August 29, Shadelands Specific Plan Advisory Committee

Transcription

1 August 29, 2012 Shadelands Specific Plan Advisory Committee I am grateful to live and work here in Walnut Creek and have my kids go to school here too. I am grateful for our City, its employees and its leaders taking on this Specific Planning process; to the extent they are open-minded I am grateful to Safeway, too. I am very grateful for the insights shared by the consultants on this project and for those shared by residents. I am grateful for the website supporting this SP process where I could research all of those comments as well as the powerpoints. I am grateful for prayer which is where I turn when things seem so conflicted that a clear answer seems impossible. I am grateful for our current de facto open space offered us by Safeway on their business park property. I am grateful for protected access onto eastbound YVR from southbound OGR out of the Woodlands. I am grateful for tonight s meeting. I appreciate my fellow church members forgiving my absence tonight. I am grateful for Rocco writing his letter. I think in all significant projects there can come a time when approaching design work to reevaluate the requirements. A time-out to reflect and size up whether we are still heading in the right direction. The idea of a gateway element came up early in the current process as a requirement. But a gateway to what? The current design seems to answer that question in terms of a gateway to a city of materialistic, if idyllic and leisurely, consumption. Right? I mean if you essentially convert this entire gateway parcel into a General Retail designation isn t that the overriding message conveyed? But then isn t Walnut Creek more that this, albeit our retail is something we are well known for? Do we need to beat down every possible contravening notion of a multi-faceted Walnut Creek? A business park contains the notion of learning, research, development of the new. Our community contains elements of support for education, recreation, culture, and even the spiritual. We d like to have elements of clean, efficient transportation and circulation as well, although clearly we are challenged in this way. Two acres of a central green area does tip a hat to the notion of recreation and social gathering perhaps but I am the only one thinking the other elements should come into play more (and housing and more medical not so much). That or we should stick with promoting the values that a business park promotes, in contradistiction to the notion that many around the country see in California and many around the world see in the USA, that we are overly focused on consumption as a good in and of itself. Maybe we realize that setbacks and F.A.R.s and lot coverage questions are premature if we really don t have a handle on who we want to be serving with our new gateway element of the City. If it is a tiny minority of the residential neighbors in both directions (according to their submissions to the council, to survey-takers, and to Rocco); if it is businesses in the park only as an afterthought (and even that thought with really nothing much addressing their employees commutes!); if it is the creatures currently on the property not-at-all; then Who are we left serving? Maybe some new development can bless both Safeway and its neighbors (particularly in the business park) without alienating or harming any existing community. Maybe during a time-out it can be seen that all current plans are forcing business park neighbors to cross

2 most of the 25 acres to get to the services and stores that they could make good use of. Maybe during the time-out it can be acknowledged that consultants may have buried the truth in footnotes in headlining skewed economics in suggesting that a 55,000 sq ft new Safeway will be no big deal to absorb in the study area. Maybe it can become clear during this timeout that taking F grade intersections and throwing 15,000 more daily trips at them and expecting a retail success to emerge likely crosses over the border into fantasyland. I am expecting good things to emerge from this pause. New, crisper ideas that are also perhaps bolder and certainly more community-reflective and supporting. Heck, even new all-weather fields showing up prominently near the gateway part of the property could send a message of a sense of balance in our community s priorities. Sincerely, Christian Herman 3563 Perada Dr Walnut Creek, CA From: Fred Schaub [mailto:fschaub@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, :27 PM Subject: Ethan thanks for the notice of Public Meeting on the Safeway-Shadelands plan. I have been a Walnut Creek resident since 1970 and started out in the Woodlands. We now live in Rancho Paraiso about 1 mile from the Shadelands. I am sending you this because both my wife Mary and I support the Safeway development proposal in principle. I am not an employee of Safeway in fact I am retired from AT&T. I will try to attend this meeting, but if I can t make it I wanted to go on record with you. Thanks. Fred Schaub From: Marianne Dugan Cook [mailto:mdugan@rocketmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, :06 PM Cc: Todd; mdugan@rocketmail.com Subject: Shadelands Gateway Plan Hello Ethan, I'd like to share my concerns about the 25 acre property at 2800 Ygnacio Valley Road. 1. There is already excess retail space in surrounding shopping centers including Encina Grande and Nob Hill centers. The Sports Basement center is just a few miles away. The immediate area is well-served by retail centers. 2. The intersection at Oak Grove and YVR is very busy with Valle Verde, Foothill, and Northgate families traversing the streets several times a day. YVR is also heavily used as a gateway to East County meaning traffic backs up at the light at the intersection. If there were another retail complex on the corner, traffic will be exacerbated. 3. The recent "In a Nutshell" publication contained "A Community Connected" survey where 96% of residents rated the quality of life in Walnut Creek as good or excellent.

3 Adding more traffic and more congestion to a major interesection negatively affects quality of life for residents in surrounding neighborhoods. If this center were developed, I fear quality of like and sense of neighborhood will be negatively impacted. This plan does not support stewardship of environment and preserving open space goals also discussed in report. In summary, this proposal is at odds with what residents need and want at that location. I oppose this development. Respectfully, Marianne Cook From: Ogden [mailto:bvo@astound.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, :21 PM Subject: Public Comment: 8/29 AC Meeting Hello Ethan, As I will be on the East Coast next week, I did not want to miss the opportunity to address the Advisory Committee. I thank the Advisory Committee for their work and am impressed with their qualifications. The community has vehemently expressed their opposition, and I sense that finally the Committee is recognizing the folly of this project. I hope they can end this project madness at the 8/29 meeting. There are many dealbreakers for another shopping center at YVR and Oak Grove. But, I believe the ultimate deal breaker came from the Traffic Consultant months ago. He explained that a shopping center would bring up to 400% more traffic than the traffic generated by a business park as it is currently zoned. Walnut Creek residents have gone on record that the only true menace facing our city is the current traffic problems. There is no point in pursuing this further. Thank you for your service. Bill Ogden 35 year Walnut Creek resident From: Steve [mailto:manfromcal@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, :21 PM Subject: SAFEWAY CAN & SHOULD EXPAND AT ENCINA GRANDE To the Safeway-Shadelands Advisory Committee:

4 A resolution is at hand. Walgreens at Encina Grande is moving to the eastern end of the shopping center. (See attached Notice of Public Hearing at Design Review Commission) Significantly, Walgreen s move will free up space that permits Safeway to expand at its current location and thereby avoid burdening our community with all of the negative consequences of a shopping center in the Shadelands. At the August 1 hearing of the Design Review Commission, Ryan Nickelson, representing Regency Centers, the owner of Encina Grande, described the discussions with Safeway about expanding at Encina Grande as follows: [I] had a meeting about two months ago and received feedback, not a huge turnout but received feedback from some of the neighbors as well as some of the tenants. The primary concern was what was going to happen with the grocery anchor. As you re aware, I m sure, Safeway is processing an application across the street, to the north, for a larger store. We ve worked with them to try to accommodate them within this shopping center, to expand them into some of the former Walgreen space. That really just didn t work ultimately for their store layout, thus they re pursuing their site across the street. And so a lot of people were concerned what would happen if Safeway left, if they re successful with their plans. I assured them, and can assure you this evening that we have significant interest from a number of nationally recognized grocers for that space, that would step into that space immediately, would be very happy to be there. We d be happy with Safeway, we d be happy with a replacement. We re just confident that we would have a good grocer there. (Go to 1:41:38-1:42:50 at I spoke to Deb Karbo about the option of Safeway expanding at Encina Grande. She said only that Safeway could not come to an agreement with Encina Grande. Aside from Deb s lack of any specific objections to Safeway expanding at Encina Grande, my understanding is that Safeway feels that an expansion there would be too rectangular. Other than Safeway s possible preference for a more square-shaped store, expanding at Encina Grande would be an ideal outcome. It would greatly increase Safeway s size and Safeway would likely have significant community support for its expansion at Encina Grande instead of facing community opposition to its proposed shopping center in the Shadelands. And there is no doubt that creative architects could design an expanded store for Safeway at Encina Grande that would be attractive and successful. On the other hand, if Safeway decides it does not want to remain in Encina Grande and it is replaced by another grocer at that location, that will further reduce our community s need for Safeway s megastore in the Shadelands. Even without another grocer in Encina Grande, there is not economic support for Safeway s proposed 55,000 square foot supermarket. If another grocer replaces Safeway in Encina Grande, we will have absolutely no need for Safeway s megastore, which would then be the third supermarket at the corner ofygnacio Valley and Oak Grove (1-Nob Hill, 2-Safeway s replacement at Encina Grande, and 3-Safeway s megastore in the Shadelands). Our community does not need and cannot support three grocery stores across the street from one another. The bottom line is that Safeway s ability to expand at Encina Grande is the perfect alternative to burdening our community with the increased traffic and pollution, urban

5 decay, aesthetic blight, and other negative consequences of Safeway s proposed shopping center in the Shadelands. Safeway should take advantage of this ideal opportunity and expand right where it is at Encina Grande. Sincerely, Steve Elster The Woodlands