As mentioned by Michele Ellson yesterday, the Planning Board last night, in addition to discussing the change requested by Warmington Homes for Grand Marina, talked about the proposed amendement to the Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit any large format retail (aka big box stores) over 90K sq ft that had floor area devoted to 10% or more of non-taxable goods, such as food or drugs. This recommendation was discussed on the City Council floors after the Planning Board had sent their initial recommendation about how to define a big box store and what to do about it.
The Planning Board sent to the City Council the recommendation that anything over 30K sq ft. be considered a large format retail store (big box) and would require that any retailer looking to put in a store at that threshold or higher would be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council decided that was not restrictive enough and therefore directed staff to write up a prohibition on anything over the 90K with the 10% non-taxable good element. Basically that would even prohibit simply trying to get around that through a conditional use permit.
After some discussion, first meeting for newest Planning Board member Art Arturino by the way, the Planning Board basically said that they liked what they had initially sent to the City Council (anything over 30K needs a Conditional Use Permit) and that the non-taxable good element that the Council wanted was not really in their purview and recommended that it go to the Economic Development Commission for review.
I think the Planning Board made the right call on this one, the policy of anything over 30K sq ft requiring a Conditional Use Permit is restrictive enough that the City can make the decision of whether they want a certain type of store or not. Additionally, it is not as though the abritrary 90K, 10% would prohibit anything in the areas that are going to be able to fit a 90K building anyway since Harbor Bay and Alameda Landing are exempt because of exisiting development agreements. And Alameda Point would probably end up being exempt as well.
Oh yeah, and something that was mentioned during discussion was that if the talks with Target are successful, Catellus will be back before the Planning Board with a new site design to accomodate the larger footprint required by Target.
I think the over 30,000 sq ft requirement is good policy. The Bed Bath & Beyond store at Alameda Towne centre is 30,000 sq ft – just to give some perspective on size.
Comment by Karen Bey — June 24, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
So what would a store need to meet for the 30k exemption?
What is the point of having this policy if an influential corporation can just pettition for a larger space, like say Target? And if most of the shopping centers will be exempt like Lauren says, whats the point? It kinda seems like some symbolic gesture that really means nothing.
Comment by MarkD — June 24, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
“It kinda seems like some symbolic gesture that really means nothing.”
How many other symbolic measures has the council passed that do little more than pad their resumes? Anyone willing to start a list?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 24, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Mark ‘n ANT – you catch on quickly, except, Mark, I don’t think any “exemption” is required for stores over 30k sf. The 30k mark just requires a ‘conditional use permit’, not an “exemption”, unless over 90k sf, AND over 10% floor area (total floor or sales floor?) is “dedicated” to non-taxable items. Also the size (90k) seems to be listed as per each business, not parcel, building owner, building, etc. Therefore the super-Target of over 160,000sf is still OK as long as less than 16,000 sf (over half a BB&B) is for food and medicine. Of course this non-taxable area could be increased if it was let to other businesses such as a Starbucks, Pizza Hut, Winchell’s, KFC, McDonald’s, Top Dog, you get the picture. So anywhere on the island, this “Big Box Ban” is pretty much just little ado about more nothing. – You quickly surmised that, too.
As for the “Conditional Use Permit” required for the “over 30k crowd”, this seems like another way for the PB to maintain authority and power, which I am not going to argue – we need them to respect and protect Alameda’s Quality of Life. They can’t protect our QoL if they don’t have the authority.
If PB gives the nod to an 85,000 sf shoe bazaar, the C.U.P. assures that rights to the space can’t later be sold to be used as a 85,000 sf super tire outlet with tire ‘service and installation’. At least, not without re-applying for a new use permit. I think the Shoe Bazaar could be sold, or re-leased, to be used as a retail tire outlet and meet the ‘Conditional use permit’ if they did not provide ’service’. I not certain, but I think that’s how use permits work, well that, and some conditions of use such as limits on hours of operation, amount of required parking, etc, but I don’t think they can set up the use permit for a retail operation and condition the permit by the business name, or type, or quality of merchandise sold. I think otherwise they would have to explain why Bridge Side Landing did not had conditional use permits requiring the type of businesses they claimed they wanted and that they ‘programmed’ the overall design to encourage.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 24, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
If the 90K + 10% non taxable items is instituted the way that the Council directed, it would be an outright prohibition. You would not be able to get an exemption for the use.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 24, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
So what is the point of all this? Who are we trying to keep out and who are we trying to invite in? What are we seeking to accomplish by this legislation? I am unclear as to what the intent is.
Do we simply not like big stores or is it certain big stores? What is it with the taxable / non-taxable divide? Is this purely a sales tax matter or are we trying to protect a local business?
And what if a big box contained many boxlets? Would that be okay? Is this a design review issue or simply a volume issue? And why no “large format stores?” Is this purely for aesthetics or to protect some local merchants? I can’t see it being a religious issue. If the problem is traffic, then are we saying we don’t want stores that attract motorists?
Frankly, I don’t see where our city government is going with this or what is driving it. Any ideas?
Signed, Confused in Alameda
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 24, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
RE: ANT’s comment in #6, “If the problem is traffic, then are we saying we don’t want stores that attract motorists?”
In considering Kentucky Fried Chicken’s redesign proposal, the Planning Board had quite an in-depth discussion about the drive-thru window and the deleterious effects of all those idling motorists upon the climate. -Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft exhorted the board and the applicant regarding the benefits of doing away with the window. Yet, during the big box discussion, nobody articulated any concerns about what attractants these stores often are for wide-ranging SUV’s in search of yet more cheap stuff. -Guess all that sales tax revenue is worth a little extra pollution.
Comment by Susan — June 24, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
#5
Lauren – “outright prohibition”?
C’mon – no such animal. This looks to be a loosey-goosey step-up for the hype.
What does it really do? How does it protect Alameda?
Other than the geographic locations exempted, or as you said in your post “would probably end up being exempt as well”, – there is no other land this would protect, so as others have asked; “How does it help?” Answer: Nada – “does nuttin.”
Maybe I should not be so cynical (8)
Maybe down the road another version of the 1960’s “Park St Project” will raise its head and some developer will want to raise all of Park St for the new ‘Gargantuan Mall’. Of course even then it would be easy to get around the language of this “outright prohibition”. As illustrated by the aforementioned “shoplets” of not just fast-food, but we could see in the ALL-For-1 Store; “The Farmer’s Dairy Store”, “The Bread and Pastry Corner”, Fresh Harvest Produce”, “Ye Olde Apothecary”, etc.
All Sublet-Store businesses could have a lease including a ‘profit share”, perhaps the parent business is the Uber-Super Maxx Store itself – the new anchor of the super Gargantuan Mall’ that the sublet stores are attached to. This is certainly not a new concept in American corporatocracy – one business as the holder of many with plenty of legal insulation. While tongue-in-cheek, wouldn’t even this lame scenario get around last night’s PB actions? I missed a lot of the debate and had just tuned in prior to the vote.
Just think of it – a “Whole Lifestyle Center” based on cheap merchandise and fast food. Oh, if Bridgeside only had a single roof with a red bull’s-eye…
Maybe we can have that on the west side!
Perhaps our representatives never did read “Big Box Swindle”.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 24, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Perhaps I am trying to be too rational. Legislation should be passed to promote some public benefit. That public benefit should be able to be measured in order to see if the legislation accomplished its intended goal. What public good is this measure supposed to further and how will we know if the legislation is successful in accomplishing that goal?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 24, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
#9, #9, #9,
Yea Beatles….
ANT – Perhaps YOU should read “Big Box Swindle”.
As for “growth” in Alameda -Perhaps I am trying to be too rational. Growth should promote some public benefit.
Do you think an Orchard Supply Hardware at the old South Shore Safeway will promote sales growth in Alameda?
How much of an Alameda OSH market share would be derived from Pagano’s, Encinal Hardware, Encinal Nursery and other Alameda family owned businesses?
In dollars alone – would there be a net sales tax benefit?
What about the social structure of our fair city? Is it worth possibly sacrificing local family businesses (that pay school parcel taxes by the way) in order to benefit a single large San Jose corporation?
Oh, isn’t our city manager from San Jose, or is it just our Police Chief and our Development Czar that live in San Jose? Who else on our city staff learned their trade, or still reside in San Jose? Is this case of ‘build what you know’ from our development staff supposed to benefit Alamedans?
Comment by David Kirwin — June 24, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
On Tuesday, the City Council approved a contract naming Santa Ana Assistant City Manager Debra Kurita as Alameda’s new City Manager.
Selected after a rigorous and thorough selection process, Ms. Kurita, Alameda’s first female city manager, brings a strong background in financial management and municipal operations to the East Bay city of 75,000 residents. A seasoned city official with more than 25 years of municipal experience, she has been the Assistant City Manager of Santa Ana, California’s ninth largest city, for more than 15 years. She has had line authority over all city operations since 1989 and has been recognized by the League of California Cities’ City Manager’s Department for her commitment to ethnic diversity, empowering employees to succeed, and for attracting, retaining, and preparing young managers for careers in the public sector.
Comment by Mike McMahon — June 24, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
What’s this about an Orchard Supply Hardware store opening up at the old Safeway building in the Alameda Towne Centre?
Part of the reason my husband and I moved to Alameda more than 12 years ago was because of the way this place reminded us of our small town roots (I was a small town Wyoming girl).
Over the years, Alameda has done a decent job of staying that way.
But, slowly, we’re seeing Alameda heading in a new direction, a direction that involves big brand name stores and less and less of the type of small town stores that we grew up with and love.
I live right around the corner from Pagano’s and I am unashamed to say I love the feel and atmosphere of walking into that old time hardware store. A place like Pagano’s, once gone, can never come back.
When Orchard Supply Hardware opens up at Alameda Towne Centre, we’ll most likely lose Pagano’s, and along with it, another little piece of small town Alameda.
I understand progress. I understand that this change in direction for Alameda is, perhaps, inevitable. Who are we to stand in the way of progress, I think to myself?
It’s just that it makes me so sad to think that eventually, most of these local stores ran and owned by local families will, one by one, close their doors and make way for brand name businesses like Orchard Supply Hardware, Target,…etc.
I know I’m just one small voice in the winds of change. I’m just not sure there’s anything I can do to save this place I’ve come to adore and call my own.
Am I alone in feeling this way about my Alameda?
Lisa S.
Comment by Lisa S. — June 25, 2008 @ 12:07 am
Lisa,
You are not alone with those feelings. The ’small town feel’ is what makes Alameda special.
This growth of big box chains is not ‘progress’, it is ‘shameful’. It is not to help the community; it is in spite of the community.
The OSH concept will be taken up at the next Planning Board meeting in two weeks, as developers ask for further expansion, beyond the agreed limits for ATC growth. AGAIN!
I know the development dept loves to give the PB members 100’s, sometimes over 1,000 pages to wade through between meetings, but I wish the PB would take the time to learn how big box stores HURT the communities where they open. Big Box is not a solution to sales tax leakage. PB needs to be strong and independent enough to be able to protect our quality of life, and our local businesses. They need to learn more about what is being proposed from sources other than those who want to profit from the permits.
What happened to the big box studies that were supposed to have been done over a year ago? (Probably much longer since it was an outgrowth of the community fighting the South Shore Target.)
Who on the PB or CC has actually read Big Box Swindle?
Members of the community bought the library over half a dozen copies of the book. Please read one, you will be helping Alameda by sharing what you learn from it.
Comment by David Kirwin — June 25, 2008 @ 12:32 am
#11 Thanks Mike – That error was all mine.
Here’s links to the others:
Alameda Development director since 4/2004;
Ms. Little joins the City of Alameda as the Development Services Director. Ms. Little comes to us after recently serving as the Director of Downtown Management, San Jose Redevelopment Agency. Ms. Little also served as the Senior Director of Economic Development in Lake County, Florida.
http:// sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/01/13/story2.html
ALAMEDA — A San Jose police captain who started his career as an Alameda patrol officer 33 years ago has been named the island’s new chief of police.
Walter Tibbet, 55, will replace retired police chief Burnham “Burney” Matthews.
Two separate panels — one including department heads at City Hall and the other police chiefs from other cities — interviewed the final candidates.
Tibbet spent 26 years with the San Jose police force, where he supervised its patrol division, officers training program and crisis intervention team. He is credited with implementing a computerized dispatch system and other technologies, and earned the medal of valor in 1985.
http:// findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060601/ai_n16462352
Comment by David Kirwin — June 25, 2008 @ 6:14 am
The Orchard Supply Hardware Store is another store that Catellus wanted at the Landing. Harsch has in effect developed the retail center that Catellus wanted to develop at the Landing. Which brings me again to this question….. why do we need two discount centers?
There are only so many discount stores remaining, so you see where Catellus is headed.
Also to put a 90,000 sq ft store size in perspective — its 3 times the size of the Bed Bath & Beyond store at Alameda Towne Centre, and only 26,000 sq ft less than the Lowes store at Pacific Commons. The Lowes store at Pacific Commons is 116,000 sq ft and is considered a ’superstore’, and Pacific Commons is considered a retail power center.
Comment by Karen Bey — June 25, 2008 @ 6:21 am
Does the Orchard Supply Hardware store fall under the 30,000 square foot Conditional Use Permit?
And since the 30k sqft recommendation to the City Council is just that, a recommendation, would it have any effect on an immediate move-in by OSH even if the store is over 30k sqft?
Do we Alamedans have a say in any of this regarding what larger and potentially predatory businesses (Walmart, Target, OSH) are let in that will feed off of existing local businesses?
I can’t imagine how Encinal Hardware and Pagano’s would survive this Orchard Supply moving into Alameda Towne Center.
Between the Alameda Ave Home Depot and now the Alameda Towne Center Orchard Supply, it looks like the end for Encinal Hardware and Pagano’s.
What is next in the business landscape change in Alameda? Is Toy Safari going to go out of business because Catellus or Harsch decide to release a Toys R Us in Alameda?
Where does this hostile corporate takeover of our small town businesses end? When it comes down to it, no local family owned Alameda business can compete with a corporate giant and survive.
Toys R Us will always beat a Toy Safari. Barnes & Nobles will always beat a Books Inc. OSH will always beat an Encinal Hardware.
I can rationalize away and say to myself, “oh, well, I’ll just continue to give my business to my local hometown favorites”, but I know it won’t be enough. For whatever economic reason, local family stores most likely won’t survive in the shadows of these giants.
I cringe at the idea of Alameda being another place lost in the sea of mind-numbing, faceless, corporate business. Mcdonald’s, Old Navy, TJ Maxx, Payless, Bed Bath & Beyond… dear sweet Lord.
Where is Alameda headed? Are we to become indistinguishable from any other town where national corporations have taken over? Are we to be one of those cities where people can say like they do of any chain store, “if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all”?
What is happening to Alameda’s character and soul?
Is there anything I can do?
Comment by Lisa S. — June 25, 2008 @ 8:26 am
Where are all the Psba-waba-gaba’s when their livelihood is threatened by big box competition? Cozying up to the powers that be, trying to squeeze what little benefit they can? I was on the other side of him on that particular issue, but Eric Turowski did have a point here (Measures, Monsters, Merchants, Alameda Sun, June 19; paste function doesn’t work).
Comment by AD — June 25, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Re: #18
http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3449&Itemid=11
Comment by alameda — June 25, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Hi Lisa:
The 30K + sq ft definition of a “large format retail” store was adopted by the City Council at their March 18th meeting. So anything over 30K sq ft will need a Conditional Use Permit in order to operate per the Municipal Code. I would imagine that since the previous use of the Safeway site was grocery and not hardware, if OSH decides it wants the space then in will need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit which goes to the Planning Board, I think.
I will double check this info, because I’m not 100% sure. Maybe someone that understands this a little better can chime in.
Comment by Lauren Do — June 25, 2008 @ 9:47 am
I haven’t read “Big Box Swindle” either, but it is precisely the kind of book I do read all the time, and I may now have to make a point of reading it. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of the PB members have read it, but I think most of us don’t need to read it to understand the basic negative impacts, because they are so basic and obvious.
Walmart is literally it’s own special category. By themselves they import an absolutely huge percentage of the total imports to the U.S. of Chinese goods. But even their huge model of minimal warehousing time cannot expand indefinitely without faltering, especially if we don’t shop there.
OSH probably would have a negative impact on Pagano’s and Encinal. With Home Depot just over Fruitvale bridge, I don’t know why we need one. OSH is a little better than the Depot on some stuff, but so what. A lot better actually.
A famously great Hardware store in North Oakland is Ellis on MLK. West Berkeley Hardware was kind of pathetic and closed long before OSH on Ashby, but Ellis is situated well, with a good radius between them and OSH and they also fill the old fashioned niche that hardware stores fill. I don’t go there to buy a skill saw or a ladder, but I will buy a gate latch, especially if I can walk, bike or only drive a moderate distance.
OSH could be just successful enough to harm Pagano’s but not successful enough to thrive. But somehow I don’t think the PB are a bunch of ninnies who have no concept of this just because they may not have read “Big Box Swindle”. I share people’s concern about some of this development, but somehow don’t see the PB as a conveyor belt to feed all local business to the monster of corporate capitalism.
Beyond these physical restrictions on size, what legal power does the City have to deny a lease to occur in most cases? With the check cash store on Park, that usage conformed and it was the right of the building owner to rent to them. The City needed to be more proactive and prepared to go beg the landlord not to take the lease instead giving the O.K. and then having to but=y the lease. One assumes that won’t happen again.
Comment by markirons — June 25, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
“OSH probably would have a negative impact on Pagano’s and Encinal. With Home Depot just over Fruitvale bridge, I don’t know why we need one.”
“OSH could be just successful enough to harm Pagano’s (and Encinal) but not successful enough to thrive.”
With enough harm to Encinal and Pagano’s, OSH will end up thriving. Who has the deeper pockets to play out the waiting game? Our two family hardware stores, or OSH? OSH knows the little guys can’t survive more than a few dismal years of sales. Once they force locals to close their doors, OSH will have Alameda all to itself. Worth having to absorb three years of mediocre sales initially (while being supported by the dozens of other OSH stores around the Bay Area) to end up with a monopoly of the Island.
“if OSH decides it wants the space then it will need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit which goes to the Planning Board, I think.”
I hope so.
“This growth of big box chains is not ‘progress’, it is ‘shameful’. It is not to help the community; it is in spite of the community.”
Picked up Big Box Swindle and am now in the middle of it. Fascinating.
“I share people’s concern about some of this development, but somehow don’t see the PB as a conveyor belt to feed all local business to the monster of corporate capitalism.”
I hope our planning board members and other city officials with decision making powers over these matters care enough about preserving local Alameda businesses to prevent, what would be inevitable if introduced, large corporations from chewing up local stores and spitting them out.
I somehow don’t feel that Catellus or Harsch has the preservation of the towns they do business in as their number one priority. I’m pretty sure profit is their number one priority, with preservation of local atmosphere somewhere down there on the level of importance as paying taxes…ie-a necessary evil so as not to ruffle feathers and decrease potential profits. I shudder to think if Alamedans never spoke up, what Catellus and Harsch would do to alter Alameda in terms of the big corporations they let in (Walmart, Costco, etc.).
In my mind, I liken my Alameda to a small, delicate, somewhat isolated marine ecosystem, with a pretty variety of colorful native fish.
Sharks keep out. Please.
Comment by Lisa S. — June 25, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
This looks interesting:
California Responses to Supercenter Development
A Survey of Ordinances, Cases and Elections
http://www.uchastings.edu/site_files/cslgl/plri_big_box_paper_04.pdf
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 25, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
People need to chill! The impending demise of Paganos was predicted a few years ago when Home Depot opened … but that hasn’t happened yet and Paganos continues to thrive (ever tried to find parking on the weekend?)
Comment by Paganos to the moon — June 25, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
I’ve spent a small fortune at Paganos over the years, but I do have to make trips to Home Depot and other supply companies over the bridge. Paganos does not have everything and it would be great to be able to make those other trips to Orchard Supply in Alameda rather than go to Oakland. OSH is not Home Depot and I would definitely prefer to make my non-Paganos trips to OSH.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 25, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
ANT,#24
Thanks, now that somebody who is more or less middle ground, but obviously committed to Alameda has said what you said, I don’t feel like some naive dweeb for suggesting that OSH hardware may not be the anti-Christ. But just like Target, I personally seldom cross their threshold and will never miss having one here.
I’m not sure I want the convenience you describe from OSH, if the negative impacts on local biz are too great, but Lisa may know something I don’t with regard to the predatory strategies of such companies.
If OSH came here prepared to lose money for a strategic period of time in order to kill Pagano’s and Encinal and absorb their business, once they succeeded they would still have to share the market with Home Depot at Davis street and across Fruitvale.
I don’t think I underestimate crass and base nature of a lot of big business which is driven by ever expanding consumerism, but I also question how motivated a business is to come here if they can’t operate in the black from the outset.
Since I have no formal business education and haven’t read Big Box Bible or whatever it’s called, my opinion is based on my own lay person’s observations and anecdotes and I offer it as nothing more than that.
Comment by markirons — June 25, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
#23 – Don’t you mean “Please condone this action by your silence”?
#25
“I don’t feel like some naive dweeb for suggesting that OSH hardware may not be the anti-Christ.”
Mark – Nobody has called OSH, Target, or even Wal-Mart the “Anti-Christ” or even the “Axis of Evil”.
I think we all realize they are ‘corporations doing their job’. Unless they have a mission other than profit we must expect them to maximize profit that is revenue for owners or earnings for shareholders.
The problem is that the profit objective may be counter to the needs and desires of a community in the same way that the corporate profit goal may run counter to the needs and desires of the corporation’s labor force, the land and natural resources it consumes, the affects it has on the environment, and the effect it has on it’s suppliers, (grotesquely evident with corporations like Wal-Mart, and its 3rd world suppliers.)
You don’t need to look off the island to see the dramatic affect upon a community of the predatory strategies of corporations willing to operate at a loss, or vastly reduced profit, to ‘kill’ the competition.
Despite the best intentions of the City staffers to provide cable and internet service at a discount to our residents, Comcast held its market share by drastically dropping prices for Alameda subscribers. As I recall Comcast in Alameda is 25 – 30% lower than in surrounding areas. By flexing its corporate muscle Comcast helped saddle every Alamedan with close to $80MM of debt that looks bad for us. City Staff neglected the cunning and power of corporate profit wars – you want to let them do it again?
I love both Pagano’s and Encinal Hardware – they both have far more than meets the eye and they can order the most obscure things if they don’t have it in stock. The staff is very knowledgeable about what they sell. I miss the Alameda Plumbing store for the same reason.
Despite my support of local hardware stores, I still go to Home Cheapo for bulk buying, like pallets of blocks, bundles of lumber or sheet goods. An on-island OSH would not change that.
Think about it – the major source of sales for an Alameda OSH would not be Home Cheapo sales, which can still undersell OSH, most sales would be those who would otherwise already be spending their money in Alameda. This is not sales tax ‘improvement’. This is more like starving a community at its roots.
There are already 5 OSH’s within 10 miles of Alameda, including both Berkeley and San Leandro, there are 10 within 17 miles of Alameda. Will Oakland’s shoppers drive past Home Cheapo to spend at South Shore OSH?
Moving sales from our family owned businesses to OSH is clearly not an advantage. It is sickening to think the PB or CC would allow this kind of corporate takedown of our community.
Or is it that under the banner or “equality” ABAG wants every community to look and feel identical?
Comment by David Kirwin — June 25, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
As the only member of the public to be at the PB meeting Monday night at 11PM to testify and listen to the board’s discussion I’d like to make a few clarifications about the big box ordinance.
The proposed ordinance is based almost entirely on the one passed in Livermore last year and in many cities and counties across the nation. The ordinance covers one type of business only, big box stores commonly known as supercenters. Several retailers operate them across the country the most well known being Wal Mart. Unlike Lowes, Home Depot or Macys supercenters include full sized grocery stores, discount centers and tire stores under one roof. There should be no confusion about what the point of the ordinance is, it is to prevent these these corporate monstrosities from locating in town and destroying grocery jobs, other retail jobs and downtown business districts. In the interest of full-disclosure I am proud to represent grocery workers as a union rep for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5. Having worked on numerous big box ordinances I’ve heard the arguments about the need to retain “flexibility” in zoning decisions and so forth. I’ve also heard the argument “we’re losing tons of tax money to other cities.” What I’ve seen is towns with big box ordinances don’t have supercenters and the ones that have maintained “flexibility” do. As far as tax revenue is concerned there is a trade off for everything in life: do we want to retain the traits that make Alameda a special place to live or do we want cookie cutter development that is available a short distance away?
As a lifelong Alameda resident I do not want to see development at the base, Alameda landing, HBI or the Del Monte site include retail formats that are going to hurt Alameda’s workers, businesses and character. The only business this ordinance will drive away are the ones that shouldn’t be here in the first place.
Comment by Mike Henneberry — June 25, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
“People need to chill! The impending demise of Paganos was predicted a few years ago when Home Depot opened … but that hasn’t happened yet and Paganos continues to thrive (ever tried to find parking on the weekend?)”
Orchard Supply Hardware at Alameda Towne Center should ease up that parking problem at both Encinal Hardware and Pagano’s. In fact, there may very well be ample parking at both sites for a while when the buildings become vacant.
“Paganos does not have everything and it would be great to be able to make those other trips to Orchard Supply in Alameda rather than go to Oakland. OSH is not Home Depot and I would definitely prefer to make my non-Paganos trips to OSH.”
OSH isn’t Home Depot and that’s exactly right. Home Depot fills one corporate niche in the market, while the remaining is devoured by OSH. OSH thrives where Home Depot isn’t allowed in by the community. The Home Depot animal has a large appetite and only does well in big open areas where it can stretch its massive corporate limbs. OSH is the small-medium sized animal perfectly suited for “smaller prey” like Alameda. The Home Depot/OSH duo makes for a fearsome business climate few, if any, local stores can survive.
While bulk buying and lumber needs may be met at Home Depot without too much conflict with Encinal and Pagano’s, smaller, everyday hardware item needs that were yesterday fulfilled at Encinal and Pagano’s will tomorrow be met by OSH.
OSH’s niche is Encinal’s and Pagano’s niche. The smaller, medium sized OSH is tailor-made to cater to towns’ everyday buying needs. There’s no question which one of the three will come out the victor in a direct sales battle in the next few years.
“Despite my support of local hardware stores, I still go to Home Cheapo for bulk buying, like pallets of blocks, bundles of lumber or sheet goods. An on-island OSH would not change that.”
We do the same. For lumber and bulk and large powertools (husband loves), it’s Home Depot. For everyday stuff, it’s Encinal and Pagano’s. OSH isn’t for big stuff. OSH is for everyday stuff, which is why it thrives even while based near or even next to a Home Depot. Differen’t big/small niches.
“…there is a trade off for everything in life: do we want to retain the traits that make Alameda a special place to live or do we want cookie cutter development that is available a short distance away?”
There’s nothing wrong with cookie-cutter development if that is what you prefer. And in the end, if it’s what the majority of Alamedans decide on (whether actively or passively through silence and inaction) then that’s what we’ll end up with. I won’t/can’t fight democracy if it’s honest.
But predatory corporate cookie-cutter is not for me. Alameda without small town stores run within, and with large corporate stores owned without and afar is something akin to sacrilege.
We moved into Alameda because we love the homey, nostalgic feel. Maybe we (and others) might have to move out of Alameda because we love the homey and nostalgic feel.
Alameda-0, Home Depot/OSH-1
Comment by Lisa S. — June 25, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
Mike,
I’m sure the members of local #5 appreciate your work. Many of the PB asked “Why allow the Big Box unless they also have the 10% area for food and medicine sales?
Wal-marts, Target, K-marts, etc, all have the groceries esp in their newer larger format stores, but would we want them if they did not compete w/ UFCW? Even w/o the full food side they are more likely to hurt local businesses than attract sales from off-island, so why stop with the 90/10’s and why not just ban the big box outright?
As you heard at the PB meeting – our new large development areas -the Point, the Landing, North shore, Bay Farm, all could be exempt if they get a new concept approved. So what good would this proposal do, if CC did create such a ban, if it could easily be bypassed just because the redevelopment dept wants it? You also heard at the meeting that Catellus will be coming back to redesign part of Alameda Landing because the largest retail building in the plan is 55k sf, but now they want a 160k sf Target.
In Alameda – “the more things stay the same – the more they change.”
For a Big Box limit, the argument should be about BB, not non-union grocers. Or is this the only way to ban them?
I wonder about the legal liability of the PB approach championed by our newest PB Member. He voiced the desire to not have any bans, so everything could be on the table, but without a ban, how can you legally pick and choose particular stores without being hit by a lawsuit? Didn’t our city already have to drop ‘tall green’ to buy out leases of businesses they could not selectively ban? As you talked about on your long drive Eastward – you can see the disastrous affects of BB on communities – that should remain the focus of concern for this proposal. And I do respect and honor the UFCW workers you fight for, thanks.
I guess we have to contact our Economic Development Commission members to tell them how we feel as it looks like this issue will go to them before it returns to CC.
Here they are – give them a call.
Vacant (Marine-Waterfront) 08/31/2009
Vacant (Community-at-Large) 08/31/2009
Robert A. Bonta (Banking Finance)
1130 College Ave. 10/3/2006 08/31/2010
Harry Dahlberg (Manufacturing/Industrial) 12/05/2000 08/31/2008
Jessica Lindsey (Retail/Commercial) 07/01/2003 08/31/2010
Alan Ryan (Real Estate/ Land Development) 09/19/2006 08/31/2010
Michael J. Schmitz (Community-at-Large) 09/07/2004 08/31/2008
Gail Wetzork (Community-at-Large) 09/01/2000 08/31/2008
Lorre Zuppan (Community-at-Large) 02/21/2006 08/31/2009
Comment by David Kirwin — June 26, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Alameda Daily News:
“Orchard Supply Hardware has proposed to open one of its stores in the vacant Safeway building at Alameda Towne Centre. The old building will be slightly expanded in size, and the former controversial truck docking area on the south side of the building will be moved to the north side, which should come as good news to the owners of residential condos which used to overlook the former truck loading and unloading area.
Alameda’s Planning Board will hold a meeting to consider the project at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 14, 2008 in the City Council Chambers, Alameda City Hall, at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue.
If the project is approved, Alameda’s Supervising Planner Doug Garrison estimates that the building could be completed by next Spring.”
Comment by AM — June 26, 2008 @ 1:57 am
My understanding is that the original footprint of the Alameda Landing development has been approved. Included in that footprint is the square footage alloted to retail and the square footage alloted to office. I would think that increasing the size of a building from 55K sq ft to 160K sq ft is a major change to the original footprint of the development and would need approval from the PB and perhaps approval from the City Council.
160,000 sq ft. falls in the category of a supercenter. In my earlier example, the Lowes building at Pacific Commons is 116,000 sq ft. The proposed Target building at the Landing would be larger than a Lowes.
Clearly Catellus is moving in the direction of developing a retail power center at the Landing, perhaps similar to the one they developed at Pacific Commons.
Comment by Karen Bey — June 26, 2008 @ 6:06 am
“160,000 sq ft. falls in the category of a supercenter. In my earlier example, the Lowes building at Pacific Commons is 116,000 sq ft. The proposed Target building at the Landing would be larger than a Lowes.”
Wolf in sheep’s clothing, Catellus is. How many businesses in Alameda will this cause to go belly-up, I wonder. How many of our local merchants (and their families) will be hurt by this massive corporate supercenter?
When someone wants to remodel or tear down and build anew around here, city hall (planning) requires, in essence, a preservation of the original style of Alameda Victorian homes in order “to maintain the aesthetic character of neighborhoods.”
But when it comes to saving and encouraging and growing local Alameda businesses, the City doesn’t seem to worry too much about “maintaining the aesthetic character of neighborhoods” in terms of preserving a stable environment where local stores can thrive.
All of a sudden preserving Alameda takes a backseat to talk of “sales leakage” and how development (ie-bringing in corporate America’s retail drones like Target, Kohl’s, OSH,…etc. and resultantly killing off local businesses) is going to make Alameda better somehow.
I’m sorry, but keeping homes looking Victorian is only half of preserving Alameda. The other half lies in saving the character and feel brought about by our local businesses and long time merchants.
If Alameda city hall is serious about “maintaining the aesthetic character” of Alameda, they’d protect both the Victorian houses and local businesses.
Otherwise, they’re just dishing out hypocrisy and hoping we don’t notice.
Comment by Lisa S. — June 26, 2008 @ 7:26 am
The “union issue” has always been an intrinsic part of the big box debate because the inevitable result of big box development is the loss of traditional grocery, union for the most part, jobs.
As pointed out previously though, the supercenter issue goes way beyond that and has huge impacts for local business and existing jobs at Pagano’s etc. because supercenters also have full sized discount centers in the same store. A supercenter would be like taking the Hegenberger Wal Mart (which does not have a full size grocery component because Oakland has a supercenter ban) and putting the southshore Safeway in one store. So supercenters compete (unfairly) with every business in town. You can see the results of supercenter development all across the country reflected in boarded up downtowns. The supercenters operators have pillaged small town America and now are setting up shop in more urban areas.
The thinking behind including a proviso for a certain percentage of non-taxable merchandise (for the most part unprepared food) in these ordinances is so they specifically address supercenters. If a blanket ban of any business over 90K sq ft was inplemented instead of just fighting Wal Mart and Target a whole host of other players like Home Depot, Lowes and the like would jump into the fray and then the proponents of the big box ban find themselves fighting even more of an uphill battle.
As far as the EDC is concerned every ordinance that gas been passed has gone through the planning commission. It is in their right to rule in this issue because of the effects this use (supercenters) has on the city.
On the point about Alameda Landing and a possible Target supercenter I agree that although there is a design agreement for that project if a supercenter were to be added that should definitely spark reconsideration by the PB and City Council of the design agreement.
Comment by Mike Henneberry — June 26, 2008 @ 8:05 am
28
Get real. ACE is the place…it ain’t Pagano’s, Andy’s dead, long live ACE. Fifty three ACE hardware stores within thirty miles. Three OSH stores. Who’s the corporate giant?
Comment by Handy Hardware Man — June 26, 2008 @ 8:23 am
ACE is a supplier to independent store owners. So you must mean 53 independent hardware store owners.
I count I count four OSH within 8 miles. I would guess there are quite a few OSH within 30 miles.
Comment by john piziali — June 26, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
“Get real. ACE is the place…it ain’t Pagano’s, Andy’s dead, long live ACE. Fifty three ACE hardware stores within thirty miles. Three OSH stores. Who’s the corporate giant?”
A local community hardware store with an Ace affiliation hardly qualifies as corporate or giant.
And Pagano’s carries a cornucopia of Ace products; Encinal, TruValue products.
Both have roots in their communities; both are classic Alameda stores.
Comment by Lisa S. — June 26, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
I know I am a minority here, but I actually don’t like Pagano’s, I think it is a fire trap, although the people seem very nice. I also don’t like ACE products for the most part. I have never been to Encinal. With that said I have looked for some stuff at Home Depot and didn’t find it but have found it at Pagano’s. I would probably shop at OSH if it was located here.
If they put a OSH, with Bed Bath & Beyond, and Kohl, and Safeway, and Borders…you have your Target. No need to build another one.
Comment by Joel — June 27, 2008 @ 7:53 am
Fine, slap an olde time Alameda name on the new osh at ye olde southe centre and voila and we got roots with wide aisles that sells the same made in china junk as the other rooted stores.
Comment by olde classic — June 27, 2008 @ 8:52 am
“I know I am a minority here, but I actually don’t like Pagano’s, I think it is a fire trap”
“Fine, slap an olde time Alameda name on the new osh at ye olde southe centre and voila and we got roots with wide aisles”
Think classic cars. There are many who drool at a mint condition ‘64 ‘Stang and many who would dismiss it as outdated.
Completely understandable if you like current model sexy cars. Can be gorgeous.
But just like the classic ‘64 Mustang, Pagano’s has many fans. We’re just trying to save what we love.
Comment by Lisa S. — June 27, 2008 @ 9:56 am
We cannot preserve Alameda in a snow globe. Free enterprise and competition are healthy for a community. I think that establishing limits on the size of shops so that they are in keeping with the surrounding area is fine, but as to who can do business in those shops is an overreach of government. Since OSH wants to occupy an existing building, that is their business. If they wanted to build a 100,000 square foot building at Lincoln and Bay, that would be a different story.
I like Paganos and Thomsens, but OSH has every right to set up shop. Perhaps the competition would be good for Paganos as they do need to improve in some areas.
Remember when Starbucks went in downtown and some thought that Java Rama would be doomed? Then Peets came in as well and Java Rama is still there. It is great to have a choice for coffee and the competition has been good for downtown.
I’ve seen a lot of changes in Alameda over the past 20 years. Some good and some not so good. I liked Southshore back in the days when Penneys and Woolworths were there, but change also brought Trader Joes. We cannot control all of the changes and sometimes what we think will be bad, actually turns out to be very good.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — June 27, 2008 @ 10:47 am
39
But keeping the “64 Stang”(ie Pagano’s) is not what you’re suggesting. You’re for legislating all other current sexy cars (ie OSH) off the island.
Comment by olde classic — June 27, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
“Free enterprise and competition are healthy for a community. I think that establishing limits on the size of shops so that they are in keeping with the surrounding area is fine, but as to who can do business in those shops is an overreach of government.”
Free enterprise and competition is wonderful, provided that the competitors are on equal footing. Put in another way, heavyweight boxers fight other heavyweights and it’s fair and all’s well. But when heavyweight pro boxers are pitted against featherweights, people shout foul play (as well they should).
National corporations with dozens (if not hundreds) of chains with staggering net worths in the hundreds of millions (if not in the billions) are not fair competition for our little Alameda island stores with barely a million dollar net worth (if that).
Billion dollar companies vs local small town mom-and-pop shops is fair?
If a local family wanted to start up another coffee shop, hardware store, nursery, toy store, restaurant, book store, I would wish them all the best and would support their family ventures when I could. That’s fair competition for existing small, local shops, and that would be wonderful. It would be fair to local business owners as well as provide variety for our shopping needs.
But a billion dollar international giant like Target, Toys R Us, Home Depot, OSH, or Walmart? That’s not fairly competing with local merchants.
That’s drowning puppies.
“But keeping the “64 Stang”(ie Pagano’s) is not what you’re suggesting. You’re for legislating all other current sexy cars (ie OSH) off the island.
Comment by olde classic ”
Here is where the analogy ends. Current model (sexy) cars can coexist with old American classic cars and everyone’s happy. Encinal Hardware and Pagano’s can’t coexist with OSH. Our small local retailers and grocers can’t coexist with Target.
The question in my mind is, with Big Box corporate takeover of local businesses being the norm everywhere in the Bay Area (and thus providing nearly endless opportunities elsewhere to do that kind of shopping and living if one so desired), can’t we afford to keep small town Alameda small town?
After all, Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, OSH, Toys R Us and others aren’t on the endangered species list.
Guess which stores are?
Comment by Lisa S. — June 27, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
I think the future of trading is supermarket. They’ll have all you need to buy in one place. Ofcourse there will be a lot of small shops, especially in a small towns.
Comment by healthy coffee — June 29, 2008 @ 2:53 am
Lisa S #42
“Free enterprise and competition is wonderful, provided that the competitors are on equal footing.”
The idea that a municipality should protect a local business selling the same stuff a mega business sells but at a higher price is absurd.
Do you know what free enterprise and competition are all about? Just how do you define “equal footing”? Are you suggesting the iron fist of government mandate the price level of products? Are you suggesting it’s akin to drowning puppies or foul playing to discount goods in large stores or do you not want to allow any large stores at all so that small stores can raise their prices to whatever level that fits the equal foot? Or perhaps you want only one of any type store in this small town.
The very idea that Alameda is a small town is pure bunk. It’s centered smack dab in the middle of seven million people with the highest income level of a state that is somewhere in the top ten largest economies in the world. Even though city hall may look like it, this ain’t Mayberry.
Comment by olde classic — June 29, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
“Are you suggesting the iron fist of government mandate the price level of products?”
Absolutely not.
“Are you suggesting it’s akin to drowning puppies or foul playing to discount goods in large stores”
Corporate chain stores heavily discounting the price of their products in and of themselves is great. But this is not the case with neighborhood area takeovers that’s happening all over the Bay Area. Heavy discounts by huge corporate chains are meant for one thing only: kill local competition.
In areas where there is no local competition in, say rural Chinese cities, Walmart prices aren’t discount prices. No need to discount anymore. Walmart sets prices as high as people are able to tolerate.
Billion dollar chains are trying to kill off local stores wherever they go. That’s their number one agenda. Killing off local stores means taking their market share for themselves (ie-profit), since the demand to buy is still there.
The only thing that saves us after local stores are killed off and a billion dollar corporate chain is the only thing left, is that another billion dollar corporate chain will try to come in and kill off that chain.
Battle of the big boys. No room for little guys.
“do you not want to allow any large stores at all so that small stores can raise their prices to whatever level that fits the equal foot? ”
Of course not. Tyranny by local stores isn’t what I’m after. Local stores knows if they raise prices too high, we’ll simply go off the Island to shop. Easy. If Pagano’s and Encinal wanna sell a packet of screws for $12.95 when Home Depot carries for $3.95, ya, they know where Alamedans would go.
I’m not advocating saving every small town store in America. Hardly. Much to be said for shopping centers. Wonderful places, actually. I just want Alameda to save, if not all, then at least a good few. After all, grand shopping experiences are available, very readily available everywhere else in the Bay Area.
Need we bring it home with us at the cost of destroying local flavor and tradition?
“The very idea that Alameda is a small town is pure bunk. It’s centered smack dab in the middle of seven million people with the highest income level of a state that is somewhere in the top ten largest economies in the world. Even though city hall may look like it, this ain’t Mayberry.”
Small town isn’t determined necessarily by income level, but more by population level. With the unique geographic features of Alameda (island), we’ve only room for so many people and no more, only room for so many businesses and no more.
Add to these ingredients family shops in existence for 20+ years and voila, small town flavor amidst huge San Francisco Bay Area economies.
We’re in a special situation being on an island. Circumstances can thrive here that wouldn’t have a chance elsewhere. Small business and small town climate comes to mind.
Olde Classic, sounds like you want Alameda to “get with the times” by turning it into, well, into what’s like everywhere else in the Bay Area. And if that’s the voice of the majority who live in Alameda, then I’ll grudgingly accept the will of a democratic outcome.
I just want it put to a vote and not be a done deal behind closed doors with developers and Alameda City Hall. I want to know what people think about further billion dollar coporate businesses displacing our local shops.
Comment by Lisa S. — June 29, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
“I just want Alameda to save, if not all, then at least a good few.”
“I just want it put to a vote and not be a done deal behind closed doors with developers and Alameda City Hall.”
Could you be a bit more clear on the mechanics of “saving” these good few businesses through the ballot box? Do we vote on Pagano’s versus OSH or maybe a parcel tax for Pagano’s so they can compete with OSH (Olde Classics exempt, of course)? What if Pagano’s had an option on the olde Safeway store, would that make them a “big Box” and thus ineligible to move? Since there’s only room for “so many” people on this small town island, why would any big boxes want to move here anyway? And, since apparently you believe majority rules, would you also want to vote on eliminating foul smelling pollution generating olde autos from the island?
Comment by olde classic — June 30, 2008 @ 8:48 am
What I find amusing is people think Alameda is a small town. It is actually the 18th largest city out of 100 in the Bay area.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2188/b2188ch9.pdf
Comment by Joel — July 4, 2008 @ 11:15 am
re: #37 — I’ve also been to Pagano’s and “fire trap” seems appropriate — there seems to be a LOT of stuff in a small space and stuff is hard to find unless you have somebody that works there directing you.
But Pagano’s in the Safeway space (as suggested by a writer on the DR website today) as opposed to OSH seems like a good suggestion. It certainly would add space, thus eliminating MY major reason for not going there.
Just my two cents.
Comment by Dave S. — July 7, 2008 @ 7:19 am