Back on the Planning Board agenda, along with the Inkies application if they don’t withdraw before tonight, is everyone’s favorite hot button item: Target.
Well, the Alameda Landing retail section really. You can click to enlarge.
Not a lot has changed since the last rendering, this is, of course, more colorful and gives a feel for the landscaping and the road treatment with decorative pavement to make that main east-west road more special. The massing of the Target building (Building K) looks as huge as ever, but Catellus has added slides that have shown how they intend to deal with the “big blank wall” problem on Mitchell and Stargell Avenues.
Personally, I like these living walls, but sometimes the execution doesn’t work out that way. Like at that huge new Cathedral in Oakland. I think the intent was for those big concrete walls to get covered in climbing plants, but after a number of years it’s sort of a big execution fail. If Catellus can get dense enough growth to hide those walls it might actually be a rather nice to look at.
Catellus has also produced two option for the structure of the 5th street shops:
I suppose either could work, the second option looks like the units are subdivided for much smaller shop which I believe would be in conflict with the retail strategy. I have a vague recollection that Alameda Landing had promised not to have smaller retail spaces in order to save those sized tenants for Webster Street. But if they do go with the larger model, it really should be codified in the leases that the front entrances cannot be blocked off and closed off.
For more slides including pedestrian and car circulation maps, you can check out this PDF. According to the staff report, if these plans are approved and the Design Review application is approved on February 27 then Catellus has indicated that they will begin construction plans in order to accommodate a October 2013 opening date for Target — right before the holiday season, smart!
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Glad the west end is getting a big box store. We may be getting a Target, but we are not getting a middle school choice West end families will now have a choice of 3 charter schools No realistic public school option since Wood is in program improvement and Lincoln is at capacity.. So much for equity. I thought I heard this word a while ago, but it has disappeared. Encinal submitted a proposal, that would have served the west end students, but it was deferred for another year. Could it be that by removing these kids from the district statistics the district is more concerned about test scores than kids, since it is the lowest performing students who will no longer be included in district numbers? Again, so much for equity.
Comment by Barbara Kahn — January 9, 2012 @ 8:07 am
Wouldn’t mind having the contract for sweeping the landing leaves.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 9, 2012 @ 8:34 am
Catellus has always been very interested in and open to community feedback. (This plan i has already benefited from informal conversations and workshops that Catellus began holding years ago.) Please bring your constructive criticism to the Planning Board session at 7 PM tonight at City Hall continue the process:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/01/what-citizens-add-planning/893/
Comment by Jon Spangler — January 9, 2012 @ 10:12 am
Jon, when it comes to developers I have two rules to follow.
Don’t trust them as far as you can throw them, and always get it in writing (black and white).
Perhaps I’m a bit jaded. Aside from that you are correct.
Comment by John P. — January 9, 2012 @ 2:03 pm
3. A friend who went east to raise family outside Portland ME and moved back here recently told me that they had Town Hall meetings where they set their property taxes each year. Alameda itself may compare to New England with respect to Town Hall mentality, but we have loads of other issues unique to CA.
I think it’s been mentioned in earlier blog posts that Target has expanded into food, I guess as an attempt to compete with Wallmart. I’ve only shopped Target three times, not very recently. Once south of here on 880 and once in Albany and didn’t notice food, but years ago I was in Redding and stopped at Target and I do recall food there. I’ve never shopped Wallmart. I’ve seen Patch comments stating that because West End doesn’t have Trader Joe’s, Target is a desirable option, but I’ve also heard rumblings that some of the smaller markets are worried about negative impacts with respect to food sales. It seems like an ongoing debate about The Invisible Hand vs protectionism.
Comment by M.I. — January 9, 2012 @ 2:09 pm
1. Barbara, I don’t want to assist another hijack of a thread from one topic to another, but I’ve done initial scan of magnet proposals and it’s daunting to say the least. With BOE meeting tomorrow maybe there is a decent chance tomorrow’s Bayport post will address this. If not until after BOE has met, I look to Lauren for some insights when she gets to it before plunging in.
Comment by M.I. — January 9, 2012 @ 2:17 pm
5. M.I., I was wondering about your comment on West End markets. Where are they? I moved to the West End recently, and all the small markets seem to be liquor stores with a smattering of overpriced canned food, cereals, and potato chips. Is there a missing gem on the West End that I haven’t found yet? The farmer’s market is great for produce, eggs, and the occasional fish, but I have yet to find a decent West End grocer.
Comment by KH — January 9, 2012 @ 2:54 pm
I don’t like the idea that Target wants to sell food and get in the pharmaceutical business. While they are exempt from the big box ordinance, my hope is they honor the spirit of our big box ordinance and stick to merchandise.
If we get a specialty food store like Whole Foods or a Berkeley/Alameda Bowl, I would like to see a Pharmaca – (http://www.pharmaca.com). They fit well with grocers like Trader Joes and/or Whole Foods. They’re on College Ave in Rockridge and Solano Ave in Berkeley.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 9, 2012 @ 3:43 pm
Marina Village Shopping Center Generates about 160K a Year in Sales Tax Revenues for the City of Alameda. About the Average Pay for 1 Fireman or 1 Police Officer with Salary Benefits and Pension.
I know the motive is to create more Sales Tax Revenue with bringing in a Target but what are the costs to the Other Present Business in Alameda and what are the Real costs maybe with Police Services.
Comment by John — January 9, 2012 @ 4:36 pm
You can See all the Tax revenues by Shopping districts for Alameda Here
http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/getdoc.cfm?id=6332
Comment by John — January 9, 2012 @ 4:38 pm
7. I wasn’t referring to west end markets as far as I know. I was repeating what I was told about some of the other markets dispersed around the island. Part of why I mentioned it was because perception of negative impact seemed to go beyond west end.
Comment by M.I. — January 9, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
Too bad Target got the okay to build there. I would much prefer a Walmart the same size being there. Walmart really makes much more sense. Much better selection of goods, better organized, great customer service and better prices.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 9, 2012 @ 6:15 pm
I wonder if the Alameda Store would include these.
Many stores, depending upon location, may also have Target Optical, Target Clinic, a portrait studio, and a garden center and most all new locations built after 2004 include Target Photo, Target Pharmacy, Starbucks Coffee, Jamba Juice, and/or a Pizza Hut Express standard in addition to “Target Café”. It has also been reported that Cold Stone Creamery and Target have signed a deal to test in-store ice cream shops in three stores.[51] In early 2010 Target updated all references from “Food Avenue” to “Target Café”.
Throughout 2009, a new store prototype was developed for general merchandise stores. These stores, dubbed PFresh, include an array of perishable and frozen foods, meat, and dairy. Produce selections include select, barcoded fruits and vegetables, and pre-bagged items like bananas to eliminate the need for scales and weight-based pricing. They do not have an in-house bakery or deli, but carry a small number of baked goods and pre-packed deli items. Product includes a few national brands, but heavily focus on Target’s owned-brand products such as Archer Farms and Market Pantry.
Some stores offer everything found in a regular Target as well as a full grocery selection, fresh produce, bakery and deli,
Comment by John — January 9, 2012 @ 7:13 pm
I’m sure all Alameda hopes all those peripheral enterprises are included, John. As I said above, I would have preferred a Wallmart adjacent to Wallmark ( you know, that affordable [if you’re rich] housing development just west of the (so called) landing with the wall that marks its existence) but if it has to be a Target they should make sure that all those scientists who will soon inhabit the pointless have an upscale place to spend.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 9, 2012 @ 8:28 pm
Post 13, if they could include a tattoo shop, medical marijuana, and an abortion clinic they would just about cover all the bases.
Comment by John P. — January 9, 2012 @ 8:55 pm
I’m just concerned we have Enough Bike Bike Bike Bike stuff and Racks and have the Ability to close off all the streets to cars so we can have Bike racing. I know my biggest concern is where I’m going to Park my Bike when I’m picking up new Patio Furniture.
Comment by John — January 9, 2012 @ 9:14 pm
If they just spent 1% of the time honestly addressing how Target is going to effect the present businesses in Alameda and the Traffic nightmare this is going to create thru the Tube versus how many Bike Bike Bike Bikers are going to be effected we might start getting a clue on what’s going on.
Comment by John — January 9, 2012 @ 9:39 pm
Attended the Planning Board meeting last re: Target. The important discussion of economic impacts was raised, discussed last night, particularly grocery store impacts.
The economic analyst who prepared the impact report said that while there may be negative impacts on food stores, what impacts there are will be on food stores currently performing above industry standard with re: to sales-per-square-foot, meaning these impacted stores (most likely Safeway South Shore and Raley — Lucky?, I’m not sure — would love to see the report) are doing well enough to absorb the impacts.
And, what impacts there will be do not rise to the level of causing “urban decay”, which is why per the environmental review process an economic impact report is required in the first place. “Urban decay” refers to the **causal**, linked chain of events that begin with (a) closure of foot-traffic generating store (such as a super market, department store, large-format general merchandise store) resulting from the opening of a new competitor shopping center and/or store in the same line of business . . . which then leads to (b) closure of other stores in the same shopping center or shopping area that rely on the foot-traffic generating store for drawing-in customers . . . which then is compounded by (c) the inability of affected shopping center owner to re-tenant stores with same kinds of retailers as ones that were lost, or different kinds of retailers/stores altogether . . . which then leads to (d) decision to disinvest in said property the cumulative affects of which, over time, lead to conditions of blight, if not blight itself.
While I have not read the urban decay economic impact analysis for the Landing project, I have peer-reviewed several economic impact studies done by the consultant when she was with CBRE. I peer-reviewed her Stanford Shopping Center report, as well as I think it was the Rocklin report. I think overall her approach is okay, though I often suggested she needed in **those** studies to re-think the demand-side of the equation (i.e. how much consumer spending there actually is in the retail market(s) based on a more-robust understanding of households segmented by various demographic variables). BTW: For a past client in Delano, I also did an economic impact report that was submitted to and accepted by the Superior Court judge (Twissleman) who established the landmark court case (Bakersfield) that required urban decay analyses as part of shopping center EIRs.
Without having crunched the numbers, it’s hard to definitively say what the impacts on food stores in Alameda will be. From what I heard last night and from what I’ve seen of many comparable Targets (such as the one in Walnut Creek), it doesn’t seem to me that the food component of Target for Alameda Landing is akin to a supermarket. On the other hand, if you happen to be in Gilroy and went to the Super Walmart there, clearly the Super Walmart food component **is** a supermarket, as defined by breadth and depth of fresh foods, breadth and depth of refrigerated meats, deli sections, and breadth and depth of packaged foods and households and personal items: and Super Walmart’s food section simply looks like a supermarket tucked inside of a large-format general merchandise store.
When you look at the parking lot of South Shore in front of Safeway or the parking lot at the Nob Hill store, clearly those lots are always full — that’s why we’re always complaining about traffic there. To me, that’s a back-of-the-envelope indicator that probably these stores are indeed performing well-above industry average, as probably is Trader Joes. Safeway in Harbor Bay I am not sure of since I dont go out there often enough, but I suspect it’s has its own consumer sub-market (i.e. HBI/BF residents) for whom the decision to go for groceries is either Safeway HBI or Safeway SS, or Nob Hill — and that going all the way to the tube is not a likely choice for the typical shopper.
But . . . Lucky at Marina Village might pose an interesting case in the context of urban decay analyses. It is, after-all, the foot-traffic generating store that other stores there rely on. Based on going there frequently, I would not say that Lucky is doing poorly — but I wouldn’t say it’s doing gang-busters either. However, I suspect that the food component of Target that I heard last night is NOT going to push Lucky over some tipping point on the road to closure, and if it does, that suggests that perhaps things were so bad to begin with that can one really say that the smallish food component of Target **caused** Lucky to close. While that Lucky might not close, the gotta-be-honest assessment has to be that this store will be negatively impacted, leading possibly to reduction in jobs in an effort by management to re-coup sales/profit losses by cuts in spending (i.e. wages/benefits). To say that there will be no impacts would’ve lacked credibility, so at least I think (though I haven’t read it) you got a credible impact analysis, since last night she did report (a) some impacts but (b) impacts that will fall on well-performing stores who have enough cushion to absorb impacts (does this apply to Lucky? — I dont know) and (c) impacts that do not lead to “urban decay.”
As for impacts on stores-other-than-food-stores, my sense is that there will be little to no impacts, and one could argue that for Webster Street, impacts could be positive, in the sense of drawing-in new customers from off-island who (with great cooperative marketing between WABA and AL that is already underway) would otherwise never have come close to Webster Street District south of Buena Vista Ave. This isn’t to over-argue the point and say that there will be a horde of new shoppers for Webster — but anything will help. And, my sense is that there will be little to no impacts because the common refrain is that people are tired of going off-island to shop at Target or similar stores for items that they would love to buy here in town (though to some extent maybe Kohls has ameliorated this?). So, there will be little to no impacts I suspect on non-food stores because AL will recapture local spending we’re losing out on right now.
Comment by tony daysog — January 10, 2012 @ 10:13 am
The urban decay analysis is part of the Supplemental EIR (the file is big, so be patient loading it).
Comment by Lauren Do — January 10, 2012 @ 10:29 am
Tony
Do you still stand by your analysis of the Employee Contracts you voted yes on in 2001 of Public Safety that was then 31-32 % of Total city Budget which has risen to 71% of present Budget. With pension costs rising 2000% since then during the worst financial conditions this City, State and Country has ever seen . Do you feel those contracts have had any impact on the City and it’s financial situation and the budget crisis we know face?
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 10:38 am
Oooh . . . zinger. Oh how my knees are shaking . . .
The gotta-to-be-honest assessment is that, indeed, the 3% at fifty for public safety is simply not sustainable. I thought we could pull it off, for at the time I saw Alameda as a growing city economically because we understood the importance of moving progressively on the economic and social fronts (and hopefully I did what I could to that end), even as the overall nation was in a recession at the time. So, yes, I voted for extending 3% at fifty to fire fighters, after we first extended it only to and specifically for the Police earlier I think in the Spring.
I’ll tell you something, too: thinking we could cover this, I knew that at the time I joined all my colleagues in extending the 3% at fifty to fire fighters, I did so gladly — yes, I did say gladly at the time — gladly because that was a decision made in the first meeting of October 2001, a time when we came to understand in ways that perhaps many have now forgotten how fire fighters and our police are the first to whom we turn in time of neighborhood and national distress.
So, yeah, go ahead and throw your fucken zingers all you want.
But where we’re you when I made tough fiscal decisions like voting against the movie deal (as much as wanted to join my friends and neighbors and vote for it) because the rent was simply way too low — and the fact that the city recently contemplated adding a fee to the movie ticket as one measure to shore up its budget was, yes, belated confirmation that I made the right and tough fiscal choice. Where were you?
Where were you when I was the first to warn as early as December 2003 that AP&T telcom revenues would simply not hit the target needed to re-finance in 2009, and made the tough decision to vote against the telcom refinance plan of Dec 2003?
Where we you when I led the way in the face of massive opposition to get Bayport going, so as to create the underlying financial wherewithal to help pay for military base conversation infrastructure?
Where were you on the night of October 2001 to say that the fire fighters weren’t deserving of getting the same 3% at fifty package that we earlier issued to the police? I have no qualms in saying that, sure, it’s not fiscally sustainable. That’s why I was happy to be a part of the Fiscal Sustainability Committee — so I will be a part of the solution.
I dont know who you are but I think I know enough from the tone of your zinger that you think you can bully people, including me. Well, ain’t going to happen.
Comment by tony daysog — January 10, 2012 @ 12:19 pm
Oooh . . . zinger. Oh how my knees are shaking . . .
The gotta-to-be-honest assessment is that, indeed, the 3% at fifty for public safety is simply not sustainable. I thought we could pull it off, for at the time I saw Alameda as a growing city economically because we understood the importance of moving progressively on the economic and social fronts (and hopefully I did what I could to that end), even as the overall nation was in a recession at the time. So, yes, I voted for extending 3% at fifty to fire fighters, after we first extended it only to and specifically for the Police earlier I think in the Spring.
I’ll tell you something, too: thinking we could cover this, I knew that at the time I joined all my colleagues in extending the 3% at fifty to fire fighters, I did so gladly — yes, I did say gladly at the time — gladly because that was a decision made in the first meeting of October 2001, a time when we came to understand in ways that perhaps many have now forgotten how fire fighters and our police are the first to whom we turn in time of neighborhood and national distress.
So, yeah, go ahead and throw your fucken zingers all you want.
But where we’re you when I made tough fiscal decisions like voting against the movie deal (as much as wanted to join my friends and neighbors and vote for it) because the rent was simply way too low — and the fact that the city recently contemplated adding a fee to the movie ticket as one measure to shore up its budget was, yes, belated confirmation that I made the right and tough fiscal choice. Where were you?
Where were you when I was the first to warn as early as December 2003 that AP&T telcom revenues would simply not hit the target needed to re-finance in 2009, and made the tough decision to vote against the telcom refinance plan of Dec 2003?
Where we you when I led the way in the face of massive opposition to get Bayport going, so as to create the underlying financial wherewithal to help pay for military base conversation infrastructure?
Where were you on the night of October 2001 to say that the fire fighters weren’t deserving of getting the same 3% at fifty package that we earlier issued to the police? I have no qualms in saying that AS I NOW LOOK BACK, sure, it’s not fiscally sustainable. That’s why I was happy to be a part of the Fiscal Sustainability Committee — so I will be a part of the solution.
I dont know who you are but I think I know enough from the tone of your zinger that you think you can bully people, including me. Well, ain’t going to happen.
Comment by tony daysog — January 10, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
I just realized the purse, hat, shirt, & pants I’m wearing today are all fine coture from Target. Jack, you should check out the Yelp reviews for Targets in Emeryville & Albany-better yet, go there, for comparison. I think Wal-Marts have more parking lot shootings than Target, too.
Over an hour was spent in this meeting just discussing whether Alameda could regulate the size of the grocery/non-taxable space INSIDE the Target-and for how long?! I thought the Target man was going to lose patience with us, take his drawings & go home! Fortunately he didn’t, but this micromanagement of a retailer struck me as an example of why it is said businesses don’t like doing business in California.
But the real news was at the very end of the meeting, wherein Public Works Director Matt “The Axe” Naclerio, in an incredibiy sneaky move, came to chop down the last 2 trees he didn’t get the first time on Park Street. As pointed out by Jon Spangler & Planning Board member Art Agostino, this “earmark” was buried in the last page of the Staff Report attached to Agenda Item 9-D:”Approval to Add 3 Tree Species…to the Planting Palette”. I believe this may be the first violation of our new Sunshine Ordinance, because THIS ACTION [REMOVAL OF 2 MORE PARK STREET TREES] WAS NOT PROPERLY AGENDIZED!! Since it was not on the hard copy Or online agendas, & there wasn’t even a binder containing the Staff Report on the table outside the meeting room, the Public was not properly informed of this sneaky action. However, I don’t know who the complaint should be filed against. Roberta Kohlstrand, at her last meeting before departing the PB, valiantly voted against 9-D, because of the hidden tree removal. But although Art strongly argued against it, he & the rest of the PB voted to remove the trees.
Matt said “the CityManager’s office seemed OK w/it”. Really? And they wonder why some people don’t trust the government.
Comment by vigi — January 10, 2012 @ 12:33 pm
“The gotta-to-be-honest assessment is that, indeed, the 3% at fifty for public safety is simply not sustainable. I thought we could pull it off, for at the time I saw Alameda as a growing city economically because we understood the importance of moving progressively on the economic and social fronts (and hopefully I did what I could to that end), even as the overall nation was in a recession at the time. So, yes, I voted for extending 3% at fifty to fire fighters, after we first extended it only to and specifically for the Police earlier I think in the Spring. ”
I just asked you a simple question. The Reason I posed it was because you seem to be so convinced about Taget having NO IMPACT on current businesses in Alameda. If you think i’m a BULLY for asking a legitimate question , as they say in the Real World Tough SH_T.
Your understanding of the Current Economic Situation in Alameda, California and the Country when you approved those last contracts in 2001 is totally delusional.
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 12:56 pm
Nice try . .. just quoting my first paragraph and conveniently trying to keep out the rest. Jesus christ . .. such second rate stupid parlor tricks. Jesus! Here’s the rest :
“The gotta-to-be-honest assessment is that, indeed, the 3% at fifty for public safety is simply not sustainable. I thought we could pull it off, for at the time I saw Alameda as a growing city economically because we understood the importance of moving progressively on the economic and social fronts (and hopefully I did what I could to that end), even as the overall nation was in a recession at the time. So, yes, I voted for extending 3% at fifty to fire fighters, after we first extended it only to and specifically for the Police earlier I think in the Spring.
I’ll tell you something, too: thinking we could cover this, I knew that at the time I joined all my colleagues in extending the 3% at fifty to fire fighters, I did so gladly — yes, I did say gladly at the time — gladly because that was a decision made in the first meeting of October 2001, a time when we came to understand in ways that perhaps many have now forgotten how fire fighters and our police are the first to whom we turn in time of neighborhood and national distress.
So, yeah, go ahead and throw your fucken zingers all you want.
But where we’re you when I made tough fiscal decisions like voting against the movie deal (as much as wanted to join my friends and neighbors and vote for it) because the rent was simply way too low — and the fact that the city recently contemplated adding a fee to the movie ticket as one measure to shore up its budget was, yes, belated confirmation that I made the right and tough fiscal choice. Where were you?
Where were you when I was the first to warn as early as December 2003 that AP&T telcom revenues would simply not hit the target needed to re-finance in 2009, and made the tough decision to vote against the telcom refinance plan of Dec 2003?
Where we you when I led the way in the face of massive opposition to get Bayport going, so as to create the underlying financial wherewithal to help pay for military base conversation infrastructure?
Where were you on the night of October 2001 to say that the fire fighters weren’t deserving of getting the same 3% at fifty package that we earlier issued to the police? I have no qualms in saying that AS I NOW LOOK BACK, sure, it’s not fiscally sustainable. That’s why I was happy to be a part of the Fiscal Sustainability Committee — so I will be a part of the solution.
I dont know who you are but I think I know enough from the tone of your zinger that you think you can bully people,
including me. Well, ain’t going to happen.”
Comment by tony daysog — January 10, 2012 @ 1:08 pm
#23. Seriously? They gave the ok to chop down the last 2 trees?
Comment by Jack B. — January 10, 2012 @ 1:16 pm
Relax Tony….. I will put you on the do not ask questions list.
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 1:21 pm
Vigi I think you need to listen to meeting again or I do..
I believe they voted to Leave those two alone
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 1:23 pm
The Planning Board voted to leave the two trees alone, even though the landscape architect said those trees wouldn’t go with the new design the public said they wanted.
Comment by Dave — January 10, 2012 @ 2:12 pm
25 “…sure, it’s not fiscally sustainable. That’s why I was happy to be a part of the Fiscal Sustainability Committee — so I will be a part of the solution.”
Is this whole thing a fucking joke?
Comment by Jack Richard — January 10, 2012 @ 2:22 pm
I attended last night’s Planning Board meeting as well and was disappointed that they rushed to approve this thing before knowing how all the pieces fit together. The marketing strategy is being looked at separately by the EDC; the waterfront plan and the housing plan is a totally separate piece of the plan that was not presented last night, and there was no serious discussion about how the “Target Supercenter” will impact other businesses in our community until the very end. Much of the discussion was about bikes, bike access, loading docks, and turn lanes. And as always, Catellus did a “hurry up and approve the plan” job on us. It clearly worked, because the plan was approved last night.
During the presentation given by the Target representative, they agreed to keep their non-taxable merchandise under 10%, but when the Planning Board attempted to put that in writing, Target pushed back. Planning Board president Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft raised a good point about wanting to make sure that ALL of our businesses in Alameda thrive. All one has to do is look at all the empty stores at South Shore and wonder what the impact the new Target Supercenter will have on Marina Village. She tried to get a compromise from the Target folks, but Catellus brought their lawyer to the podium who reminded everyone that Alameda Landing is not subject to Alameda’s “Big Box Ordinance”. Planning Board member Mike Henneberry was clearly frustrated last night as he tried to raise the point – that Alameda Landing is not subject to the big box ordinance, but Catellus is looking to get approvals for an amendment to their original agreement– so there was room for a compromise.
While I’m not a union person — I can understand why they are concerned with this compromise. Lucky Stores closed at South Shore after the redevelopment of that center, and it’s possible that Lucky Stores at Marina Village could close when Alameda Landing is developed. The nature of a category killer (another name for a Supercenter) – is to kill off the competition. Lucky’s and Target Stores “target the same discount foods market”, and clearly Target will have the advantage over Lucky’s with over 100,000 sq. ft. of retail merchandise that Lucky’s does not offer.
I would have personally liked to see the Planning Board approve the amendment subject to a maximum 10% cap like the City of Livermore did with their Target Store. But in the end, the compromise that everyone agreed to was a 10% cap for 5 years. After 5 years – Target can do what ever it pleases. I have a feeling that we haven’t heard the last of this issue.
My main concern is that the possible closure of Lucky’s at Marina Village could kill off the entire center at Marina Village. That coupled with all the empty stores at South Shore in my opnion would be a step backwards for Alameda.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 10, 2012 @ 4:05 pm
Karen: I know you were present at the meeting, I believe the Target representative said that they do not build “Super Centers” in Northern California or it might have been the Bay Area, I’ll have to go back to watch it to make sure that I have the region correct.
Comment by Lauren Do — January 10, 2012 @ 4:29 pm
Jack don’t comment or ask questions to anybody whose Self Back Patting Machine Batteries are Low.
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
Karen,
I know some tennants in the Marina Village Shopping Center that are ready to Close their Doors Now. The only reason they Stay Open is to Honor their lease while they Hemmorage red numbers daily.
Regarding Lucky’s a Good Question to Target Represenative would be , What are your Average Grocery Sales in a 140,000 foot Store in the Bay Area By the Day Week Month and Annually.
Target would also recieve Huge Slotting Allowances and Ad Monies by Item for Grocery Items that make them more profitable.
Lucky’s also pays Union Wages. They are at a Distinct Disadvantage to a Target. If they close it will decimate Marina Village.
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 4:48 pm
Lauren, the retail industry has their definition of supercenters, and Target has theirs. Many cities have defined supercenters as stores greater than 100,000 square feet which combine retail and grocery sales and which devote more than 10% of sales floor to the sale of non-taxable items. The definition of a supercenter has more to do with the existence of combined full retail and full grocery services more than it has to do with the size of the store.
Also I would imagine this is where the City of Livermore came up with their 10% cap for their Target, and where Alameda came up with the language for our big box ordinance. It’s not surprising that Target would choose to call their 140,000 sq. ft. model something other than a supercenter, because there is a lot of negative research out there about the impacts of supercenters.
Comment by Karen Bey — January 10, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
The Most profitable space in a Grocery Store is General Merchandise. Food is Break Even
Items that Duplicate Lucky’s that won’t be under 10% Rule
All Beverage is Taxable so that won’t be included…..
Baby Items like Pampers and Huggies Ect
All Laundry Detergents Fabric Softner
Floral or Garden Items
All Heath and Beauty Aids Shampoo Toothpaste Mouthwash Ect
Any Paper or Plastic Items Paper Towels Toilet Paper Garbage bags ect
All Pet Supplies Ect
Wine Beer Spirits
The list is Huge……
Include all these Items in your Grocery Section and I’m guessing Target hits 30-40% of Floor Space
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 5:53 pm
I doubt many people would go grocery shopping at Target. Sure I might pick up some common eatables if I’m wondering through the place but if there’s a real grocery store nearby, I’ll go there for real groceries.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 10, 2012 @ 6:16 pm
I agree Jack. But the Targets and Walmarts of the World are really hitting the Major Grocery Chains Hard. I hate to see that Lucky’s at Marina Village leave. I have a special place in my heart for Lucky’s. I use to do all their Private Label Wine and Brandy and they allowed me to launch a few Wine Labels also. The quality of the people I worked with were first class. Opening the new Target might be the Tipping Point. Little do I know about Retail .
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 6:34 pm
Don’t get me wrong, John, I feel the same way about Lucky at Marina Village. If it meant Target or Lucky, I’d pick Lucky in an Alameda minute. If Lucky closes at Marina Village, I don’t believe it will be because of Target opening across the street. It would be for other reasons.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 10, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
Twinkie and Wonder Bread sales maybe Jack. Here goes some more Local Jobs
Hostess Brands Inc. is preparing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as soon as this week, said people familiar with the matter, a move that would mark the second significant court restructuring for the Twinkies and Wonder Bread baker in the past several years.
Twinkies Maker Preparing for Chapter 11 Filing .
One of Hostess’s challenges will be to avoid liquidation, the fate of some other companies seeking bankruptcy protection a second time. In the past several years, for instance, Hollywood Video chain owner Movie Gallery Inc. and Polaroid Corp. have gone out of business after seeking bankruptcy protection a second time.
One sticking point for the baker: It pays about $100 million a year into so-called multi-employer pension plans that cover workers at a wide array of companies, the people said. Hostess, whose pension plan is underfunded by about $2 billion, wants to rescind its obligations to that plan and start paying into a plan that only covers its own workers, one of the people said.
Overall, Hostess carries hundreds of separate labor contracts that the company believes impose cost burdens, people familiar with the matter said; the company also wants to reduce benefits costs.
Interstate Baking Co., the name Hostess used to go by long ago, was formed in 1930. Some brands Hostess still sells, including Drake’s cakes, predate the company. In its infancy, the company made loaves of bread for grocery stores to sell.
Comment by John — January 10, 2012 @ 8:57 pm
Yep, pension costs are the best of ‘other reasons’ for going out of business.
Comment by Jack Richard — January 10, 2012 @ 9:54 pm