Tonight, the Planning Board is actually going to be discussing three super exciting topics, the first is the new design for the Alameda Landing site, which I wrote about previously here. Just to recap, the design is much better than the one that Catellus had reproduced for their leasing brochure and is marginally better than the 2007 design but there are a few design issues the accompany big box stores like Target that I hope will be addressed.
The best thing is that the new team from a newly liberated from under the ProLogis umbrella should be present at the meeting so I hope there will be a grilling of timelines and when Catellus intends to break ground on Alameda Landing since this project is literally taking forever.
The Planning Board will also be taking up the topic of the Master Street Tree Plan which the felling of the Park Street trees brought back into the spotlight. My guess is that moving forward, the streetscape exemption will probably be taken of the list of exempted noticing requirements, unless the design review for the streetscape explicitly points out that healthy trees will be removed as part of the streetscape process.
And finally, the Planning Board will also be taking into consideration a street food truck ordinance to help bring the food truck frenzy to Alameda as well. Right now, the only real food truck presence is the occasional event at Hangar One Rock Wall and Jon’s Streets Eat — although is that truck still around? — City staff is hoping that they can bring some life to vacant areas in the City with these food trucks. Oh, and speaking of food trucks, remember that the City proposed a food truck food court for the Lawrence Berkeley Lab second campus at Alameda Point. This is sort of old news, but I thought I would mention it again, the Lab was supposed to make a decision on the second campus at the end of November they have pushed the decision the “early 2012″ which could mean January, February and possibly March. I think we should think about starting another PR push on Alameda’s ideal location for the second campus.
Re: food trucks, the view from the other side: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/27/MNFJ1M263K.DTL
Comment by alameda — November 28, 2011 @ 7:13 am
1. I wonder if restrictions on distance to existing restaurants or shopping areas would help curb that problem. I would not like to see brick and mortar venues negatively effected, but truck in the lot at 22nd and International has best fish taco and Al pastor in East Bay.
Comment by M.I. — November 28, 2011 @ 7:49 am
I just looked through the text of the agenda item on food trucks. They have five areas listed, Alameda Point, Marina Village, South Shore, Harbor Bay Buisness Park, and the College of Alameda. I would would say drop South Shore and Marina Village until a later date. These two areas are already suffering from a slow economy, and might not want the competition at this time. Of course living in the West End my first choice would be Alameda Point. While I’m dreaming have these events right between St. Georges and Rock Wall winery. There is a great view of S.F. and plenty of room for parking. It would not compete with restaurants, it would not cause traffic or parking problems, and we have three tasting rooms in the area when you include Rosenblumes. It would also be accessible from the ferry.
Comment by John P. — November 28, 2011 @ 8:34 am
I don’t think the food trucks present much competition. I’ve been to food truck events at Rock Wall and Jack London and in both cases, the lines were really long, so I didn’t get to try much and went away annoyed. As for Southshore, an event might bring in people who otherwise wouldn’t know we had a Kohl’s or a TJ Max, etc. in Alameda so an event there would probably be good for business. Food truck events seem to mostly appeal to younger people who don’t mind lines or eating without anywhere to sit down. Even if the food is better on today’s trucks than on “roach coaches” of yore, it’s still no match for sit-down dining. The tree thing is a joke. Do we really want to spend this much time and effort on guidelines, etc? We had perfectly good guidelines already.The Council will just ignore them when it’s expedient like they did this time. As for Target, they’ve picked a site that 95% of people in town couldn’t find on a map so no one cares what it looks like, just build the damn thing. (Apologies in advance to the West Enders who do care. Reality bites.)
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 28, 2011 @ 9:14 am
Denise, this West Ender agrees with you, how can you make a Target store look pretty? Just build it and hide it behind the tube.
Comment by John P. — November 28, 2011 @ 10:31 am
Denise, I doubt that Catellus is targeting Alameda as much as they are targeting the 400,000 + surrounding population. This is why they are proposing to build a super center store instead of a smaller format store. Remember the east enders filled up the city council chambers to fight against this type of super store at Alameda South Shore – so long as its not in their back yard. Also the main purpose of the Willie Stargell extension is to make it easier for off islanders to get to Alameda Landing. So basically, the west enders and the Bayport Alameda subdivision will bare the burden of the traffic increases due to this large format retail center.
It’s also important to note that the LBL second campus could be effected by the increased traffic in the tunnel as well. Therefore, I would like to see traffic studies done before we decide to go with this larger format before any new amendments are approved. I wouldn’t want to jeopardize our chances.
One final note, San Francisco (a city with a population of over 800,000) will be opening their FIRST Target Store in the coming months and the size is 120,000 sq ft. My point — we don’t need a 140,000 sq ft store in a city that is a mere fraction of the population of San Francisco.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 28, 2011 @ 11:12 am
If they’re going to build a Target, build the biggest damned Target in the world. Only fitting for a world class city…plus World Cup people will swarm to it.
Comment by Jack Richard — November 28, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
is catellus pronounced cat-el-us (like catalyst) or cuh-tell-us?? (this is not a riddle)
Comment by E — November 28, 2011 @ 9:32 pm
Jack it will be Impressive to the China Crew and most international visitors as they can see 95 percent of shelf space in Taarjeeze dominated by every other Country but US. I’m sure it will make all the locally owned retailers jump for joy.
Comment by John — November 28, 2011 @ 11:49 pm
STATE COSTS
Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and other public assistance to big-box employees. In addition to the following studies, see Good Jobs First’s web page detailing states that have disclosed how much they are spending on providing health insurance for employees of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, and other big-box retailers.
Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs – by UC Berkeley’s Institute for Industrial Relations, August 2004
California taxpayers are spending $86 million a year providing healthcare and other public assistance to the state’s 44,000 Wal-Mart employees, according to this study. The average Wal-Mart worker requires $730 in taxpayer-funded healthcare and $1,222 in other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and subsidized housing. Even compared to other retailers, Wal-Mart imposes an especially large burden on taxpayers. Wal-Mart workers earn 31 percent less than the average for workers at large retail companies and require 39 percent more in public assistance. The study estimates that if competing supermarkets and other large retailers adopt Wal-Mart’s wage and benefit levels, it will cost California’s taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart – by the Democratic Staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Feb.2004
Although this study uses different methodology than the one above, it arrives at the same conclusion: Wal-Mart’s low wages and meager benefits are costing taxpayers. The average Wal-Mart employee requires $2,100 per year in public assistance, including Section 8 housing vouchers, reduced-cost lunches for dependent children, health care programs, and tax credits for the working poor.
The expansion of big-box retailers has been financed in part by massive development subsidies and tax advantages provided by local and state governments. These studies document those subsidies and their failure to produce real economic benefits for communities.
An Assessment of the Effectiveness and Fiscal Impacts of the Use of Local Development Incentives in the St. Louis Region
By East-West Gateway Council of Governments; January 2011
This study finds that over the last 20 years local governments in the metropolitan St. Louis region have diverted more than $5.8 billion in public tax dollars to subsidize private development. About 80 percent of these subsidies supported the construction of big-box stores and shopping malls, mostly in affluent suburbs. Despite this large public expenditure, the region has seen virtually no economic growth. “The number of retail jobs has increased only slightly and, in real dollars, retail sales or per capita have not increased in years,” the authors conclude. The subsidies have almost exclusively benefitted large chains, the study finds, and the region’s retail sector has grown increasingly concentrated. More than 600 small retailers (under 10 employees) have closed in the last ten years. “Both municipal finance and quality of life suffer when a city loses its base of small retail establishments,” the study notes. While some municipalities have seen gains in revenue as a result of luring retail development, these gains have come entirely at the expense of neighboring municipalities. Today, most of the region’s local governments are in financial trouble. “A significant number of municipalities faced budget deficits, lay-offs and service cuts between 2000 and 2007, even though that was a period of time when the economy had generally fared well,” the study finds.
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail
Comment by John — November 29, 2011 @ 12:16 am
The new Alameda Landing retail center design IS significantly better than its 2007 predecessor. And I found out afterwards that the new location for the Target store is the only place stable enough on the site to take the pilings for the big box. I think the boxiness can easily be softened by using techniques like those used in the Davis Target store, the newish Alameda Free Library, and other features. (I’d like to see windows on the Target store facing the estuary for a unique customer retailing experience.)
Catellus seems very interested in working with BikeAlameda to make sure that the new retail center is truly bike-friendsly. (The design team even mentioned having a bike station in the retail center!
The PB also discussed the Phase II Streetscape on Park Street along with the suggested improvements to the Master Tree Plan and criticized Public Works for failing to submit the revised streetscape plans (very different from the original streetscape plans reviewed in 2001-2007 or so).
FYI, the Phase II streetscape calls for the removal of some 62 existing parking meters, which often serve as de facto bike parking racks (capacity: 2 bikes/meter). The 24 additional bike parking racks currently proposed (capacity: 2 bikes/rack) will not make up for the loss of the parking meters as far as cyclists are concerned. We now face a net loss of 100 bike parking spaces just between Central and San Jose once the parking meters are removed and the 24 new bike parking racks are installed. Lucy suggested using in-street car parking spaces to park bikes, as you could fit 10-10 bikes in the space it takes to park one auto. (I strongly support doing this.)
Thanks to Lucy Gigli and Obaid Khan who measured the new streetscape area to try and locate new spots for more bike parking. I hope they found a few spots…
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 29, 2011 @ 6:48 pm
8: In all the years I have been around Catellus staffers they have always pronounced in cah-TELL-us.
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 29, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
Why don’t you lobby to have the old meter poles modified with a couple loops welded to the pole for the bikes?
Comment by Jack Richard — November 29, 2011 @ 7:35 pm
I completely agree with most of what Karen Bey said, however, we don’t need any BIG BOX stores here period. We have enough within 15 minutes of us. Think of all the traffic and riff-raff it will bring. I think the food trucks are a great idea, though. And removing healthy trees in the town without many trees is a shame.
Comment by T — December 6, 2011 @ 8:58 pm