Thank you!
For initial responses to the plans, please see:
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Your Comments Here
On April 29, at the Claremont Hotel, Safeway presented lots of drawings but very little information about their proposed development. One of the vital missing pieces of information was the fact that the proposed expansion remains over 60,000 sq ft, despite months of input from many individuals requesting a small store or a renovation of the existing one. The irony is that Safeway continued to ask for comments, in the form of little slips of paper stuffed into a box. Safeway will try to claim that the majority of public opinion stands in favor of the project. From what I heard, that night, and for the past two years, most people think otherwise. Here is your chance to take the comments out of the box and share them with your community. Please share your impressions of the proposed expansion in the comments below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
88 comments:
Clearly, Safeway is shoving the biggest project they can at the community with a calculated plan of maximizing their revenue. It is evident that they are disregarding any consideration for the existing local businesses, residents, aesthetic balance and the actual needs of their clientele.
It is dismaying that after watching this process unfold over a few years with many open discussions, Safeway has the gall to produce a "final" design for submission to Oakland that ignores virtually all of the concerns and complaints of the community.
Yet more evidence that Safeway is a bad neighbor. That "meeting" was constructed to keep real information inaccessible, conversation impossible, comments veiled, and consequences hidden.
I choose to live in Rockridge, not Walnut Creek. A big-box shopping mall is inappropriate and unacceptable in this neighborhood, on College Avenue at Claremont and Alcatraz. Period. It violates C-31 zoning, and it violates the intentional ecology of our neighborhood. After almost two years of consistently clear feedback, this proposal is an insult, and the conduct of Safeway towards the neighborhood has been an insulting charade.
I hope both Safeway and the Oakland and Berkeley city councils realize that we are organized, informed voters and tireless custodians of our neighborhood. Tireless.
Since we're neighbors, let's be friends? Remember that jingle. Well, it apparently it is only true if you see eye-to-eye with Safeway.
After two years and five stakeholder meetings, we have been presented with the same tiresome huge store (albeit it has a pretty new face) planned without regard to the neighborhood's primary concern - SIZE. Traffic will increase, Alcatraz and College will be in perpetual grid lock, and a 35 foot high store with 65,000 sq.ft. of space will loom forebodingly over College Ave with retail that is not needed nor desired.
I responded directly to Safeway following the presentation. My objections remain as I've expressed to Safeway multiple times--the proposed build is too large for the neighborhood, the traffic pattern cannot support more cars, it is not only not needed but they are busy alienating their demographic population-us!If they wish to remodel the current footstep- great. If they could get friendly and helpful staff in the College Ave. store, even better. But to try to force this over sized plan is clearly not hearing those of us who live and shop in this neighborhood.
I, too, am concerned about the enormous expansion of the Safeway on College Ave. I've shopped at, and supported, this store for over 25 years and do not want, or need, the store to expand.
I'm concerned about the quality of life in our neighborhood. Traffic in the already congested streets will increase. Safety of cyclists and pedestrians will be endangered. Air and noise pollution will increase. The jeopardy of the independent retailers where I also shop is uncertain.
Listen to our voices, we do not like the proposed expansion.
I've read about how the Dreyers building really upset the balance in our neighborhood. I've also learned that the Rockridge Safeway was always intended to be a small "satellite store" to the larger mother ship Safeway on Broadway. I am disappointed at the direction this big box chain has taken in bullying their way into our neighborhood. While I fully support a face lift (it's quite an eyesore) I agree with other residents that it's inappropriate to totally take over every usable square inch of their lot. The scale is completely overwhelming.
I also have concern for the local flavor of our neighborhood- we already have a wonderful produce market, meat and fish market, and bakery. The last thing I want is for Safeway to run them out of business in their expansion. Say no to the Walmart syndrome!
Here is the e-mail I sent to Paradis with copies to relevant other recipients:
"Dear Mr. Paradis:
At several previous community meetings I was one of the many participants who expressed my vehement opposition to the placement of a huge building at the current site of College and Claremont. Having attended the unveiling of the latest set of plans has not changed my mind one bit: the proposed project is completely out of scale for the neighborhood we live in and wish for, it violates the character of our neighborhood, it will create horrendous traffic problems and will endanger the survival of the existing small businesses in the area. The architectural amenities in the plan would be welcome if they were done in the context of a building the size of the existing one. If faced with the choice of the proposed plan and the existing building as is, I would unequivocally choose the latter.
In addition, I was outraged to see at the latest presentation at the Claremont Hotel that in the one display of what the community had asked for and Safeway's response to these requests, there was NO MENTION whatsoever of what had been the overwhelming outcry in ALL previous community meetings, i.e. opposition to the huge size increase. This is plainly dishonest on the part of Safeway. At the presentation, I asked Pam (the facilitator hired by Safeway, who moderated the recent stakeholder meetings) about this omission; she gave me an evasive answer and referred me to Rena, the land use attorney. Rena gave me an even more evasive answer and referred me to you. When I spoke to you, you simply told me that you would not answer my question. I will leave it to you and your superiors (if you show them this e-mail and they care to read it) to imagine how I, and other Rockridge residents, feel about Safeway's lack of concern for our community and its wishes.
Do you and your superiors really believe that ramming something down the throats of your potential customers is good business practice?
Sincerely,
Ricardo Hofer"
What about bicycle parking? From the renderings, it looks like there's even less than at the current store! A couple of big bike racks (similar to the Berkeley Bowl) would (hopefully) alleviate some of the auto-gridlock concerns.
Bike racks can't mitigate traffic (and air & noise pollution) for a massive grocery store and up to 12 chain-type retail stores on this small stretch of College Avenue. It's a mall, designed as a big-box shopping destination . . . which means multiple shopping bags & cars, cars, and more cars. Cyclists and pedestrians should be very concerned about the hazards such a proposal will create for them on College and all ancillary streets.
Although I share some of the concerns expressed above, I'd just offer the following thoughts/comments on the project, which may be new and against the prevalent grain here.
1) I am pleased that Safeway has decided to invest in our neighborhood. Although the expansion may be out of scale, I think it's testament to the strength of our neighborhood that we can attract such interest in the current economic environment. This particular Safeway has, in fact, been at this location, and part of the neighborhood, for decades, before many of us moved in and before Rockridge became so hot (and yes there was a time Rockridge wasn;t so hot). Their desire to expand is not that bad, and the store is far from an outside spectator when it comes to the economy of our neighborhood.
2) I do not believe a larger Safeway is any economic danger to local businesses. The customers of these businesses are us, so we control who gets our dollars. This is not a Walmart/Main Street in small-town Iowa situation. More business is good for the neighborhood, not bad: I don't think it's great for Child's Play that Cotton and Company closed down, do you?
3) Safeway offers food at cheaper prices than many of our boutique food retailers. I think the two compliment each other quite nicely and expansion will continue that positive trend.
4) For all the talk of local economies and Safeway being some huge corporation, I feel it's important to note that Safeway is a union shop, which used to mean something to people in Oakland. If you want to really help, split your shopping between the small locals and Safeway, instead of anti-union Berkeley Bowl and Whole Foods. Ask La Ferine's staff if they have pensions next time you drop in for a morning bun.
5) There should be no curb-cuts or traffic crossing the sidewalks on College. That would be a big improvement.
6) If you don't want traffic, the solution is not more free parking on-site; the solution is PRICED parking or no parking at all. Forcing Safeway to provide free parking to all its potential visitors is exactly the wrong thing to do to cut down on traffic impacts. Why should I pay higher prices when I walk to Safeway so they can afford to give someone free parking? No thanks!
7) I'm happy to get rid of one of the gas stations at Claremont and College. One to go!
8) I can't imagine how the stretch of College between Claremont and Alcatraz could possibly be worse than it already is. I think a larger Safeway that removes the curb cuts on College will do more to help than the status quo.
9) More bike racks--definitely.
The above are just some points related to the larger themes folks are bringing up. I think the Safeway has to look good, and the traffic and view impacts have to be addressed so that those living next to the Safeway (that has, again, been there for decades) can live with it. I do bristle, though, at those who appear to be cloaking their desire for a better design in some "local economy/anti-corporate" veneer.
Safeway may be arrogant in their presentation, and they do appear to have not turned public concerns into project changes, but I do not think that Safeway is bad for the neighborhood and do believe an expansion will be good for our local economy.
We should stick to design issues and put our political emphasis on the design and land use process. I think it's likely they brought in a large project so they can cut it down as they move through the process and show that they've "heard the community." I think it's to be expected that they will not concede to neighborhood demands until they can leverage those concessions into land use approvals.
All the more reason to keep the pressure on.
I also really appreciate the multiple fora available to comment and the extent that folks are soliciting comment to make sure voices are heard.
e-mail sent a few days ago:
Todd Paradis
Safeway Real Estate Manager
Dear Todd Paradis:
I went to the meeting at the Claremont this week with high hopes that the new project would be something I could support. I've been in the neighborhood many years, and am a regular Safeway customer. I was terribly disappointed, however, by the project presented.
Size, the single most important issue raised by the majority of the neighbors, and repeated time and again in the neighborhood meetings during the past year, was essentially ignored: So far as I could tell (and there were no data sheets supplied at the meeting that I could find) the project is larger than ever: over 60,000 sf; way out of scale with the neighborhood, the Rockridge pattern of shops and offices and both the spirit and the letter of the C31 Zoning law that the community has established. The traffic studies alone, I am quite certain, will sink the project, as presented.
I had hoped to find something I could support, but the new proposal feels like a slap in the face. And while much was made of the new, more neighborhood-responsive architect, I have to say, the buildings looked quite oppressive and sterile, like something I would expect to see in a suburban mall. All in all, deeply disappointing.
As it's my understanding that the project, as presented, is now being submitted to the City, I have to conclude that Safeway is throwing down the gauntlet, and, reluctantly, I and my neighbors (who are about 20 to 1 against it by my sampling) will now do all in our power to actively oppose the project.
I repeat, we are longtime Safeway customers and have long hoped to see an improved store on this site. We would welcome a well-designed, neighborhood oriented, 25,000 sf satellite store.
Sincerely yours,
Murray Silverstein
6126 Harwood Ave.
Oakland, CA 94618
safeway can do anything they want as long as it is not to the detriment of the character and commerce of our neighborhood.
On behalf of Esther Lerman, MFT: On May 7, 2009, Esther Lerman, MFT wrote
"I think the Safeway expansion is way too big for the character of our neighborhood. 50 or 60,000 square feet is more than we need. It is not appropriate and will also duplicate the stores that we already have on College Ave. right across the street (and potentially damage their hard won successful business). It will also undoubtedly make the traffic congestion really bad. I would rather see them just fix up the Safeway that's there.
"The architectural design would be great in the appropriate location, like in the shopping area on Pleasant Valley and Broadway, or in a suburban mall area."
Hello David,
Please list me as Anonymous:
1. In general, I think the projected store will be far too big for the lot, and for the neighborhood; There is a huge store down the road at 51st and Broadway. I would prefer an updating and remodeling of the existing store, extending out somewhat to accommodate larger aisles.
2. I think the prospect of eight new shops on the College Avenue side is disingenuous--who will rent these stores, given the prospect of a gloomy economy stretching forth--and with several shops in Rockridge having recently folded?
3. I do not like the idea of underground parking--hard to maneuver in and out, and at night potentially unsafe.
4. There will be no street-level access--shopper will have to use large elevator or stairs because shopping will not be at street level. How cumbersome, and again, potentially dangerous to be in elevator with miscreant.
5. Why do we need a new pharmacy (Chimes opposite); bakery (many, including La Farine in area); florist (see opposite) etc.?
6. There will be a long line of wall along Claremont. The view of the hills will be blocked by the building.
7. The plans and slideshow do not properly represent the fact that what looks like a pedestrian courtyard on College is in fact a place for cars to enter.
These are my initial thoughts about the proposed project. Hope they help.
Safeway sells slum quality food in a chichi neighborhood. The proposed big box monstrosity is a testament to the hubris and the power of ugly corporate America. They will build it, but we do not have to come.
On behalf of Ann Rosenberg
sent May 7, 2009 9:13:11 PM:
I attended the display at the Claremont and although the drawings were more attractive, I still have major concerns about the project as follows:
1. the huge impact on traffic if College, Alcatraz and Claremont (there are already long back-ups going north on College between Claremont and Ashby at certain times of the day-- having a store which is almost 3 times larger than the existing Safeway and 8 other stores on the same lot can only spell disaster regarding traffic tie-ups and the environment as car engines are running while waiting in long lines to get to Ashby.
2. The Safeway building at 61,000 sq. feet is enormously out of scale with other buildings in Elmwood/Rockridge (most have a 7500 sq. ft. area) and is out-of-character with the neighborhood. It is more like a mall and doesn't belong here.
I know you have heard these serious concerns many times before, but the truth is that no matter how "pretty" the building is, it is too big for the neighborhood and will have a huge derogatory effect on the traffic and environment in the neighborhood.
After attending Safeway's presentation at the Claremont, I sent the following email to Todd Paradis:
Dr. Mr. Paradis,
Having followed the process between Safeway and the community for some time, I found Safeway's recent presentation of its new design at the Claremont Hotel quite disturbing. Over and over again, in meetings and written comments, you have heard from the neighborhood that what its residents value about Rockridge is its pedestrian-friendly scale and its livability. While we appreciate having a full-service grocery in the neighborhood, we are adamantly opposed to an enormous project which will threaten existing small businesses, bring massive traffic problems to our already congested streets, and dwarf all the surrounding structures. In short, we have made it clear that for us, size is the major issue.
Safeway has continued to completely disregard input from the community, which you solicited in numerous meetings. Your current proposal to increase retail space from 22,500 square feet to over 60,000 square feet indicates that the meetings with the neighborhood were intended as a public relations move, rather than an attempt to listen to the community and address its concerns. At the Claremont, you posted a large chart purporting to list issues raised by residents during our meetings with you and the accommodations Safeway has made to address these concerns. SIZE, OUR SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, WAS NOT LISTED. How do you account for this glaring omission?
Safeway's handling of the process to date leads to the conclusion that you do not intend to address neighborhood objections to this project with anything more than lip service. I urge you to reconsider your current proposal and develop a plan that would be responsive to the many concerns that have been voiced.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Hofer
I love to shop at this Safeway and the surrounding stores. I walk to these stores to buy my groceries 4-5 times per week.
The design presented is not right for the neighborhood:
1. It is too large for the space available.
2. It does not support the pedestrian nature of the neighborhood, especially the blocks immediately around the current store.
To Safeway and those who have influence: Please consider adapting and changing the plans to keep the footprint of the store similar to what it is now, and certainly smaller than the current plans. I enjoy shopping there and want to continue.
Trader Joe's was able to fit in to the neighborhood nicely. They didn't try to expand or change the store, but rather were flexible to fit an existing structure. Perhaps it would help to take a look at their example.
Monica S., Harwood Avenue
We've been asked to post the following e-mail exchange between Ann Rosenberg, of Lewiston street, and Safeway's public relations liaison, Elizabeth Jewel.Dear Elizabeth,
I attended the display at the Claremont and although the drawings were more attractive, I still have major concerns about the project as
follows:
1. the huge impact on traffic if College, Alcatraz and Claremont (there are already long back-ups going north on College between Claremont and Ashby at certain times of the day-- having a store which is almost 3 times larger than the existing Safeway and 8 other stores on the same lot can only spell disaster regarding traffic tie-ups and the environment as car engines are running while waiting in long lines to get to Ashby.
2. The Safeway building at 61,000 sq. feet is enormously out of scale with other buildings in Elmwood/Rockridge (most have a 7500 sq. ft.
area) and is out-of-character with the neighborhood. It is more like a mall and doesn't belong here.
I know you have heard these serious concerns many times before, but the truth is that no matter how "pretty" the building is, it is too big for the neighborhood and will have a huge derogatory effect on the traffic and environment in the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Ann Rosenberg
*********
From: Elisabeth Jewel
To: ann rosenberg
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:52 AM
Hi Ann: Just a few things:
The Safeway is 49,000 sf. It is not 3 times larger than the existing store. The retail shops on the ground floor are 11,000 sf. The traffic impact will be thoroughly studied and mitigated as much as possible. The traffic study will look at queuing times, signal timing and congestion and the city of Oakland will play a big roll in requiring mitigations from Safeway . The traffic really can’t get any worse than it already is at commute times.
*********
From: ann rosenberg
To: "Elisabeth Jewel"
Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 2:57 PM
Maybe Safeway is 49K square feet, but one would have to add the other retail square footage as well, making it almost 3 times what it is now, to see the total picture.
Traffic absolutely could get worse than it is at commute time if one adds a lot more cars to it. You're right--it is already awful and I'm sure it will get worse with 8 more retail stores and a bigger Safeway. Safeway wouldn't be building this new store if it didn't think it would attract more people, more business and consequently more traffic, would it?
I would appreciate your response to these comments.
Best,
Ann Rosenberg
We are opposed to the expansion of the Safeway at the corner of College and Claremont and make the following points in support of the opposition:
1) We do not need another conduit for industrially produced food into the community.
2) The East Bay is the center of the movement to create a better, healthier, more sustainable way to produce food. We can do better than expand the local Safeway.
3) Safeway wants to expand the store to increase their business. This will be done by taking business away from the existing shops in the area. This is a bad. Or it will be done by bringing in business from other areas. This will increase traffic. It is also bad.
4) We never go to the Safeway so if it were to leave the area it would not matter to us. We do most of our shopping at Star Market, Ver Brugge's Meats, the farmer's markets and we belong to a CSA farm. Good things can happen when a Safeway leaves a location. The current Berkeley Bowl is in an old Safeway store and so is Fenton's Creamery. Star Market is about one fifth the size of the Safeway and they have everything one needs. So Super Size is not necessary or, as the movie pointed out, good for you.
5) There are all sorts of architectural/urban design reasons why a large store on this site is not a good idea. The symbolic importance of the site as a major intersection in the street grid is an important consideration. Something better than a gas station would be nice to be sure but a Safeway megastore that snarls the local traffic and damages small local businesses would not be better.
6) Even if the design was modified to be more fine grained at the street level who would own the spaces and who would the tenants be? I would not like to see a Jamba Juice, a Chipotle Tacos, several Starbucks and a lot of other chain stores take up residence in the neighborhood.
Following is the letter I have sent via mail to involved parties:
I am no less concerned about the Safeway proposals than I have been in the past with other architects and other architectural plans.
I ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE Safeway’s plans to tear down the current store at Claremont and College Avenues and build one more than twice its size. I will be brief in my responses, but am willing to write more or to speak to anyone about the details of my thinking.
• We do not need this store. Only blocks away are Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, and only one mile away is the biggest Safeway I have ever seen. One mile. It is not too far to go to get everything Safeway could possibly sell. The current store could be refurbished and be quite acceptable for this area.
• The retail space has been much more than doubled, while parking has only been increased by 75%. That is counter-intuitive and will cause more traffic congestion and more pollution in a strongly pedestrian neighborhood
• Safeway wants to put in departments that will compete with and harm our local individually-owned shops which we all treasure. It is why we live here.
• The truck traffic on College and Claremont will be notably increased with the increased retail space, endangering both our citizens and our air & noise quality.
• The citizens of Rockridge worked long and hard to protect small stores and the charm of our neighborhood with strict zoning regulations. We do not want to make an exception for the sake of some big pushy corporation.
• The entire feel of our unique neighborhood will change with this
giant store. We don’t want to look like and feel like a strip mall or
the suburbs. We are a special neighborhood – and we want to
keep it that way.
Thank you for hearing my comments. Please respect the needs of
the individuals rather than the big dollars of some huge faceless
corporation.
While the Safeway plans are somewhat attractive, they completely overlook the current charm of the neighborhood and overwhelm it. I grew up in the neighborhood, moved away and returned about 20 years ago.
My family has always shopped at Safeway and I currently shop there as a supplement to other vendors but the heavy-handedness and the bullying approach of this project is very off-putting. If Safeway continues with the current approach they can say good bye to my patronage. Please, NO!!!
Safeway's design fails on the following fronts:
1. Size-Rockridge, under C-31, was built on small owner-run shops. The current design, although an improvement in aesthetics, is TOO BIG and hasn't addressed the concerns of the community.
2. Where is the mixed use?....no attempt was made to create living/office space.
3. We're a neighborhood of families yearning for public space....the pass-through misses the opportunity for a plaza with space for mom's with strollers, or better yet a small play area.
4. The retail spaces on the ground floor probably won't be for small mom and pop stores, but larger chains...that needs to be addressed.
5. Traffic will be an abomination. Safeway hasn't properly addressed the concerns of transit organizations.
I am an Oakland resident of fifteen years. When I moved here, one of the first places I visited was the wonderful Alcatraz shopping street. I was utterly charmed by the small stores with their high-quality wares and the informal neighborhood feel, and happy to have moved to a city where such neighborhoods are supported. Even now when I have moved a little south, I return to the street frequently, because the shopping pleasure it offers is something that no box store can provide. As a result I often shop at the Claremont Safeway, because it provides goods that small store don't carry.
I cannot see ANY advantage to Safeway's desire to fill up the available space in that lot, and make a sunny small-scale venue into a dark canyon with heavy traffic. I absolutely agree that this Safeway should be a satellite store to the one on 51st and Broadway. In fact, I don't understand why the thought that Safeway might just patch and paint its present store is treated as a "threat." I think that would be just fine--sufficient for the needs of the neighborhood. And it would win Safeway a lot of badly needed credit in the neighborhood.
When stores large and small are closing all over the country, and the future can only bring more of them, why overbuild here, destroying a neighborhood with a massive store that may well have to be closed itself as we all downsize?
Before moving into our beautiful home on 63rd Street, I had lived in Emeryville for many years, then another location in Oakland. I was involved in grass roots development issues in both places and have seen successes, but mostly failures in dealing with irresponsible development.
I have learned that rarely is the city or the developer motivated by the long term public interest. Their concerns are not ours, and we cannot expect this to be the case. It is easier to accept this behavior from the developer, but it is sometimes shocking to learn that our public representatives can seem to bend over backwards to accommodate a developers whims even when requesting flagrant code and zoning exceptions. Unfortunately, we should expect this to be the case. The city will want development with its accompanying revenues, especially in our current economic climate.
Forget about Safeway; we know their game. Thus far it seems that Safeway has been able to manage and distort the public input; no big surprise. I believe that the only way to succeed in scaling back this project to fit our neighborhood is to put coordinated and unrelenting pressure on the city, and our actions must go beyond this blog. Any ideas?
Since 1978 I have faithfully shopped locally owned businesses. It costs more at times, but saves gas, builds community, and ensures that we have a thriving neighborhood with businesses that are not strictly luxury-oriented. The Elmwood and Rockridge continue to teeter on the brink of collapse with regard to small businesses that are service rather than luxury oriented. The traffic has become unbearable. While I recognize there is some value to a large chain like Safeway I see no redeeming value whatsoever to the behemoth that is planned. It is inappropriate for the neighborhood, increases traffic, and threatens smaller businesses. The lack of concern for the neighborhood is already abundantly clear via the repeated lack of truly considering community input on Safeway's side. On a personal note, I have patronized that Safeway once in a great while over many years and, whatever the store layout, have found the produce atrocious and the staff most disinterested and unfriendly. These are the things that need to be changed and will remain the same whether in a small or big box.
The proposed new Safeway is much too big & would be dark and intimidating. I don't see why they shouldn't just refurbish the existing store--there's a huge one only blocks away. This is supposed to be a satellite store & I think it should stay that way.
The Rockridge-Elmwood district is one of the choice neighborhoods of the entire Bay Area. The College Avenue strip from Alcatraz to Claremont is a gem for walkers and shoppers. The big box Safeway would be a disaster, crushing out independent retailers, adding noise, dirt, traffic, and danger to College, Claremont, and adjacent streets. If Safeway arrogantly refuses to conform to community standards, I say, Let them take their ball and go home. We do not need them, and we certainly do not need an architectural behemoth dominating the neighborhood!
I OPPOSE the size of the proposed Safeway. It is too big for the neighborhood. It will damage the character of this unique neighborhood, as will the chain stores that will be included in the retail space. We do not need it.
I URGE Safeway to upgrade the existing store, make it more energy efficient and attractive, and keep it the same size.
If Safeway were to fill its existing space with quality offerings instead of junk food laden with chemicals and overpackaged in plastic, it wouldn't need more room.
As a long-time resident of the immediate Safeway neighborhood (Hillegass and 63rd), I have an appreciation for the role that Safeway has played. I do much of my shopping at local businesses (Yasaii, La Farine, Vino, Ver Brugge), some of it at other markets(TJ's, Whole Foods, Star Market), and yet I frequently rely on Safeway for household supplies and general staples. It certainly serves a need for our cost-conscious family, who cannot afford organic 100%, and appreciates the "value pack."
However, I DO NOT support the proposed expansion. With a super Safeway only a mile away at Pleasant Valley, other shopping resources already in place, and neighborhood character to protect, a "renovaton" of the existing store would be appropriate.
Traffic issues, view issues (of significant and valid concern to those of us who actually live in this neighborhood), and potential for infiltration of corporate tenants threaten the quality of life in what should remain a neighborhood of character.
Safeway is pushing an agenda that is opposed by the majority of its neighbors and, as such, is not being a "good neighbor."
My house is about 2 blocks from the Safeway store and I have been a customer of the Safeway store on College Avenue for 16 years. I shop there 2-3 times a week on average.
I can say without any doubt that although I relish the convenience of being able to walk to the store from my house to pick up items, I will STOP going to the store entirely if it expands.
I only like to shop in small environments and I will shift my shopping to the markets across the street (La Farine, Ver Brugge, and Yasai Produce) as well as Trader Joes for other items.
Also, I am very much opposed to the Safeway expansion to a larger store footprint. Claremont and College Avenues are way to busy with traffic and this expansion will bring way too much noise and confusion to my neighborhood.
I am prepared to engage in action in whatever way I can to stop the development of a larger store at this location. My street which gets too much traffic now will get even more traffic.
Of course the traffic arguement is based on the idea that many more people will come to the store if it expands, actually I am not so sure that is the case. There is a much larger Safeway up about 1/2 mile from here at the College and Broadway intersections, and I avoid that store as I find it too big and confusing.
I do not understand why Safeway believes that EXPANDING the size of the store will bring in a better business flow. From my perspective a change in the selection of goods to compete
with the Trader Joe's down the street and the organic produce offered at the nearby markets would be a much better business model.
Fresh good produce such as that at Berkeley Bowl or other stores is the way to go here, not more footage. You can do some remodeling and cleaning up of the store to look better, but you really really really should NOT expand the size of it. BIGGER is not BETTER.
JoAnne Tillemans
Concerned neighbor and long time customer of Safeway on College Avenue
I shop in the area generally 4 or 5times per week. I shop at all the stores including Safeway. I think the design is quite attractive and can only applaud the design efforts for Whole Foods recently opened in downtown Oakland's old Cadillac location.
The Safeway proposal is wrong though. Too big. I can't imagine a more ridiculous an idea than a rooftop seating area with what 6 tables? I think it's appalling to even consider the proposed size in this neighborhood. You know I think the neighborhood could do WITHOUT Safeway easier than we could accomodate this BIG BOX of a store.
Thanks.
The plans for the store are preposterous. I think the best idea is that the clean and paint the existing store and leave it as is.
My comments on the presentation:
1. Before any design can be discussed, the main issue has to be resolved, and that is the size. The proposed store is way too big for the site, for the College Avenue, and for the neighborhood.
2. The traffic issues presented by the drawings are numerous and a detailed traffic study is a must. The whole circulation is in my opinion extremely flawed.
3. The plan shows three loading spaces. I had spent several mornings surveying the deliveries, there were at many times many more trucks and vans of various sizes besides the semis. These now park in the parking lot. I am not sure how this problem will be addressed by the presented design. If the same arrangement will continue, trucks and vans will block many parking spaces or otherwise trucks will be lining-up along the Claremont Avenue waiting for a spot. Considering that parking between columns is less efficient, it will be more of a problem than it is now.
4. To me it is very counterintuitive to shop for groceries on the second floor. It seems extremely inconvenient and will greatly disturb College Avenue shopping pattern. I went to the Whole Foods on Harrison, and getting the cart to the parking lot in a claustrophobic elevator was for me the most unpleasant experience. Would never go back.
5. It is obvious that Safeway wants to drive the shops across the street out of business, and they will succeed at least with some. I think the point is that Safeway on College does not need all those additional services. This store should be a satellite store to the big store in the Rockridge Center which has those services and is within a couple of miles of this store.
6. It is not clear who would operate the little stores wrapped around in a shopping center pattern (Walnut Creek, Stanford). One of the designers told me that the corner will be probably a restaurant. The rendering looking at the corner looked very unattractive to me.
7. I personally like the existing visual connection from College to Claremont. This behemoth design destroy it as the curved "alley" would not provide a direct view line. The facade along College is grossly out of scale with the rest of the street.
8. Why would Safeway display a welcome to Rockridge sign when Rockridge actually ends right there? Safeway intent is to draw people out of Rockridge because Rockridge has such a good reputation. It is obvious that Safeway does not care about its neighbors and Rockridge, it is all about corporate profits. To me the current Safeway has a feel of a neighborhood store in spite of its larger size. The presented design will do no such thing. Deep down I was hoping that Safeway listened to people and would come up with something scaled down and fitting the neigborghood.
I am speaking on behalf of my self and my husband to say that we do NOT support ANY expansion of Safeway in our neighborhood. A competitor to some of the higher priced and smaller stores is great, but we DO NOT want a destination grocery store - like the one Safeway is proposing - in our neighborhood. I can't say it strongly enough - we believe this would seriously adversely affect our experience living here as well as the experience of visitors and eventually lead to a decline in the quality of our neighborhood.
Ariel and Alec Ford
How can Safeway insult our intelligence so? We receive responses from Safeway telling us that the design is the result of community input. If that were true, the proposed building would not be as large as it is. We DON'T want our neighborhood ruined with this monumental structure, the increased traffic, and the almost certain demise of the existing small shops.
I have been to virtually all the Safeway held meetings. I have lived next door to Safeway since 1980--and have a long memory of dealing with Safeway as an oftentimes poor neighbor.
Safeway has interacted with the community groups all right, but ignored virtually all of our comments. The size: we've always said the current size is enough, maybe a bit larger but not much larger. All groups have been clear on that point. The neighborhood: Virtually all groups have always said that we don't want to duplicate the rich and diverse resources of the neighborhood within the new Safeway, especially if/since it could displace the current businesses which we value and use. The traffic/noise/&pollution: Virtually all groups have said from the beginning that we don't need any more traffic, not another car or truck--it's a mess there now--particularly the College Avenue entrance. And the noise and pollution is already very high. Traffic/noise/pollution most likely will get far worse with Safeway more than twice as large and with additional businesses under the Safeway roof as is currently planned. Do they think that they will not get more customers? Somehow they are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this by saying that they don't expect more traffic/noise/pollution but expect to build a twice-plus bigger store, but that won't cause more traffic/noise/pollution they say. The only way that status quo could occur is if they will NOT receive more customers for their efforts. Clearly they expect to get more business or they would not spend their money so lavishly.
The Architecture: I must admit that the latest architect plans are better looking than the last two but that still doesn't make it good enough for this neighborhood. Our early 1900’s buildings on College Ave have a look and feel which Safeway cannot or will not duplicate. Their current look is obviously modern and might look good in some other town/location, but not here with our turn of the century and 20's/30’s architecture.
All in all, they have been disingenuous with us by having us laboriously go to these meetings where we say the same things over and over in many different ways--make no mistake our point has been amply made. Yet while they state they are listening, they then pop out yet another twice-plus bigger plan at the Claremont Hotel meeting with obvious expectations to duplicate all resources in the neighborhood underneath one roof.
Safeway apparently thinks we aren't paying attention. We actually are and we are shocked that aren't. Safeway will be surprised (they shouldn't be) when their hearings are mobbed by ticked off neighbors, from very near and near, who will be sure and say it all again for the City of Oakland. We expect to be tenacious and will not allow that monstrosity of a building to be built there. No Big Boxes in Rockridge/Claremont area!!! We mean it and we have been saying it all along!!
I moved to this neighborhood two years ago because of the charming shops along College Avenue. Most of them are family-owned businesses that cater to our specific requests with outstanding produce, flowers, baked goods, pharmacy needs, and much more. A larger Safeway will not only be a neighborhood blight, but will put many of these people out of business. The traffic alone will make it difficult to get to the small shops.
Does Safeway really think that the public wants to make its way through the tiny, crowded streets to go to their big store? I often drive to the Safeway on Broadway and Pleasant Valley because of the easy driving and parking, rather than deal with the traffic at the Claremont Safeway.
Safeway executives have not listened to our community members. They are making a mockery of the process of public discussion, apparently wasting our time and effort. I hope the city council members will see the big picture. The planned design will destroy this internationally known, charming street. If they are looking ahead wisely, this project will be cancelled.
Has anybody tried to drive down College Avenue toward Elmwood or try to get from College Avenue to Claremont and make a right turn? The already is ALREADY completely gridlocked. Expanding the current Safeway will only make the entire area WORSE. I currently avoid the whole area if possible. Safeway has to know this and by continuing to propose to expand the existing site clearly demontrates that all they are focused on is profits. I am a C-Level executive for my Company and while i like quality shopping as much as the next person, what Safeway is proposing to do is just wrong. Please do not ruin the neighborhood. Thank you.
An e-mail from Elizabeth Jewel asserts that Safeway collected over 300 comments.
There were not 300 community members at the Claremont show-and-tell. Does this mean Safeway broke out the comments by section? In other words, is the information now segregated into parts, for a total of 300 comments: 150 "Things you like about the new proposal" and 150 "Things you don't like about the new proposal"? If given to the city, would these comments so presented give the appearance that half of those in attendance approve the proposed Big-box plan?
I think Safeway should answer that question and be more transparent about their methodology -- in their communications to us and the city. Being clever with data is a sure way to stall our trust and confidence, in this report and all future reports.
I entirely agree with the comment posted under "The Building Block of the Neighborhood" and would like to add the following:
While neighborhoods change their character over the decades, and while this is often to the benefit of those who live there, bigger in this day and age is by no means better, nor does it satisfy any urgent needs of those who live there.
It will inevitable increase traffic congestion and thereby carbon emissions; it will drive out some of the smaller merchants in the Rockridge area which currently serve the needs of the neighbors of that area just fine.
An enlarged store is not needed because there is a huge Safeway store on Pleasant Valley & Broadway, just as easily reachable by those who would drive their car to the corner of College and Claremont.
Safeway did not take into account the many objections on the part of the neighborhood, is not providing for office space in the planned building like e.g. the Market Hall complex.
I would urge Safeway as well as the Cities of Berkeley and Oakland to listen to the suggestions of the neighbors and not force this project on the area.
One of the attractions to the community of Rockridge is the small but intimate look and feel of the stores and businesses. It does not feel like a strip mall filled with chain stores, which seems to be the trend in many areas now.
I understand that the current Safeway store has been around for some time and I shop at the store and am happy with the location. I believe there is a balance with the size as-is and the area around it. But increasing the size will not match the surrounding retail community and will stick out based on it's sheer size. Trader Joe's has done very well with the building they were given.
I have read that Safeway has ignored the complaints of the community and still has not offered a design that utilizes the same building size. Their main issue seems to focus on increasing the building size. If corporations continue to value profits over people, the essence of what Rockridge is will slowly change from what it is today.
I moved to the area not long ago and I found the neighbors and community to be very welcoming. I truly believe the community is only looking out to preserve the neighborhood and is not out to hurt big corporations. If Safeway wants to provide a service to the people, they should hear what they have to say. Providing what the neighborhood supports will be a win for both parties.
Please, Safeway, get the message from this neighborhood. We like the small town spirit in our corner of this urban area and we do not want a bigger store in place of the Safeway at the corner of College and Claremont.I echo what many people have said: What Safeway wants is not what is best for this neighborhood. We will not allow this monster store to cast its shadow over the place where we live.Bring it down to human scale and work with the people who live here.
I object to several things. One, Safeway's continued stance to force its plans on a neighborhood that has had reservations about them for some time. Does not say much about a company claiming to be a "good neighbor."
I object to the inevitable impact this project will have on traffic, already congested in this part of Oakland.
I object to the inevitable impact this square footage will have on pedestrian traffic, near one of the few crosswalks on College Avenue that is safe.
I object to the threat this company will have to the small businesses we love and support in and around Safeway.
And a fact I haven't seen recently, I object to the poor quality of produce, meat, and dry goods Safeway presently offers. I have had numerous occasions of having to literally throw out sour meat and poultry just bought. They cannot keep their shelves stocked with predicable, commonplace items. Their record of service as a whole is poor at best.
And we want a bigger picture of that?
Absolutely not.
Naomi
If one takes into account what Michael Pollan says in his various books on the food industry and how it is tied up with damage to the environment, the Safeway chain has to be considered part of the problem and not the solution. They sell mostly packaged goods and produce that have to be brought in over a long distance using large amounts of fuel and energy for cooling. The food sold in their Deli section is not made from local products either, for reasons of efficiency and maximum profit. I am certain, that the various retailers expected to lease the space foreseen in the architect's plan, are equally dependent on "trucking" in their merchandise from afar.
Why would a City like Berkeley - I do not know what Oakland's plans are for the future - which is in the process of implementing its Climate Action Plan, not object to and/or negotiate with Oakland's Planning Department on at least a significant reduction in space of the proposed project?
To whom it may concern:
As a long time resident of Rockridge, I would like to voice my continued disapproval of the Safeway expansion plans. Frankly, given these tough economic times, I am puzzled why Safeway continues to push ahead with these plans despite strong neighborhood disapproval and more importantly, lack of need.
Apparently, Safeway has a need to get bigger, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the neighborhood, which are well served by small, independent stores and one, more than adequately sized supermarket.
All the attributes of the "new and improved" Safeway could certainly be used in the poor neighborhoods of Oakland. Why doesn't Safeway open bright, airy supermarkets in those neighborhoods, where there is clearly a need, rather than spending an infinite amount of resources trying to push through an expansion plan where it isn't wanted or needed?
Sincerely,
Shelley Sella, MD
This response from Elizabeth Jewel regarding my earlier post about her e-mail in which we are told that "300" comment cards were collected during the Safeway Claremont event:
"Cheri: Some people at the meeting at the Claremont filled out more than one card."
I am very worried about this expansion. Frankly, it strikes me as ridiculous. Traffic will be an unmitigated disaster, and the quality of the neighborhood will be transformed from lovely boutiques and stores like Charms Pharmacy, to chain heaven. And you know what? No way in hell they rent those stores in this economy. It'll be check cashing joints and, if we're lucky, an astrologer.
We are long-time residents of Rockridge and North Oakland. We have also shopped on and off at the Safeway for just as many years, though it is not our primary choice for food products. We choose places such as Whole Foods, Berkeley Bowl, Market Hall, Trader Joes, local farmers markets, and small shops such as Verbrugge.
We understand fully that this site is an anti-Safeway expansion site and that everyone is entitled to express their concerns and hopes for the project. Yet, after attending the various meetings regarding the proposed "improvements" for Safeway, we can't but help notice a degree of hysteria, disinformation, misinformation, parochialism, and class bias reflected in the comments.
The most repeated criticism seems to be the proposed Safeway expansion is out of scale to that which uniquely defines Rockridge--namely the pedestrian oriented streetscape and the "independent" small "boutique" sized stores at ground level with residential and office above the retail. This is both an issue of the physical size of the proposed structure itself and the floor size of the full service grocery store.
If one walks down College Avenue and takes an honest look at the buildings along College and its main arterial crossings, from Broadway to Alcatraz, it is evident to the discerning eye the buildings range in height from 1-4 stories, with a good number of them 2-3 stories. The vast majority of these structures have almost 100% lot coverage--meaning the building's floor area of the first floor covers the entire lot. This continuous line of structures along College Avenue pushed right to the sidewalk is, in part, what creates and defines an interesting pedestrian oriented shopping area. With few exceptions, the vast majority do not support off-street parking. What Safeway has proposed in terms of building height and lot coverage is essentially what currently exists in Rockridge. Ironically, what they are doing is converting a quintessentially suburban form--a building surrounded by a sea of parking with a gas station--and turning it into a form more closely aligned with an urban village--substantial lot coverage to the sidewalk; parking pulled away from the sidewalk and hidden; a two story structure that is neither taller nor shorter than other nearby buildings; and small storefronts that line the sidewalk.
With respect to the proposed size of the use--a full service grocery store--it is certainly not the size of Yasai Market nor should be expected to function as a full service grocery store. As a matter of comparison, the new Whole Foods in Oakland is approximately 58,000 square feet. The West Berkeley Bowl, which will open shortly, is approximately 83,990 square feet although it contains offices, storage and other incidental uses that support the Shattuck Avenue Berkeley Bowl. Trader Joes, which are not really full service grocery stores, are substantially smaller averaging approximately 8,000 to 12,000 square feet. From size emanates any number of other criticisms which will be addressed below. Nevertheless, one of the interesting elements of a vibrant urban fabric is not only a variety of uses, but a variety in the size of those uses. We would suggest that those in opposition to the Safeway expansion would be in opposition to any development that was 2-3 stories, with almost 100% lot coverage, small "boutique" sized businesses on the ground floor, and hidden parking. The size of Safeway as a full service grocery store is not the issue--any development except a paint and patch is the issue. Really, what are the NIMBY's willing to support in developing the site that reflect the true urban forms and densities found in Rockridge? If not a Safeway expansion--then what. Please don't parrot the paint and patch idea.
The expansion of Safeway, as some suggest, is not going to unleash big box retail on Rockridge nor bring in a surge of chains. There are only three sites that provide the land for even something remotely close to that concept--the Safeway site, the Trader Joe's and the old Safeway site on Claremont near the DMV. We have to wonder how many of the Safeway detractors shop at Whole Foods or REI or any other so called "green chain". Yes, they still are chains and they are corporations even if you buy your camping gear and your brie there. It is so easy in Berkeley and North Oakland to throw around scary words like "chain" and "corporate" in order to feed NIMBY and reactionary tendencies. Most of you should remember that some small local home grown businesses, such as Peetes Coffee, are now chains. We should always make sure that businesses are successful, but not successful enough to become a chain. Right? Because being a chain makes them evil and sinister and full of corporate greed. It's also the place many of your sons and daughters might just get their first job or the job that sustains them through college--that is of course you pick up the tab.
Many have stated that an expanded Safeway will inevitably push out the many smaller successful business such as the La Farine, Verbrugge, Yasai, etc. What is ironic in this statement is that the very people who do not shop at Safeway, and disdain it for its poor quality of produce, suddenly seem to think that everyone who shops at the small independent shops, including themselves, are going to march over to a bright shiny new Safeway like zombies and start buying the same "crappy" products to the extent it will drive out La Farine? Verbrugge? Yasai? You got to be kidding us. What hysteria. The market segment for the small independent shops is different than for Safeway. The community itself has the power to keep the small independent stores in business by simply continuing to shop at them. Stop patronizing them and they will go out of business. Protesting the Safeway expansion as some sort of Walmart is at best a form of protectionism and at worst hysteria.
Safeway is not a regional draw now and will not be a regional draw when it finishes its expansion.
Let's really think about this. Within a very short distance you have several major competing full service grocery stores--Whole Foods both in Berkeley and Oakland, three Andronico's in Berkeley), Berkeley Bowl, the soon to be open West Berkeley Bowl and of course Safeway on Pleasant Valley. You also have several Trader Joes in Oakland and one soon to open in Berkeley as well as Market Hall and any number of farmer's markets in Berkeley and Oakland. We are awash in food providers. Those who come to Safeway are typically those who live within a small geographic reach of the store that is not intersected by another competitor or those who are driving through the area on their way to and from work or here for an event such as a Cal football game. They are people who either have a preference for the Safeway brands or cannot afford places like "whole paycheck".
Those who already shop at Whole Foods or Berkeley Bowl are not going to suddenly be drawn to Safeway--totally different shopping paradigms, totally different merchandise, totally different focus. Those that shop at small independent stores are not going to be suddenly pulled away by Safeway. They provide yet another totally different set of food products and attract different clientele. Go into Safeway during the day or night--a very high percentage of its patrons are UC Berkeley students who are on fixed incomes and may not want to spend the kind of money you would pay at La Farine, Market Hall or Whole Foods (Remember this because it is important for the traffic issue). What is most likely to happen is that an expanded Safeway may pull customers--generally students--away from the older Andronico's on Shattuck and may even force that full service grocery to close or from the newly opened Trader Joes. Frankly we love having a diversity of food providers, large and small, to meet the food needs of a diverse community with equally diverse ranges of income levels and accessibility. Not everyone can or wants to shop at La Farine or Whole Foods or even a cramped Safeway! You cannot force everyone to shop at boutiques.
Another issue that has been raised is that an expanded Safeway will increase traffic beyond an already intolerable situation. The fact is Safeway is not currently the major contributor to traffic along College Avenue. Similar to Telegraph and Shattuck Avenue, College Avenue serves as a major gateway to downtown Berkeley and UC Berkeley. During the morning commute, the traffic is heavy going north. In the evening commute the traffic is heavy going south. During the weekends the traffic is heavy on College in both directions because Rockridge itself and Elmwood (not the Safeway) has become a regional destination for shopping and dining.
A new and expanded Safeway in Rockridge is not going to magically attract people from throughout the region. Most existing customers will still use the expanded Safeway (except those handful of protesters) and new customers are likely to be those lured from Adronicos or Trader Joes. Most will be from the immediate neighborhood or those passing through the area. Many of the additional new patrons may be students without cars--ever see the line at the bus stop with students and their shopping bags. Those who do live in the neighborhood know that during rush hour College is a cluster f_ck and avoid it all costs when driving--this is called peak hour avoidance. You only have to access College once during peak traffic to gain this knowledge and develop an avoidance habit. We all do it in some form or another whether crossing the bridge into SF or traveling on local roads.
What is likely to cause more traffic problems is this insistence that Safeway provide free parking for the nearby small shops along College. Right now it is difficult to find parking. That difficulty forces people in the neighborhood to walk and bicycle. Providing free parking disincentivizes walking and bicycling. Bicycle racks and smoother safer sidewalks with handicap ramps would be the right incentives to minimize traffic.
There were also criticisms that an entrance on College will create an even greater traffic flow problem and would be unsafe for pedestrians. You have got to be kidding? There are currently three driveways--two at Safeway and one at the Union 76 gas station. The Safeway expansion would eliminate two of the three entrances; thereby decreasing those left-hand turns as one travels southbound and decreasing the stacking from right-hand turns as one travels southbound. This would also minimize the access points for vehicles crossing the sidewalk and limit the potential pedestrian vehicle contacts. How on earth is this more unsafe? Can anyone explain that logic?
We do agree, as with most reasonable people, that Safeway must look at the traffic issue very closely to ensure that the intersections at Claremont and Alcatraz are properly managed to facilitate traffic flow and mitigate any cumulative traffic impacts. However, Safeway should not bear the burdens of the existing traffic problem generated by other uses. It should address its portion of the problem.
Finally, there seems to a huge concern that the architecture somehow evokes images of Encino, Walnut Creek, or Concord. What does that really mean? Does that mean the shape and form of the structure is similar to suburban architecture? Does that mean that the use of stucco is similar to suburban architecture? Does that mean because it is a Safeway that is similar to suburbia? Comments comparing the design to suburbia are disingenuous and do little to inform the debate. We would appreciate if anyone could identify the constituent elements that make up this so called "suburban architecture" and identify specifically how the current Safeway design meets those elements and constitutes Encino?
There seems to be this mixed up notion that in neighborhoods like Rockridge, that have beautiful old architecture, we must copy that architecture with faux Colonial Revival, Craftsman, or Victorian structures. We live in a beautiful California Bungalow designed by a famous East Bay architect. We love it. But, take a really good look at the architecture of Rockridge. It is not the similarity of architecture, but the diversity of architectural styles that makes this neighborhood beautiful and interesting. We do not live in the early 1900's, we live in the early 2000's. Architecture should speak to our modern sensibility, using modern styles, ideas and materials, while respecting history and the historical context.
Someone we really respect once told us, "Berkeley prides itself on being one of the most progressive communities in the country, yet it is actually one of the most conservative when it comes to change and development since there always seems to be a protest over development issues. A good number of people have this image of what Berkeley used to be in the 1960's and want to do everything they can to keep anything from changing that image".
To us, this parochial approach sounds really familiar...We wonder with this anti-Safeway expansion crowd whether the Claremont Hotel would have ever have been built! The world will not end if Safeway expands to close the gap in our urban village. In fact, it will remedy a blighted space.
Fight Blight: Where exactly is the nearest RETAIL in North Oakland or Berkeley, on a two-lane street in a residential neighborhood, that equals or rivals this proposed plan?
And what makes a neighborhood an urban village anyway? Must it be a retail cathedral?
I know your site, and I honestly value the work you do. You also advocate for a currently fashionable urban development/economic model that somehow fits everywhere, works everywhere, is good for everyone, and yields only goodness -- forever and ever. That's just not logical; it is, however, evangelical.
As for the class-bias claims, I think that's pure shadowboxing. It fits your NIMBY theory, which is just downright funny in this context. And I think the class-bias cry means you have intimate knowledge of things like "hysteria, disinformation, misinformation." If you think there's no difference between the flagship Peet's, or the flagship Border's in Ann Arbor, and the stores that currently populate Emeryville Plaza and might well become Safeway's lessees, then you really don't know what matters to this neighborhood/urban village/whatever new pedantic name it will have ten years from now.
But I can tell you that this neighborhood rather respects small, local proprietors, and our stretch of College is not home to the platinum-plated toothpick stores you'd have people think line our gold-leaf-y block. People prize the small shops not as class signifiers but because they are small, human, and manageable, because we recognize each other, and know each other, on both sides of the counters, and because that matters.
I'm a young-ish renter, and one who has sacrificed to stay in this neighborhood after moving from Oakland precisely because of its scale, its intimacy, its idiosyncrasy. And I can tell you exactly the price difference between the same products at Yasai, Safeway, and Star. There is plenty of perceived value at Safeway, and some actual value too. Does the new LIFESTYLE Safeway model (and the neighborhoods it finds itself lifestyling in, even when the neighborhood objects) raise any class concerns for you? In other words: Pot, meet kettle.
And, by the by, there are many ways that adjacent businesses can be damaged, ended, or changed which don't involve poaching or predatory corporate strategies, though that's worked pretty darn well too.
I'm glad you posted, Fight Blight. While I think you have an ax to grind (and there are plenty of places that need that ax and that grinding), I also believe you've evidenced just how much you've got wrong about this place, what it needs and what it can sustain, who lives here, what they care about and why they care about it. And, too, I rather like the way most prejudices and pet theories can't help but drag along the ignorance or arrogance that birthed them.
1-mi. 3-mi. 5-mi.
30,116 255,997 464,378 POPULATION
15,207 188,426 254,018 DAYTIME POP
Nah, I don't think nearly a dozen major retail spaces, including a 50,000sf Lifestyle Safeway, are gonna change traffic much. Heck, once those pesky driveways are gone, it will be so much better, for everyone really. You'll hardly notice any influx (see demographics above) because it sucks so much now anyway because people are being successfully avoidant. (And the neighborhood really loves those driveways and thinks they're brilliant, and the neighborhood treasures the current Safeway lot around which they had so much sway since the concept was so popular at the time it was built -- ahem -- and because said Safeway has done such a nice job of maintaining and beautifying that property and the store over the years, proving they'll take equal or better care of the next gigantic one, as at 51st or in Alameda).
Expanding College Avenue and restricting parking will fix any remaining traffic problems besides. And won't impact other businesses at all. And then all the other people will just continue avoiding driving at peak times that don't suck because of the avoiders, or winding their way down the side and back streets, and never mind what they need to get for dinner on the way home from work at that big new conveniently located Lifestyle Safeway (that no one must hallucinate looks just like buildings they see in the suburbs of Walnut Creek or San Antonio -- or think they see but don't really see because they aren't qualified or educated enough about 21st-century architecture or urban planning theory to properly see or have any say or preferences about their neighborhood. Side note: Paternalism is morally superior to parochialism and in no way resembles it).
Or they'll go home by some fifth-dimension alternate route & get their bikes because now it will be just that much safer and more comfortable to ride on College and Alcatraz and Claremont because the number of traffic avoiders has tripled and because the driveways will have magically eliminated all the current problems, including the big, loud, dirty trucks picking up and dropping off goods for eleven stores plus the bigger Safeway, and also somehow mitigated the increased population of people driving to the shopping center that no one really thinks is going to attract anyone but more college students, who are strictly poor and who positively would be disenfranchised without the dream of 25,000 more square feet of lifestyle choices, and who invisibly wait for the 51 at the corner of Alcatraz where no one ever notices them burdened with Safeway bags because hysterical privileged petty blight-loving change-haters can't see college students without wearing special glasses.
FB: Please. Enough with the cartoons and cliches. Your arguments should have enough merit without trivializing a community and lobbing generalized insults at residents who might disagree with you. You're welcome to post here, but save the snarky vitriol for your own blog.
I noticed on Fight Blight's blog a posting regarding a letter to the Caltrans Executive Director, Will Kempton, detailing the ongoing problems with the underpasses in North Oakland, including "overgrown vegetation, excessive litter, debris and refuse, excessive graffiti, homeless encampments, uneven and failed pavement, damaged guardrails, dead and dying landscaping." Remove the damaged guardrails, and you have an apt description of the property around the College Ave Safeway.
What any resident living in the vicinity of the College Ave Safeway could tell you is that the store does little or nothing to maintain its facilities and grounds. Garbage and vermin are frequent problems that spill over to the surrounding community. Safeway management has admitted that they choose not to be proactive, but wait until complaints are made. Their district manager, George Arias, has freely admitted that the store is one of the most poorly managed. And that is my point.
Corporate and management policies are not parameters that can be addressed in architectural design. A building almost three times the size of the existing one will require exponentially more maintenance, yet there is nothing that demonstrates the staff's capability or willingness to maintain the store at its current size. If they want to better serve their customers, they could start by cleaning up the place that currently exists.
Thank you, Yours Truly, for your rebuttal to Fight Blight's post. I think you have expressed the crux of the issue for so many of us. I also think FB made some valid points. We should be willing to question our motives and ideas. However FB hastily disregards so many valid sentiments from so many smart, insightful people, and a bit too snarkily, that the valid points get lost. One basic problem most of us have with this project is the massive scale. Regardless of design issues, the scale is what makes it undesirable in so many ways. For instance, If you have noticed, perhaps by willful neglect, the current plans do not give us any numbers for the facade hight along our quaint and narrow College Ave,, but it is VERY high (perhaps 35') with no set back. It would obliterate any view of the hills and shade the west side for much of the morning hours, for its entire length. This is why people are calling it suburban. It make no sense to have such an imposing facade without the sea of parking beyond a five lane boulevard. Even if there were a nice piazza in the foreground, you're right, Yours Truly, this ain't no cathedral. And we can't compare this location with the setting for the new Oakland Whole Foods or other more roomy environment.
The neighbors who oppose this project have it right. I am impressed by the display of temperate and reasoned judgement about the projects functional and aesthetic problems.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by Safeway's posture throughout this process. Clearly, they want to maximize the square footage of retail in this development. This is a development, not just a grocery store. They are probably shooting for the moon, so if they do have to back down, they still have big numbers.
This is their property, and this is the way they see it. We can't change that.
So what do we do now? What will really be a challenge is when the City of Oakland has no problem with the project. We have to be prepared for this. If you were a home owner who wanted to do a massive remodel defying various zoning issues while casting long shadows and obscuring all of the neighbor's views, you would be thrown down the steps of city hall, excuse the hyperbole. But we have to face the fact that the city will welcome retail development, especially in the current economic climate. We can't count on Oakland's up-in-the-air zoning policies, traffic studies and Environmental Impact Reports to do the job.
Let us be prepared to show our own massive and monolithic front.
Anonymous, Very Funny, thanks.
FB, can you really mean all of that? Are you're GOOD ideas are getting buried in the rave? Counting to ten really works (snark begets snark).
Here is a copy of an email that I sent out last December to Todd Paradis. I am quite distressed and saddened that Safeway continues to ignore community sentiment. As so many have noted before, the over-size scale is destructive of the precious Rockridge quality of life. Clearly they have no intention of listening.
Dear Todd Paradis
As a nearby neighbor of your store at College and Claremont, I have been keenly following your plans for an renovated and expanded building. As you know, there are many complex issues here, but for me the bottom line is the proposed expansion of the store, suggested to a possible 50,000 square feet. I find this intolerable!
I usually shop at your store once a week and have never found anything lacking in it. It is just the right size for me. One thing that does concern me is the possible impact on traffic. If the store is made larger, undoubtedly it will have to draw customers from a larger area, who will have to drive, instead of walking, as I do. I have to say that the surrounding intersection, with about four or five streets intersecting is already impossible to cross by foot, which I must to do go to and from the BART. Any additional traffic would simply make life extremely unpleasant, if not dangerous.
I am, of course, also concerned about the impact on the local shops across the street. These are the essence of what makes life desirable in Rockridge. Having a huge box of a store, even with attractive architecture, and severe competition or the elimination of these human-scaled shops will detract substantially from the pleasure of living in the area.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that you are trying to maximize your profits by appealing to people who live outside of the immediate area. I don't think this what we moved to Rockridge for.
I hope that you keep these issues of scale in mind as you plan your renovation and keep the building to a modest size of about 30,000 square feet.
Our nice, quiet, East Bay neighborhoods finds itself in the sights of a global corporation. Safeway Stores Inc. wants to turn it's local outlet into an enormous hyperstore.
Playing all the chords of response to community concerns, Safeway has held a series of "stakeholder" meetings, the ostensible purpose of which was to manufacture consensus as to their plans to overwhelm existing local planning and zoning ordinances. When it turned out, however, that community consensus already existed, that the community is horrified by what they perceived as a threat much beloved local merchants, and even more horrified by the prospect of servicing such a monstrosity from already congested College Avenue, Safeway suddenly abandoned the meeting series, and opted for a slick wine and cheese "presentation" at the Claremont Hotel.
No matter that the College Avenue outlet has existed comfortably for years as a satellite to the existing Safeway in the near by Rockridge Center; no matter that existing zoning ordnances were specifically designed to preserve the livability and pedestrian nature of the Rockridge neighborhood; no matter that the neighborhood exists as a unique and fragile oasis in a global sea of merchandising, what Safeway Stores Inc. wants, they are likely to get.
In reference to Yours Truly
Safeway is not "within" a residential neighborhood. It is located along a mixed use commercial corridor. It is bordered directly by two-story residential structures along the north property line--most of whom are property owners who purchased their homes knowing full well that their neighbor was a grocery store.
What exactly do you mean by "retail cathedral"? We can only surmise that you say this in a pejorative sense--perhaps even in a snarky way. Cathedral can be defined as a large, important church or something that resembles a cathedral, as in grandeur or authority. Is your reference then a comment on the size of the structure or the use or both? Perhaps you are refering to the notion that the store is so darn big and grand that it is like a church to the feed the hungry consumer souls. This would be funny if it were not so wrong. Just walk around and look at height and lot coverage of buildings in Rockridge.
Urban village refers to an urban planning or design concept that is typically characterized by medium density development, mixed use zoning, efficient public transportation and a priority on pedestrian oriented streetscapes and public spaces. Wow doesn't that sound an awful lot like Rockridge? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_village
We do not think you really know or understand our professional and personal beliefs and opinions about development, other than what has been expressed on this forum. The We Fight Blight Blog is dedicated to eliminating blight in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Since the We Fight Blight Blog does not address development issues, with very, very limited exceptions, we have no idea where you got the idea that we "also advocate for a currently fashionable urban development/economic model that somehow fits everywhere, works everywhere, is good for everyone, and yields only goodness--forever and ever..." Frankly, you give yourself away when you use words like "currently fashionable"--that sounds a lot like Ultra Speak. We do not see development as black and white and all corporations as inherently evil and all small businesses as uniquely divine.
There is a lot of gray in between and it takes an honest and objective analysis of each and every development and it's proposed uses, in the context of the individual site, the neighborhood and the region, to really understand project effects--good and bad.
The point about Peet's is that everyone seems to want successful neighborhood serving businesses, but god forbid they become too successful that they grow, expand, and even modify their business model to become successful chains. God forbid that something so successful gets exported to another part of the country and they make money doing it. We thought good old American capitalism generated new ideas and new businesses--particularly small businesses. Few people sacrifice with hard work, long hours and their personal capital so that they can fail. Of course there are differences between the original Peet's and Peet's the chain. Does that make them inherently evil? Of course not.
So why do you think you have the market cornered on what really matters to Rockridge? There are just as many people who support the Safeway expansion as those that are against it. Just because those opposing the expansions speak loud and often, doesn't mean that everyone agrees with them or that voices are the most important to be heard.
It is great that the neighborhood respects small, local proprietors. And it is great that you have a personal relationship with the shop owners/keepers. There does seem to be a commitment in the community to support small businesses. However, that does not mean an expanded Safeway is somehow going to the death knell of a gamut of small businesses. What is true is that during the last 15 years or so Rockridge has definitely gone upscale with boutiques, specialty shops, and high-end restaurants.
I'm not sure what limited section of Rockridge you refer to when you talk about "platinum-plated toothpick stores". But, when you can purchase a pair of jeans for $350 at a select boutique or San Francisco Restaurateurs' relocate to Rockridge and you cannot get a table without a reservation or you can purchase designer collars for Fido, you know that the neighborhood retail has changed in a fundamental way--most likely influenced by relatively wealthy newcomers. But please don't forget, we already have chains or budding chains--Pasta Pomodoro, Xtreme Pizza, Crepe Vine, Cactus, Barney's etc.
An expanded Safeway does not raise any concerns to us regarding class bias. We could care less about your shopping preferences--really. Which I suspect may be more similar to ours than you think. Perhaps we even see each other at Verbrugge or La Farines--so when a stranger smiles at you smile back and think We Fight Blight. But really, expecting everyone else to shop a boutiques is simply not tenable and does have a tinge of class bias.
Regarding competition, we would appreciate if you could articulate exactly the ways adjacent small businesses could be "damaged, ended or changed which don't involve predatory corporate strategies". No one seems to have articulated a well-reasoned argument or rationale as to why this would actually occur given the demographics in Rockridge and shopping preferences. However, there has been alot of fear mongering.
The only ax we have to grind is about blight. North Oakland and South Berkeley have plenty of it and we would like to see less of it due to the relationship between crime and blight. We live here. And just as much as anyone else, we have a idea about what can or cannot be sustained by Rockridge and what the "community" needs and wants. Like others we just don't agree with you and don't think the sky will fall if Safeway expands. Regarding ignorance and arrogance, we saw plenty of that at the community meetings. And from our perspective it wasn't pretty.
Gee, Fightblight, what are you so steamed up about? I don't think many people are against a modest expansion of the grocery store. But a 60,000 sq ft store plus a bunch more retail in an already questionable market, plus boo-koo roof top parking in a monolithic structure that dwarfs anything along the College ave. corridor is simply out of place. I don't understand why you are so gung ho about this prospect. Are you against scrapping any and all zoning regulations in favor of developer steered city planning, a la Emeryville? Perhaps outer Houston would suit you. Have you read the zoning? It seems that this is something you would be against. Or is it some kind of class warfare that motivates you...? I'm puzzled. What are you for? (25 words or less, please)
For Jeff Gillman:
This is just the beginning. Safeway has played the game like most other developers have played it. It only marks the end of this tiresome faze wherein the developer pretends to consider, then misrepresents public opinion. We have to stay united when challenging the city to uphold zoning and favor long term values over shot-in-the-arm development.
This community is awesome. We can do it.
I didn't say the Fight Blight blog was an advocate for a certain brand of urban development, but I do believe from your rhetoric on this site that you are. Still, it's nice to know you're ready to trivialize my appreciation of Fight Blight's work. What is all this spite about?
Your low opinion of those who oppose the scale and size of this project, the personalizing incivility and accusation, comes across as a form of arrogance and ignorance. And I don't know why it's a display of ignorance or arrogance to be involved in passionate disagreement and individual frustration with how Safeway has comported themselves within the community these past two years.
Anyway, what's happening here, right now, isn't honest dialogue or
disagreement in my book, and I don't find it particularly productive. It just seems schoolyard-ish to me. It's a fact that there is no other retail of the proposed size on College Avenue, and it's a fact that that fact is intentional. It's a fact that Rockridge isn't broken. Doubling the size of Safeway and creating a retail shopping center isn't the fix for the thing that isn't broken, and introduces real risk.
It is my hope that more people insist there is a middle path between what's there now -- in all its respectful and neighborly deferred maintenance glory -- and a shopping center of 60,000sf.
I wasn't at the meeting, but viewed Safeway plans on-line. I feel scale of the proposed remodel of 50,000 feet is too large for the area. It was hard to get a good sense of how massive the remodel will be from the on-line plans. One suggestion I have is to put the cafe which seems to be above street level, down at street level so the space relates more to the community and acts as a gathering place for people to socialize.
I was pleasantly surprised by the plans on the College Avenue side. Less so for the Clarmont side. However, it appeared the views chosen and the speed of presentaion were desined to gloss over what might be the less attractive aspects of the plan. I keep on hearing about the 55K sq. ft. of the new store but I have no way to put that into perspective. Is it double the size of the current store, triple or a 50% increase.
I'd like safeway to provide more detailed floor plans as well as more on line views of all aspects of the building in higher defintion and a physical model in a public place such as the library. And I would encourage the architects to do more to imoprove the Claremont sid.
Martin
This past Friday night we had the pleasure of dining at The Wood Tavern. As we ate a fabulous rack of lamb, we could not help but notice Safeway's blank, dreary wall across the street--its ugly surface parking lot.
We do not believe that anyone can reasonably argue that a blank, lifeless wall, surface parking and a gas station along College Avenue is the essence of Rockridge. We find it ironic that on the one hand the detractors of the proposed Safeway expansion deride the architectural treatment, design and size of the proposed expansion as being wholly suburban and in conflict with the essence of Rockridge--small shops, pedestrian oriented--yet are fighting to save a quintessentially suburban form by advocating for a patch and paint job that will maintain a blank, dreary wall along College Avenue, as well as surface parking and a gas station.
Many detractors have expressed that the proposed Safeway expansion is too big both as a structure and as a use and is inconsistent with the C-31 zoning. We encourage anyone to evaluate the zoning very carefully because that is what the Planning Commission and the City Council will be using to assess and judge this project--not emotions and not hyperbole.
The C-31 zone is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas with a wide range of retail establishments serving both short and long term needs in attractive settings oriented to pedestrian comparison shopping, and is typically appropriate along important shopping streets having a special or particularly pleasant character--such as College Avenue.
The zoning provides for permitted activities--those that can be established by right--and conditionally permitted activities--those that can be permitted if they meet certain conditions. General food sales/alcoholic beverages, which Safeway engages in, is a conditionally permitted activity. The use itself at that site is not prohibited.
The zoning conditionally restricts, but does not prohibit, parking, loading and non-retail uses at ground level. The proposed Safeway will continue to maintain some existing ground level parking on Claremont, but will eliminate it from College Avenue. Their parking arrangement is not prohibited by the C-31 zoning.
The zoning requires that the total floor area devoted to commercial activities by any single establishment shall not exceed seven thousand five hundred(7,500) square feet, except that a greater floor area may be permitted upon the granting of a conditional use permit. Clearly, Safeway's expansion to 55,000 square feet is significantly larger than the 7,500square feet. However, the C-31 zoning allows--yes allows--a greater floor area than 7,500 with conditional use permit. A floor area of 55,000 square feet can be conditionally permitted. The provision for a conditional use permit allows the Planning Commission/City Council flexibility in approving larger uses, on a case by case basis, and gives them authority to impose conditions to mitigate adverse effects that would detract from the intended purpose of the C-31 zoning. A 55,000 square foot structure is not prohibited.
continued in next post
This next section is perhaps where there may be some disagreement regarding Safeway's proposed expansion.
Importantly, any conditional permitted use must meet the following criteria: (a) that the proposal will not detract from the character desired for the area; (b) that the proposal will not impair a generally continuous wall of building facades; (c) that the proposal will not weaken the concentration and continuity of retail facilities at ground level, and will not impair the retention or creation of an important shopping frontage; (d) that the proposal will not interfere with the movement of people along an important pedestrian street; (e) that no driveway shall connect directly with the area's principal commercial street unless: (1) vehicular access cannot be reasonably provided from a different street or other way; (2) every reasonable effort has been made to share means of vehicular access with abutting properties; (f) that the amount of off-street parking, if any, provided in excess of the requirements of this code will not contribute significantly to an increased orientation of the area to automobile movement; (g) that the proposal will conform in all significant respects with any applicable district plan which has been adopted by the City Council.
Hopefully we can all agree, as noted in the purpose of the C-31 zoning, the intended character for Rockridge is a wide range of retail establishments serving both short and long term needs in attractive settings oriented to pedestrian comparison shopping. Along College, the existing Safeway/Union 76 use/design provides a blank, dreary wall, unscreened surface parking, a gas station and three vehicular ingress/egress points. Along Claremont you have a gas station, unscreened surface parking, loading and three ingress/egress points. This will be replaced along College with five commercial/retail storefronts, one auto ingress/egress, and two pedestrian entrances for Safeway. Along Claremont, the existing condition will be replaced with one retail/commercial storefront (triangle), two auto ingress/egress for below grade screened parking, and one screened ingress/egress for employee surface parking and loading. Arguably, the proposed configuration improves the existing conditions in terms of meeting the intended character for Rockridge. The big question is whether the site plan and design goes far enough. Should there be fewer auto ingresses/egresses and, on Claremont, a replacement of surface and below grade parking along the sidewalk/street with retail/commercial storefronts to establish a more pedestrian oriented facade. This arrangement could result in rooftop parking.
Arguably, the proposed expansion actually strengthens rather than impairs a continuous wall of building facades along both College and Claremont by replacing unscreened surface parking and a gas station with a more continuous wall broken up by ingress/egress points. Arguably, the proposal actually strengthens rather than weakens the concentration and continuity of retail facilities at ground level with the introduction of five new retail/commercial storefronts that face on College. In contrast to the existing store, the proposed expansion will actually have a presence and relationship to College Avenue rather than a blank wall with surface parking. An issue to be considered is whether the ingress/egress points, below grade parking and surface parking/loading on Claremont will impair the creation of an important shopping frontage? Our guess is that the Planning Commission/City Council will consider the C-31 conditional use requirements to apply principally to College and not so much to Claremont since Claremont is not an important shopping street.
continued in next post
We believe one would be hard pressed to argue that the proposed expansion would interfere with pedestrian movement. In fact, the design along College with five new storefronts--similar in nature to the west side of College--will encourage more pedestrian activity and the consolidation of ingress/egress from three to one may actually make it safer for pedestrians along College--even if there are a greater number of vehicles trips.
Regarding the driveway on College, this is a traffic management issue. Can the driveway be eliminated and can patron access be required only from the two patron ingress/egress points on Claremont? Perhaps with a stop light. We have previously pointed out that traffic management will be the biggest issue for this proposal given the existing traffic conditions during peak morning and evening commute times.
We could be wrong, but we are not aware that Safeway is proposing parking beyond what is required. So this last conditional use issue would not apply.
The zoning establishes that the maximum height of the commercial buildings and other facilities shall be thirty-five (35) feet. However, the heights of the facilities shall be further limited on lots lying along certain residential zones.
Thirty five feet is two to three stories depending our your ceiling heights. Safeway proposes a two story structure within the required height limits. Compared to the immediately surrounding buildings on College and Claremont, the height of the proposed Safeway structure is neither the tallest nor the shortest building. Along the rear property line, which will be screened, approximately 60% of the lot abuts surface parking, the other 40% abuts a two-story structure (see the site plan). The majority of residential structures abutting the Safeway property along Alcatraz are two stories.
The zoning also requires appropriate buffering/screening or location of parking, loading and storage areas and control of artificial illumination.
The proposed Safeway expansion would include both a setback and a landscaped buffer from the adjacent residential uses and screening along Claremont.
While we understand the emotion and concerns resulting from the uncertainty of change--the proposed expansion arguably meets the requirements of the C-31 zoning and can be further revised through conditions, if necessary, to be even more consistent. Importantly, the Planning Commission and the City Council have the discretion to approve the proposed expansion as a conditionally permitted use. When people say that the structure or use is too big and is inconsistent with the C-31 zoning, we have a very, very hard time understanding that position once you go through the C-31 zoning requirements. We do not see anything that would force the City to deny this project as being fundamentally inconsistent with the C-31 zoning. C-31 allows uses greater than 7,500square feet.
If we have missed something, please show us.
The proposed expansion of the Safeway store to 60,000 square feet is excessive and out of keeping with the scale of buildings in our neighborhood. Safeway is building up resentment amongst the neighbors who live closest to the store by refusing to scale back its development plans.
I read the July Concerned Neighbors email update and am angry, disappointed and frustrated with what it has to say about the proposed renovation of the Safeway at Pleasant Valley.
Before you say you support a project you should at least get the basic facts straight -
Safeway is proposing a 90,000 square foot store where Longs’ Drugs is now, not a 65,300 square foot store like you state in your email.
If you had actually bothered to attend the Safeway “Open Houses” where Safeway first presented this proposal you would have seen that it is a typical suburban, auto-centric mall that walls itself off from the surrounding community. A proposal like this flies in the face of the General Plan that lists this part of Broadway as a major transit corridor and the Conley Report that designates this as a major node on that transit corridor that should be higher density mixed-use. The Conley Report calls out this intersection as one of only five in the entire city as a very good example of what a higher density node could be in Oakland.
In fact neighbors are so disappointed in this proposal that groups who normally are on opposite sides in the development debate, ULTRA and STAND, are in substantial agreement on what is wrong with Safeway’s proposal and will be attending the Planning Commission’s July 15 meeting to express all the problems we have with Safeway’s proposal.
On a personal note members of ULTRA as well as myself have been attending the Safeway at College Avenue meetings. We have spoken out in opposition to their earlier proposals, we have drawn up alternate proposals, we have participated in the ever-changing formats of the stakeholder meetings, etc. We did this not because we live next door to this Safeway but because we believe whatever is built there should support the needs of the entire community.
So for me it is the height of arrogance for you to so blithely throw your support to a project without even bothering to ask what others think of it.
see
http://wefightblight.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-on-college-avenue-safeway.html
It's too bad that Fight the Blight, who can recite chapter and verse on the zoning process, feels that he/she is superior to those who simply state - the project is TOO BIG. Perhaps his/her recent experience with the liquor store on Alcatraz & Shattuck will provide some sympathy for those of us who resent the way we've been manipulated by Safeway after devoting many hours attending community meetings that were structured to claim community input while ignoring it.
Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments. While you may feel our understanding of the zoning laws and policies are intended to express some degree of superiority over you or others on this blog, it is not. Rather an intimate understanding of Oakland land use laws and policies is important for us to determine what can or cannot be allowed and to ascertain whether what can or cannot be allowed should be changed to address community needs, concerns and interests.
In the case of the Safeway project, our reading is that the current laws give the City the discretion to approve such a project, on a case by case basis, as long is it meets certain stated criteria. We believe the proposed Safeway expansion project substantially meets the stated criteria, which of course are subject to some interpretation. In the case of Nic Nak, which requested a variance, we do not believe that it met the stated requirements for a liquor outlet and that the City Planning Commission approved the project to protect a black-owned business. While this may be a laudable goal to some, it is not part of the threshold to approve a non-conforming use for alcohol sales. Currently land use laws say that liquor stores should not be located within 1000 feet of another liquor store. Nick Nak would be 80 feet from another liquor store. Variances, by the City's own regulations are intended for extraordinary or unique physical constraints associated with a property. The City's creation of "historical relevance" to approve the liquor store is a clear misapplication of the law and will be appealed to City Council and may end up in court.
We believe the land use laws should be applied consistently, equally and transparently across the board regardless of whether the applicant is a major corporation like Safeway or a mom and pop business like Nic Nak. If communities, neighbors or individuals do not like what can be allowed by the existing land use laws they should work to change the laws and not necessarily wait until a project comes along that they don't like to voice their displeasure. We also believe that anyone buying property should do their due diligence and find out what could possibly be developed nearby before they buy a property so they know what they may be facing in the future.
Just because Safeway is unwilling to meet the demands for a paint and patch job does not mean that you or the neighborhood has been manipulated by Safeway. From all of the meetings I attended, I came away with a clear idea of what Safeway wanted. They have been clear on the size they wanted/needed and that has not waivered substantially.
You would have more sympathy from me and others if you could actually show that the proposal is TOO BIG under the current land use laws. We make land use laws to give predictability to land owners, big and small, and to protect property values. Advocating that something is TOO BIG with no basis in the law for the conclusion is like the Planning Commission approving the Nic Nak because of "historical relevance". It simply becomes a free for all with no predictability and allows anything to be approved or denied based on the whims of whomever. That's not how an organized, democratic society governed by laws is supposed to operate.
http://wefightblight.blogspot.com/2009/11/college-avenue-safeway-moving-forward.html
I am strongly against the proposed Safeway store at College and Claremont. The hulking building is out of scale with the other buildings on College Ave., and it damages the effects of the Rockridge zoning worked so hard for by the residents of Rockridge. And why do we need two gigantic Safeway buildings approx. 1 mile from one another?
Profit is the motive of every person, this is the reason that we always share the best tips so that you can earn more and maximum in your life.MCX Tips
After reading your post i think that this is the blog that i always find and my luck i got it.Property Auction
Get your powerful Web Hosting with Unlimited Spaces and Bandwidth, Dedicated Servers, Domain names, SSL, Smart Server and reseller solutions
Get cheapest seo services in usa
seo company
I just added this weblog to my feed reader, great stuff. Can’t get enough!
I just could not depart your site before suggesting that I really enjoyed the standard information a person provide for your visitors
It's good to know that here are so many ways to earn the money nowadays. just need to learn them all and choose the best way for us.
steam cleaners can clean lots of dirty clothes in a very short period of time that is why i always prefer to use them**
The first thing you should do when working on search engine optimization is find a great keyword phrase for that page. You shouldn't try to optimize your entire site to one keyword phrase - instead focus on writing pages for specific keywords and phrases.
I feel strongly about this and I enjoy learning about this topic. I have found it enormously useful. I like the way of representation about the topic. Great stuff and great efforts.Thanks
Fast food take away Menu
This couldn’t have most certainly been documented much better. Reading this posting strikes a chord in my memory about my last employer! David routinely kept babbling relating to this.FULL COLOUR LEAFLETS
FULL COLOUR LEAFLETS
colour flash
I have been absent for a while, but now I remember why I used to love this blogThanks ,chrome colour
Iwill try and check back more oftenHow frequently you update your web site? colour flash
More cheap pizza al yad Rami Levi in Talpiot. Also NIS 5 or 6/slice and 20/pie (at least it was last time I checked). Good for kids.
Considerably, the post is really the greatest on that worthy topic. I agree with your conclusions
Our small business is actually very happy to discover your current distinguished technique of publishing the write-up. Congrats, an individual allow me to understand and carry out. Value your current revealing around.
If you are looking for love poems or love quotes, you have come to the right place. We have an impressive collection of love poetry, as well as some famous quotes, friendship poems, inspirational quotes, and even lovestory.
etobicoke
Post a Comment