the land.
“We don’t really know the future (for the racetrack) in Albany, but we do know that this community deserves our plan for the waterfront, ” said Brian Parker, chairman of the Waterfront Committee. “And we don’t have to wait for anybody to do that.”
The council directed Parker and the Waterfront Committee to look for a consultant and define the scope of work and budget for implementing the program in the upcoming months.
I have a few comments, as follows:
1. The council voted to study the 102 acres of Golden Gate Fields that lay within the Albany City Limits. They excluded the rest of the 160 acres–the Bulb and the Plateau.
2. Therefore, the photo of the bulb is a bit misleading…the study will not include that piece of land. You probably should have included a shot of the vast wasteland of a parking lot instead–the embarassment that we call our waterfront.
3. It is misleading to say that the Magna development was opposed by a majority of Albany voters. There was massive misinformation circulated during the city council race, and the only thing voters were voting on was the council members, some of whom were responsible for the misleading information. A vote by the electorate on any proposed development with objective analysis (such as an EIR), or a vote on alternative plans for waterfront development, with objective information on each proposal is the last thing some people want, but it is exactly what the voters deserve.
4. It is not clear that the “grounded visioning program” will cost $300,000. In fact, Mr. Neuwirth estimated $500,000 for this in his preliminary report. He modified the recommendation by substituting a design competition for a design developed by the planning consultant and lowered his estimate to $300,000, however the design competition is exactly what the council rejected.
5. I prefer to avoid labels, such as “pro development” for councilmember Okawachi. Everyone proposes development…it is a matter of where the development should go, and the extent and type of development that is in question. She does seem to be unique on this particular council, however, in recognizing the impracticality and futility of proposing the demise of the track with no financially viable replacement.
6. The quote you attributed to Clay Larson was actually part of Mr. Neuwirth’s preliminary report.
Thanks for the comments! Many of your points are convincing, and I have made revisions accordingly. But I have questions for your first point. You said the visioning process just includes 102 acres. But I think it’s for the whole area, since the program will take the waterfront area as a whole for study. Mr. Neuwirth didn’t seperate the Bulb and the Plateau from the racetrack area as objects of his study and report. And also, information on the history of the whole waterfront area will be collected and studied, and the community will be consulted for their ideas of the entire waterfront, rather than just the area of the Golden Gate Fields racetrack.
As to whether it’s appriopriate to say Councilmember Okawachi “pro-development”. I think the phrase is a neutral rather than negative one. And she does want to see commercial development on the land.
I keep the picture, for aesthetic reason, and also because the Bulb is part of the waterfront and part of the bigger controversy.
Your further comments are welcome.
[...] waterfront planning, the most controversial issue in the city. The city has recently started a waterfront planning process driven by Lieber and his allies on the [...]
[...] the foreseeable future, and the city should get prepared for the scenario. As a result, the Council passed a waterfront planning project last November, and hired a consultant in the spring to engage residents and develop a common vision [...]