We can’t talk about what we’d like to see happen in Castro Valley without looking at the underlying plans that guide our economic development. In an earlier post, I provided background about General Plans, the community goals they cover, and why they are created.

Now, I want to get more specific.

“A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area.“

The Castro Valley Central Business District Specific Plan, also known as the “Castro Valley Downtown Specific Plan” or the “Downtown Plan,” was last updated in 1993, and is completely distinct from the General Plan.  A “specific plan” talks about goals for a particular area, in this case our Downtown Business District.  This plan was supposed to be revised by 2012, but no revision has yet begun.  As the plan states,

This Plan spans a twenty year period from the date of its adoption, until approximately the year 2012. Some policies and recommended programs contained within the Plan have a shorter time frame or definite deadlines.

The most talked about aspects of the plan usually include policies and standards for zoning, landscaping and building designs; however, a big part of any General or Specific plan is goal-setting, and exploring ways to implement and finance these goals.

The 1993 plan laid out three major public improvement projects to be accomplished before the end of 2012 in order to aid in economic revitalization:

• A revitalised screetscape project along Castro Valley Boulevard
• “Gateway” signs on the Western, Eastern and Southern entrances of the Downtown Business District
• A mixed-use office and retail complex at the Castro Valley BART Station site.

Let’s take a look at those three goals, and how the implementation panned out over the last two decades.

The Revitalised Streetscape Project

The plan contained an extensive “urban design element” which analyzed previous efforts to enhance the streetscape.  For instance, a 1979 plan implemented jointly by the Chamber of Commerce and Alameda County was heavily criticized for constructing brick planters and planting street trees along Castro Valley Boulevard, but failing to install any kind of an irrigation system as a cost saving measure.  By 1993, most of the trees had died, and the planters had become “receptacles for weeds and refuse.” In fact, in 2014 some still are.

The streetscape improvement project was seen as the single most important component of a business district revitalization program, and it was referenced in nearly every aspect of the plan.  The streetscape was to include “high quality landscape and other related improvements” to Castro Valley Boulevard.  Overall, the plan wanted to make the Boulevard a distinctive area that is “an attractive and vital place to live, shop, and work” while also encouraging more pedestrian and retail activity.  The plan envisioned streetscape improvements to stretch from Stanton Avenue all the way to Center Street and the estimated costs to implement the project was just shy of $6 Million.  Potential funding sources included property assesments in the form of “landscaping and lighting districts,” based on the models of the current street lighting and sheriff funding County Service Areas (CSAs).

Plans also called for a “conservation objective” which included the restoration of native vegetation to the Castro Valley Creek area.  They sought to provide creek access from the Boulevard sidewalk as well as “visual recognition” in the form of decorative bridge or sign.  Eventually, a streetscape plan was implemented.

The Castro Valley Streetscape project was finally completed in late 2012 -technically beating the deadline laid out in the Specific Plan by a couple of months, but in the end the new screetscape only extended from San Miguel Avenue to Redwood Road.  That’s far short of the goal in the plan for the new streetscape to extend from Stanton Avenue all the way to Center Street.  Also, the final price came in at over $11 Million paid for with County and Redevelopment agency funding rather than the expected $6 Million paid through CSA’s.  That’s almost double, for one third of the total project scope.

The restoration of Castro Valley Creek was sucessfully completed in 2007 thanks to the Alameda County Flood Control District.  They restored the creek to a naturalized floodbed from Castro Valley Boulevard all the way to Norbridge.  Oddly enough, the funding for the majority of this project was provided by the City of Union City as compensation to the county for having to convert an existing flood control channel into an underground culvert at the Union City BART station.  The restored creek includes a nature trail connecting to the Boulevard, as well as a lovely decorative sign -as proposed by the plan, although nowhere near the implemented streetscape.

Gateway Signage

The plan called for special “gateway signage” to be installed as an additional way to revitalize the business district and give the town a unique identity.  They specifically detailed the exact, best location for the four gateway points, and their projected costs:

• Western Gateway: Proposed to be on the South side of Castro Valley Boulevard, just East of Norbridge -in front of the Golfland parking lot
• Eastern Gateway: Proposed to be on the North side of Castro Valley Boulevard, just East of Marshall -near the existing SpeeDee Oil change
• Southern Gateway: Proposed to be on the East side of Redwood Road, just North of the 580 freeway -in front of the existing Spencer’s Mortuary
• Freeway Gateway: Proposed to be a wall sign on the Southern sound wall of I-580 to be seen by passing motorists

The plan estimated the costs for all four signs and associated landscaping improvements at around $400,000.

The only signage that was ever installed was the infamous “Castro Valley Welcome” sign, which was removed two months after it was installed on Redwood Road (the Southern Gateway referred to in the plan,) in 1997 due to public outcry over its aesthetic qualities.  At the time, the piece of artwork (commissioned by the Alameda County Arts Commission) was compared to “anything from an amusement park entrance to a watermelon rind.”  To this day, it is still known throughout the area as “the canoe sign.”  The sign was located quite prominently in the center median of Redwood, rather than the proposed sidewalk location and cost the county $100,000. The county briefly considered reinstalling the sign in 2011, but the idea was still rebuffed by the community and the sign remains in storage.  None of the other proposed three signs were ever installed at their locations (or even designed) possibly due to the severe backlash by Valley residents to the first sign.  The canoe sign remains exiled to  a county storage facility in Dublin.

A proposed alternative in the plan to the Freeway signage was listed as a decorative Castro Valley sign on the new BART station property, so potentially the nice “Castro Valley” signage above the BART station entrance could possibly also be interpreted as a “gateway sign.”

BART Station Area Development

Back in 1993, the plan for a new BART station where Redwood Road meets I-580 had already been determined.  That in itself was the subject of intense town debate earlier in the decade.  Although construction had yet to commence at the time, the specific plan highly encouraged mixed commercial development at the site as a way to stimulate the Downtown Area as a whole.  The plan wanted the area to both strengthen the identity of Castro Valley as well as make the station area an “active part of the business community.”

The plan call for a mixed use element that could contain up to 100,000 square feet with 5000-6000sf of retail and the remainder used for private and/or public office space.  Here is a proposed rendering of the (at the time) unbuilt BART station complex.  The proposed mixed use retail and commercial aspect of the project is shown as the large building that was to take up the entire Northeast corner of the site -the lot which is now home to our Farmers Market every weekend.

Potential sources of funding for the project were explored in the plan, saying that the project could be a joint development venture with the BART District and not necessarily require public funding. It also noted that the inclusion of a public facility (such as a public plaza, or municipal office space,) as part of the  program would allow the use of other public and redevelopment agency  funding sources.  Here is an image showing what the development ended up looking like, after the station was built in 1997.

As you can see, the site developed mostly as envisioned.  The glaring exception is that the mixed use retail and commercial element was completely abandoned, and replaced with a high density residential element on the Northwest corner of the site (this also houses the BART Police Substation) despite the fact that the plan concluded that a “housing development on the BART station site… is particularly questionable in the Castro Valley real estate context.”  The only nod given to a “retail component” of the project were the now abandoned retail kiosks near the station entrance.

So, did the plan work?

As you can see, goals laid out in any general or specific plan need continual “care and feeding” in order to see successful completion.  As an unicorporated area, a cohesive approach to implementation is hard to achieve.  All of the implemented aspects from these goals are really the results of many agencies (BART, Alameda County Flood Control District, Arts Commission and County Redevelopment Agency) largely working without coordination with each other in regards to achieving their own goals. The fact that they also fulfilled parts of the Specific Plan goals seems to have been a matter of coincidence.

When our plan is finally revamped, ideally the county will establish a way of periodically reviewing the progress of the plan and coordinating efforts of local agencies involved.  Looking at our neighbors (such as the City of Dublin,) you can see Downtown plans updated with more frequency, and with better and more complete execution of projects.  Any good plan will require some course corrections along the way, but most cities have people for that. We don’t.