Comments on: Safeway on College might be stuck with a “patch & paint” job

By: jon

jon — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:24:45 +0000

Yesterday Safeway just opened another urban store this time in Portland’s Pearl District which built off the success of another urban store they built a few years ago in the heart of Downtown Portland. And of course they have the new urban South of Market store in SF. I am very impressed with Safeway and their willingness to build urban designed stores in urban environments. This really seems like a great project that would do miracles to its neighborhood. It would be terrible to see them give up in the face of some vocal nutjob opposition worried about preserving surface parking and a 60s eyesore. The NIMBYism in this area is extremely odd, afterall it was pretty much this same small crowd that strongly opposed BRT on Telegraph because it would take away auto lanes.

By: dto510

dto510 — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:30:29 +0000

Thanks for the link, Becks, I sent Safeway a note of encouragement.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:41:35 +0000

David, the City does not have any legal authority to impose such requirements on a business.

By: VivekB

VivekB — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:37:12 +0000

I live very close to that Safeway, and am in favor of the redesign. It’s smooth & clean, and a vast improvement over what’s there (as it’s bigger, which can only help).

That said, most of my (vocal) neighbors seem to be of the lunatic fringe, who think that Safeway is in the charity/bend-over-and-take-it business.

By: david vartanoff

david vartanoff — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:32:04 +0000

Safeway is reported in national media as testing small well focused stores thus the mega project is not the only option. My view is that Oakland has an opportunity to demand a much smarter project.
1. Push the sidewalk East for the extra lane between Claremont and Alcatraz but designate it transit only.
2. Push the building frontage back 15′ further to give a good sidewalk space connecting the triangle and the proposed middle plaza.
3. Most important, covenant the entire project–ALL employees, proprietors agree NOT to commute by auto–AC Passes and large BART Tickets as job perks. (maintain @ Safeway’s expense a half dozen or less Zip car or equal for the occasional emergency call from the kid at school who is sick).
4 A third level–apartments its a fair walk to BART a quick bus to Cal, and again in the lease NO CAR but landlord buys transit tix.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:25:00 +0000

I cannot thing of a single thing that would do more to benefit that part of College than eliminating the street parking. I really hope that Safeway realizes that the people who actually approve the project are rational.

By: Becks

Becks — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:06:26 +0000

Alan – the community doesn’t really have any veto power, but it does seem like Safeway may be willing to cave to this vocal minority after months of trying to reach some reasonable compromise. I encourage you to contact Safeway and let them know you like the expanded project or to show up at the meeting on December 9th. We need more neighborhood members voicing their support for expansion – otherwise, Safeway might drop the project.

Anyone can contact Safeway here: http://safewayoncollege.com/id18.html

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:57:43 +0000

What sort of veto power does the community have here? Even if they don’t want it, what are their chances of killing the project? I live in Bushrod and I’d really like this project to go through. If it gets to a vote by surrounding neighborhoods it will probably get majority support, don’t you think?

By: We Fight Blight

We Fight Blight — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:49:08 +0000

Becks,

I attended the meeting as well and was disappointed in the lack of vision from the neighbors. This is a great opportunity to redefine this corner and establish a signature building with a public plaza and outdoor dining. As with many projects in North Oakland and Berkeley, there appears to be a highly vocal minority that claims to represent “the Community” in its opposition to the project. This tactic is used time and time again to try leverage projects for concessions, kill projects, or get then severely down-scoped.

After the meeting I encouraged Mr. Paradis to define their economic needs, develop a vision for a building that meets their needs, and then address the major issues raised by the stakeholders, but by no means feel compelled to design the site by committee which will only lead to failure. I also told him he should make sure that the facade facing the corner of Claremont and College (site of the Union 76 Gas Station) be at least three or four stories to frame and define the intersection. I think he erred in his strategy by saying his bottom line is 50,000 square feet and suggesting he would eliminate the 15,000 square feet of retail on College to achieve that. I requested that he bring both the 50,000 square feet and the 65,000 square feet concepts with retail as options for the community to see in the next meeting. This would give everyone a better understanding as to what giving up the retail really means for the street-scape.

While there were many “absurd” comments that I took issue with at the meeting, the one that is most disturbing is the notion that the structure should be one story because anything taller or bigger is out of scale with the character of Rockridge. There could be nothing further from the truth. Across the street on College and Claremont are a range of buildings from one story to four stories, with the majority being between two and three stories. This is consistent throughout all of Rockridge’s commercial corridor. In my opinion what looks out of scale are the one story structures adjacent to two-four story buildings. They seem to cry out for housing on a second and third floor. Most of the commercial structures, with few exceptions, have developed from lot line to lot line. As well, many of the residential structures on major thoroughfares (College, Claremont, Alcatraz, Broadway) are also two or more stories. What the developer and his consultants need to do via slides/photos or other graphic images is to remind the community what the existing scale really is in Rockridge and how their proposed building envelop is consistent with that scale/lot coverage.

I do agree with the sense of frustration of not knowing scale, building height, lot coverage and site access. All of these affect the type, design, and furnishings for the streetscape