Stop, Drop and Roll

05 October 2007 | Alameda Community Development Forum, Measure A | John Knox White

Traditionally, I shy away from getting involved in discussions on SD&R that are on-going on someone else’s. It seems a little cheesy to try and drive traffic to ones own site by posting links to another persons site.

But, (as Pee Wee Herman said “Everyone I know has a big but“), in this case, I can’t post the relevant grid, etc. and so I’m making an exception.

Discussions on two of Lauren Do’s posts in the last week (here and here) discussed the prospective tenants that might end up at Alameda Landing. The assumption was that the city council had no real say, but in fact, they have a lot of say in this case.

As part of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for Catellus, which at this time, does not appear to be online (I’ll try and rectify that when I can), Article 7.1 (b) states:

“(b) Initial Retail Leasing Covenants. As a material covenant, Developer [Catellus] shall ensure that all retail uses on the Property [Alameda Landing], including without limitation, all reatail leases, shall be consistent with the Master Plan and Section III (Tenanting Strategy) of that certain report entitled, “Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update” dated June 7, 2006, prepared by Strategic Economics (The “retail Impacts Assessment”). If Developer elects to seek amendment of the Retail Impacts Assessment from the CIC, Developer shall bear any and all costs of such amendment.”

The “Alameda Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update” is an interesting read, I’ll post it later with more info, but what’s important for this discussion is Section III (Tenanting Strategy) which is:

Store or Retail Category	Sample Tenants	Est. Sq. Ft. (a)
Apparel (1)	Ann Taylor Loft, Chico’s, Old Navy	29,500
Furniture/ Home Furnishings (1)	Bed, Bath & Beyond, Macy’s Home, Scandinavian Designs, Z Gallerie	29,500
Home Improvement/Garden (1)	OSH, Smith & Hawken	55,000
HH Appliances & Electronics (1)	CompUSA, Circuit City	33,000
Sporting Goods (1)	REI, Copelands, Any Mountain	40,000
Gifts & Novelties (3)	Papyrus, Bath & Body Works	22,500
Restaurants (2)	PF Chang, Pasta Pomodoro	45,000
Small food purveyors (3)	Jamba Juice, coffee	22,500
Books & Stationery (1)	borders, Lady’s	23,000
	TOTAL Square Footage	300,000

(a) Cornish & Carey, ICSC, individual retailers.

(1) Assumed 70% of 300,000 square feet of retail space is occupied by stores larger than 7500 square feet. This include the following categories: Apparel, Furniture and Home Furnishings, Home Improvement/Garden, Household Appliances and Electronics, Sporting Goods and Books/Stationery.

(2) Assumed 15% of the 300,000 square feet of retail space is occupied by restaurants occupying 3,500-10,000 square feet.

(3) Assumed 15% of the 300,000 square feet of retail space is occupied by business such as juice bars, cafes and specialty stores, each occupying less than 3500 square feet.

The DDA agreement means that the Developer needs to maintain the mix of stores in the table. If they want to change the mix, they have to come back to the council for approval.

The first thing is that there’s no big box space. Nowhere in the mix is there a store over 55,000 sq. ft. Which means no Target without a public meeting on the subject. Judging by the tenant list, you can imagine Bay Street at Alameda Landing, which is unfortunate for those of us who don’t like Bay Street (It’s another thing Pat Bail and I agree on, though I get the feeling it’s for different reasons).

Understanding that a Bay Street like mix of retail is what is proposed, one can understand that the developer is looking to make it as parking lot heavy and un-”place” oriented as they’ve proposed. Looking at the design, I am reminded of one of my early complaints about the project (no not the one about the layout of the sea of parking), the one about the constant use of “mixed-use” to describe it. The retail aspects of the project may front a road with housing across the street, but the sea of parking will necessitate the retail turning its doorways away from the street. We’ll have more Longs/Walgreens/Office Max-like effects where basically you have a long wall designed to not look like a wall, fronting the public street, and instead of vibrancy, you’ll end up with a lack of it.

It’s not Mixed Use, it’s three separate uses next to each other (housing to the West, retail to the east and commercial to the North) and the lack of “Mix” will keep it from becoming vibrant. On weekends, people will pile into the car to go to the mall, the waterfront, surrounded by commercial buildings will be almost lightly used, and the mall parking lot will be full of people driving from store to store without interacting with the area.

Of course when you can’t mix housing and retail or housing and commercial because of the constraints of Measure A, you’re not going to get much different. Imagine if the 300 housing units planned as a part of Alameda Landing were actually mixed into a streetscape with shopping on the street and the parking discreetly built behind the buildings, but with access from the street. These same housing units (not one more than already planned) could be incorporated into the commercial on the waterfront as well to bring energy and life to the waterfront in the evenings and weekends.

On Monday night, the planning board will be discussing the creation of a forum on Measure A. Perhaps there are issues, like this one, that need to be more fully discussed. I encourage you to show up and show your support for a true open community dialogue on issues of extreme importance to the future development of our most excellent city.