Nic Nak Liquors--A Case for Over-Concentration of Liquor Outlets in North Oakland/South Berkeley

Nic Nak Liquors at 6400 Shattuck Avenue is attempting to obtain a Major Conditional Use Permit and a Major Variance from the Oakland Planning Commission for liquor sales. Approval of this land use activity would create a major and significant precedent in the ability for liquor stores that have lost their Deemed Approved Status as a non-conforming legal use to re-open in Oakland.

Because the property is located 80 feet away from an existing liquor store, T and K Market, and continuous liquor sales at Nic Nak ceased for more than 90 days, the City of Oakland requires Nic Nak to obtain a Major Variance. A Major Variance relates to a unique or extraordinary physical or topographic constraint which Nic Nak does not have. There is nothing in the Administrative Record that currently supports approval of another liquor store in North Oakland. Not even if former Commissioner Anne E. Mudge and Commissioner Boxer fabricate out of thin air the notion that "historic relevance" is equivalent to a unique physical constraint does this mean the courts will validate their misapplication and misinterpretation of the City requirements for a Variance. We note this because if the City of Oakland approves this land use, contrary to its own adopted public policy and regulations, it will likely receive judicial scrutiny according to some neighbors.

North Oakland is already over saturated with liquor stores, many of which create significant nuisances for North Oakland neighborhoods. The City Staff Report, dated August 5, 2009, recommended denying Mr. Pannell's proposal to peddle liquor and stated that: This proposed location [Nic Nak] is within 80 feet of a market across the street selling beer and wine. A Variance has been requested to allow this Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activity closer than one thousand (1,000) feet to any other Alcoholic Beverage Sales Activity. This is an adverse precedent for other such uses. This store will not provide an unmet Alcoholic Beverage Sales need for a population in the immediate Oakland Community, since beer and wine can be purchased across Alcatraz Avenue and spirit liquors can be purchased at several locations within a 5-minute drive. The store will not serve as a catalyst for other desirable businesses in the area, such as retail or restaurant uses; rather, the store is planned to operate like liquor stores from 40 years ago.

The August 5, 2009 Staff Report also noted that: the Planning Code Section 17.09.040 defines: "Alcoholic beverage licenses over concentrated areas" as "a police beat with crime rates that exceed the City median by twenty percent or more or a census tract in which the per capita number of on-sale or off-sale retail Alcoholic Beverage Sales licenses exceeds the Alameda County median" The applicant's store is in Police Beat 11-X. In 2008, there were 1,030 crimes in 11-X. the City's "over-concentrated areas "threshold was 1,320. Beat 11-X is thus approximately 30% below this threshold and is thus not over-concentrated by that standard.

In Census Tract 4005, in 2008 there were three alcoholic beverage licenses other than (exempt) full-service restaurants; the applicant's store would make 4, not exceeding the standard threshold of 6. Therefore, this site does not meet the definition of over-concentrated area defined in Section 17.09.040.

We submit that the definition of over-concentrated areas using a threshold that exceeds the median crime rate by 20% or more and/or a census tract is fundamentally defective in capturing the true blight and nuisance activities associated with liquor stores. Using crime rates that exceed the City median by 20% or more is a blunt metric that does not accurately target or identify the most specific crimes associated with liquor stores in a particular community such as North Oakland--loitering, littering, vandalism, public drunkenness, driving while under the influence, etc. It is blunt because it includes all crimes and then establishes that over-concentration is a threshold of 20% or more of the City median. The City of Oakland, by most accepted measures, has some of the highest crime rates in the entire United States. These high crime rates are driven by some of the most blighted, poverty-stricken, depressed, violent neighborhoods in the country. To use a threshold that is 20% or more of the median crime rate of one of the worst crime-plagued cities in the country as a metric for success results in the unbearable tolerance of an incredibly high number of nuisance crimes associated with liquor stores within a police beat as compared to the vast majority of cities of a comparable size in the United States. The fact that Beat 11-X is 30% below the threshold for crime in Oakland is actually a testament to the years of hard, dedicated and focused work of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, neighborhood associations, businesses and the Oakland Police. Crime that is 30% less than the Oakland median crime rate would not be tolerated in the vast majority of communities in the United States. To penalize this hard work with the addition of yet another liquor store is contrary to the public interest, the stated public policy of the City, and the health and welfare of the residents of North Oakland particularly when considering the body of research and evidence that establishes an incontrovertible link between the density of alcohol outlets, crime and adverse public health consequences.

The analysis by the Oakland Planning Staff in their report and findings for approval are troubling and highly deficient in that it did not consider or evaluate any liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley, except Nic Nak, for their cumulative contribution to crime, nuisance activities and detriments to quality of life and public health. No assessment was done to map out and show the location of such liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Hence no accurate baseline was defined as to the adverse effects liquor outlets are currently having in North Oakland. It is critical, since Nic Nak liquors is located less than 1/4 a mile away from South Berkeley, that liquor stores in South Berkeley also be considered. The absence of any reasonable assessment of the cumulative effects of existing liquor stores fails to properly place the approval of Nic Nak liquors in an appropriate context for decision makers and essentially encourages them to disregard the over-concentration of liquor outlets in their decision tree.

The use of a census tract, while a relatively standardized and efficient unit for comparing and measuring changes from one small geographic area to another, does not adequately assess the over-concentration of liquor stores and, in fact, underestimates the cumulative adverse effects these stores are having on geographically distinct neighborhoods that are larger than a census tract in North Oakland and South Berkeley. The use of a census tract as a geographic demarcation for the assessment of effects on a neighborhood or community is artificial and politically expedient with no real scientific basis or nexus to assess the true public health effects and increases in crime related to the availability of alcohol. In the case of North Oakland, census tract 4005 is also artificially constrained by city boundaries, effectively negating a true assessment of the cumulative effects and over-concentration of liquor stores in the vicinity of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store which spans the Oakland Berkeley City boundaries. This is true particularly in our highly mobile community where movement of people and alcohol is facilitated by an abundance of public transportation including AC Transit, BART, personal autos, bicycles and other conveyance methods. This allows the nuisance effects of alcohol outlets to be dispersed over a relatively wide area rather quickly such that the use of a census tract to assess over-concentration of alcohol outlets would fail to adequately capture the true societal costs of increased crime and public health issues. While liquor stores are the epicenter and causation of the problem, the problems and effects are dispersed throughout a community.

There is a wide and growing body of evidence nationally and internationally that shows an incontrovertible link between a concentration of liquor stores, crime and public health concerns. One study in Richmond California, Liquor Stores and Community Health, prepared by the Pacific Institute, notes that: A high density of liquor stores can contribute to a variety of health and safety problems. Studies show that neighborhoods with higher concentrations of liquor stores also have higher rates of alcohol-related hospitalizations, drunk driving accidents, and pedestrian injuries. A recent study across all California zip codes found that neighborhoods with a higher density of liquor stores had higher numbers of childhood accidents, assaults, and child abuse injuries. Liquor stores become places where social controls are weaker, increasing the likelihood of criminal and nuisance activities. A high density of liquor stores is linked to higher levels of crime and violence. A study conducted in Los Angeles found that each new liquor store in a neighborhood resulted in 3.4 more assaults per year. In New Jersey, researchers found that the number of liquor stores was the single most important environmental predictor of why some neighborhoods have higher crime rates than others—a stronger predictor than unemployment rate or median household income.

The Pacific Institutes Study also noted that: A high density of liquor stores also contributes to economic and social disintegration. Similar to power plants and refineries, alcohol outlets represent a form of locally unwanted land use that conflicts with desirable land uses such as schools, parks, and residences. The over-concentration of liquor stores increases the perceived lack of safety and limits walkability in the community. Moreover, concentrations of liquor stores in a neighborhood can constrain economic opportunities for current and new businesses and therefore are both a symptom and accelerator of economic decline.

Recognizing the importance of educating decision makers, the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association has compiled a significant list of research on alcohol outlet densities at http://www.hbneighborhood.org/My%20Web/1%20HB%20CrimeNews%202004%202.htm.

These various national and international peer reviewed studies collated by the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association conclude or provide significant evidence that: (1) alcohol availability is related to violent assaults at the local level; (2) alcohol outlet density was the single most important environmental factor explaining why violent crime rates are higher in certain parts of the city than in others; (3) neighborhoods with higher alcohol outlet density have higher rates of alcohol-related problems than a neighborhood's racial or ethnic makeup; (4) localities with more alcohol sales had more assaults per capita; (5) the more off-site alcohol outlets a neighborhood has, the more likely it is to have more homicides; (6) three northern California cities with a higher density of alcohol outlets had significantly higher levels of crime among Mexican American youth; (7) there was more youth violence in neighborhoods that had more off-site alcohol outlets than those that did not; (8) areas with more alcohol outlets experience more violent crime; and (9) blocks having more bars had higher crime rates.

None of this body of incontrovertible evidence was either reviewed, evaluated or consulted by the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission in preparing its findings to approve a Major Variance to allow yet another liquor store in North Oakland even though it is readily available on the internet. The approval for the Nic Nak is moving forward despite significant objections from the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association, and local business owners that an additional liquor store in an already over-concentrated North Oakland community will increase alcohol related crimes and public nuisances. In dismissing community concerns, one Commissioner, Sandra Galvez, even went so far as to characterize the predominantly white residents who were objecting to additional liquor stores as fostering" institutionalized racism." The body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and the actual experience of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association and local business owners in North Oakland is diametrically opposed to the personal beliefs and political leanings of those Planning Commissioners who are loathe to deny the Nic Nak's application for a Major Variance for fear of opposing a black-owned business and looking very un PC, no matter how detrimental it is to the community.

Since former Commissioner Mudge and existing Commissioner Doug Boxer led the charge for approving another liquor store in North Oakland, and seem to think more liquor stores are a good and positive thing to maintain and retain historic associations including neighborhood, social and leadership activities , and because Commissioner Galvez believes the opposition to another liquor store in North Oakland somehow is the result of "institutionalized racism", we decided to show them and others just how many liquor stores and other off-sales alcohol outlets there are within an approximately 1 mile radius of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store. There are a total of 18 existing off-sale liquor outlets within an approximately 1 mile radius of Nic Nak . If Nic Nak is granted a Major Variance to peddle liquor it will make 19.

We chose an approximately 1 mile geographic limitation for our assessment as it takes only 15-20 minutes to walk one mile, 5-7 minutes to bicycle one mile and 1-2 minutes to drive one mile (not counting wait times at lights). A one mile geographic boundary gives a reasonably convenient radius for all modes of travel and provides a more comprehensive assessment of over-concentration than does a much smaller census tract.

This assessment does not include the many on-sales liquor outlets such as the Starry Plough, the White Horse Bar and Inn, Valparaiso, Dorsey's Lockers and Nick's Lounge where disturbances have included everything from people being drunk in public, to drunken bar fights, shootings, stabbings and even murders (Dorsey's Lounge and Nick's Lounge). This assesment also does not include the liquor stores that have already been shut down as public nuisances.

T and K Market
6342 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex.

Alcatel

6363 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland

Approximately 0.30 miles from Nic Nak.

Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.

Documented problems include: None.

Aiban Market
701 60th Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.45 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, drug dealing, and public drinking. Three confirmed sales to underage minors documented by ABC.

Stanford Market
3400 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, and littering. Frequented by south Berkeley gang members.

M and H Market and Liquor
Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, littering, graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.

Uptown Market and Liquors
5635 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkennes, drug dealing, boom cars, unauthorized hip hop promotion, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members.

Alcatraz Market
1601 Alcatraz Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, drug dealing, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.

Williams Liquors
5830 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.57 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex. Drive by shootings at corner of 58th and Telegraph.

Berkeley Bowl
6363 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.62 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Aggressive panhandling.

Black and White Liquors
3027 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.72 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Averted declaration of public nuisance by City of Berkeley Zoning Board 5-4. Public drunkenness, public urination, defecation and vomitting on nearby residential streets, litter, and graffiti. Site of violent crimes including recent day-time pistol whipping and armed robbery of a woman. Currently under severe operational restrictions.

M and B Liquors and Groceries
6310 Market Street, Berkeley
Approximately 0.73 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkeness.

ASA Liquor Store
5909 Market Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.74 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkenness.

Whole Foods
3000 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.79 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.

Safeway
6310 College Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.80 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.

King's Market
5442 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.00 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Graffiti, litter, and minor loitering.

Adeline Liquors and Market
5702 Adeline Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 1.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loiteiring, public drunkeness, littering, and graffiti.

East Bay Liquors
5350 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.06 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, cigarrettes, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the Cit of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Public drunkenness, loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Involved in several shootings including a killing by an Oakland Police Officer.

Andronicos
2655 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 1.18 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students.

Nic Nak Liquors--At What Cost to Our Youth

As many of you know, the proposal to open Nic Nak Liquors at 6400 Shattuck Avenue has stirred a tremendous amount of controversy in North Oakland. Many of those opposed to Mr. Ashrious Pannell's proposed liquor store cite an over abundance of existing liquor stores in North Oakland and the nuisance many have become in terms of loitering, public drunkenness, litter, graffiti, drug dealing and violence. They point to the many existing liquor stores, such as T and K Market which is less than 80 feet away from Nic Nak, and note that North Oakland and South Berkeley do not need more liquor stores. Those in support of Mr. Pannell's application praise him as a good businessman and former Alameda County Sheriff that runs a tidy store and will not tolerate any of the problems that typically plague other liquor stores and convenience markets.

Nevertheless, we have raised the question--who profits and who pays the cost of another liquor store in our community? Our conclusion is that if Mr. Pannell is granted a Major Variance to locate another liquor store within 1000 feet of an existing liquor store, he will reap the profit at the expense of the community. As you will see, the costs to the Community include our children.

In researching the link between crime and the concentration of liquor stores, we came across a really interesting study, Oakland on the rocks, Surveying Teens about Alcohol 'n Oakland. This report was published in 2005 by the Environmental Prevention in Communities (EPIC) and Alameda County Public Health Department.

The report concludes that Alcohol use among Oakland youth is a serious problem that requires creative environmental prevention interventions. Oakland youth are significantly influenced by media messages and over-concentration of alcohol outlets.There are major disparities by race, gender and age such that older boys are likely to drink more often and binge drink; and White and Hispanic youth drink more often than Black or Asian youth. The good news is that young people (87%) are aware of the consequences of drinking and driving and perceive it as dangerous. The difficulty is that underage drinking is still considered a rite of passage, a lesser evil than drugs and a social norm. The mixed messages young people receive about drinking are prolific. TV, billboards, peers, sports events, movies and possibly even parental behavior all contribute to mixed signals. More environmental prevention efforts are necessary to challenge the media and alcohol industry’s dominance over our youth’s sensory environment. Strategies include limiting access to alcohol, and providing creative options for healthy youth development.

Drinking Patterns

• About 1 in 4 Oakland youth has had a drink in the last 30 days.

• Boys drink more often than girls (22% vs. 13%).

• White & Hispanic youth have significantly higher rates of drinking than Black and Asian youth.

• Binge drinking is a major concern. The majority (42%) say it takes 5 or more drinks to get drunk.

• On average, 22% of Oakland youth started drinking alcohol before the age of 11. More than 50% had their first drink by the time they were 13.

Access to Alcohol

• Most youth in Oakland report getting their alcohol from a liquor store or supermarket (46%), friends or at party(33%), or parents/house (25%). Many report that relatives/siblings (20%) or older adults (18%) also play a major role in providing access to alcohol.

Reasons for drinking

• Most young people drink because of stress (59%), because it feels good (57%), or peer pressure (56%).

• Most say that being aware of the consequences (38%), accidents (38%) or the stories they have heard (33%)related to alcohol use would prevent them from drinking at all or too much.



Environmental influences

• More than 60% of youth on average have seen alcohol ads on TV or magazines and sporting events.

• Youth report most parents (62%) are not comfortable with their youth drinking anywhere.

Consequences of Drinking

• An astonishing 41% have gone for a ride in a car with a drunk driver. A significantly higher proportion of youth who have had a drink in the last 30 days have ridden in a car with a drunk driver (58%), compared to 34% of non-drinkers.

Recommendations

The youth at EPIC have put together these recommendations for local communities to take into consideration:

• Reduce young people’s access to alcohol through their parents and other adults by developing an educational media campaign on underage drinking directed at adults.

• Reduce young people’s access to alcohol through the retail environment by requiring strong enforcement of laws against selling alcohol to minors.

• Provide funding for grassroots youth organizations to take action on community alcohol problems. Support and expand youth programs that foster youth empowerment and education.

• Limit alcohol ads in the media, especially on radio stations that play popular music. Promote alcohol-free sponsorship at community events.

• Place store liquor ads away from the clear sight of children and youth. These ads should be at least 4 feet high, and out of windows and doors to improve visibility into and out of stores.

• Raise awareness among government and lawmakers that alcohol use is a serious problem. Make it a priority to educate adults and young people about the consequences of drinking.

What is interesting about the study is the conclusion that Oakland youth are significantly influenced by media messages and over-concentration of alcohol outlets. Additionally, an astonishing 46% of youth report getting their alcohol from a liquor store or supermarket. The recommendations include limiting access to alcohol and educating government and lawmakers about the serious problem of alcohol use among Oakland youth. Despite these type of studies, the City wants to add to the already overwhelming number of liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley.

The City of Oakland Planning Staff had proposed approving the convenience store, but denying Mr. Pannell a Major Variance to peddle liquor in North Oakland. Then the Planning Commission, led by the now departed Commissioner Anne E. Mudge, requested the Planning Staff return with findings for approval of the alcohol sales, despite opposition by the East Lorin Neighborhood, the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council and nearby business owners. This was based on Mr. Pannell's portrayal of himself as a victim of the City bureaucracy, racism, and gentrification. While there is not a shred of evidence in the administrative record that the property qualifies for a Major Variance, the Planning Commission is poised to approved this project and add to the already overwhelming number of liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley.

Mr. Pannell, we ask again, who pays the cost and who profits? As a self-proclaimed pillar of the community and a former Sheriff, you of all people should know the cost to our community and to our youth.

Nic Nak Liquors--A Community in Disagreement

Our recent blog about Mr. Pannell's efforts to get a Major Conditional Use Permit and Major Variance to sell liquor at 6400 Shattuck seems to have generated quite a few of comments. More than any other We Fight Blight Blog, this post, like Mr. Pannell's proposal, has garnered quite a bite of controversy. There are now 50 comments on the original post.

Mr. Pannell, for unknown reasons, requested the City continue his item until October 7, 2009. As you may recall, the City had placed this matter on the Planning Commission's Consent Calendar. However, the Planning Department has now advised us that based on several requests from the Community, the matter will no longer be placed on the Consent Calendar, but will require a full public hearing. This will allow the public to weigh in on the proposed conditions and findings of approval, both of which are inadequate. Several theories have been advanced as to why Mr. Pannell requested a continuance including the following: (1) Mr. Pannell is unwilling to accept some of the City's conditions for approval and is trying to lobby Planning Commissioners through ex-parte discussion to remove several of the conditions; and/or (2) Mr. Pannell is feeling the heat and wants to get some space between the media attention and his Planning Commission vote. There are two new Commissioners who have not indicated where they stand on this matter and their vote will be crucial as to whether Mr. Pannell is allowed to peddle liquor in North Oakland. What we do know is that Mr. Pannell has already begun to implement several of the conditions that are under consideration for his permit, including modifying the Nic Nak pole sign and installing security lighting. Whether these are being done with the approval of the City and appropriate building and demolition permits is unclear.

Between now and the next Planning Commission Meeting on October 7, We Fight Blight will be posting several follow-up articles that explore the over-saturation of problem liquor stores in North Oakland and deconstructs the unorthodox and highly unusual findings that "historical relevance equates to a unique or extraordinary physical condition" necessitating a Major Variance.

We do have to note that when rereading the comments to date, there seems to be consistent and repeated approach by those who support Mr. Pannell in his effort to sell liquor. These comments appear to be written by the same person or by the same small group of people posting as different members of the community. One of the ideas presented by these posters is that the author of this blog and those that support the denial of Mr. Pannell's liquor license are liars. That we are purposefully and collectively propagating lies about Mr. Pannell and his business--apparently, if you cannot provide a rational argument for your case, then smear the opposition as liars. While We Fight Blight does not support this liquor store because of the inextricable link in North Oakland between liquor stores, blight and crime, we have endeavored to report what is factually correct, what has been stated by Mr. Pannell and his supporters, and to make it clear where we are lending our opinion or our inferences.

Rather than foisting the term liar upon those who argue against Mr. Pannell's ability to peddle liquor, we would appreciate a more civilized dialogue that avoids personalizing this disagreement. We felt it was inappropriate for Mr. Pannell, at the public hearing, to suggest and state that those who opposed his permit were rascist, gentrifiers, and newcomers who were opposed to black-owned businesses. That is simply not true. Those opposed to Mr. Pannell's request to sell liquor are concerned about the over-saturation of liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley, and the fact that, on the whole, liquor stores have been magnets for crime, litter, graffiti, loitering and drug dealing. This linkage has been abundantly and consistently documented in North Oakland and South Berkeley by the Oakland and Berkeley Police, the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, neighborhood associations, the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Action Network and by those neighbors who suffer daily the consequences of liquor stores. Those opposing the liquor store do not oppose Mr. Pannell. They simply don't want another liquor store because of the quality of life issues associated with liquor stores. It has nothing to do with Mr. Pannell as a person and everything to do with the problems that liquor stores attract.

We had hoped Mr. Pannell and his supporters would argue the merits of his case based on the requirements of Oakland land use regulations and law. The laws apply to all equally. Unfortunately, he and his entourage chose to make this personal by framing this disagreement over a proposed land use in ways that are irrelevant to the legal question at hand which is whether his proposed use of 6400 Shattuck meet the findings and requirements of a Major Conditional Use Permit and Major Variance. Neither Mr. Pannell nor any of his supporters have provided any evidence whatsoever to support that his lot suffers from a unique or extraordinary physical or topographic constraint that merits an exception to existing land use requirements. Hence the City's legal gymnastics to create some justification to approve this use as the City Planning Commission directed. In all of the posts, his supporters continue to use irrelevant and extraneous arguments that frankly have no merit when it comes to judging the validity of his application or they attack the posters and this author as being liars.

Please argue the merits of the case, do not smear each other or personalize this issue. At the end of the day, we all will continue to live in North Oakland--at least most of us.

One of the issues brought up consistently is that somehow the denial of the Major Conditional Use Permit and Major Variance is going to be an economic hardship on Mr. Pannell. The fact is that unless Mr. Pannell has opened his personal and business accounting books to anyone, no one knows the financial repercussions a denial of liquor sales will have on Mr. Pannell. To our knowledge, Mr. Pannell has not provided a business plan or business pro-forma that shows he cannot operate a convenience store without liquor sales profitably. We do not know if Mr. Pannell has the capital to develop the site for another use acceptable to the community. What we do know is that Mr. Pannell owns a home in Clear Lake and a residence in Trestle Glen neighborhood of Oakland. We know that he owns the property at 6400 Shattuck and owns a liquor license. We know that he is a retired Alameda County Sheriff and it is likely that he has a pension from the County. We also know that he owns a recreational vehicle that is parked in front of Nic Nak. We also know that he claims his family once controlled 30% of all black-owned businesses in North Oakland. We have no idea what his current liabilities are and what his balance sheet shows. Frankly, the discussion about his financial situation is totally irrelevant.

According to the City of Oakland, A Variance is permission to depart from the development standards, or setbacks, of the zoning district. Variances provide the discretion and flexibility to resolve difficulties or hardships that may be inappropriate where special or extraordinary circumstances occur on the property. These circumstances do not mean economic hardship; rather, they refer to topographic or physical attributes of the site that do not allow for the development standards of the Zoning District to be applied.

Note: Economic hardship is not a criteria for approval or denial. It is irrelevant to the decision at hand. So all of the conjecture about his financial situation is irrelevant. Moreover, it is irrelevant as to whether Mr. Pannell can make some other viable use of his property. It is not the Community's responsibility to plan his site and ensure that he makes a profit. A financial investment does not guarantee a profit. Mr. Pannell has a fundamental responsibility to show why his project meets the requirements for a Major Condition Use Permit and Variance for liquor sales. We believe that he and his supporters have not met this burden. They have talked and talked about everything under the sun to create a distraction from the fundamental legal question. That is a good strategy when you have no legal foundation for your proposed land use. But it is not a basis to approve the project as the Planning Commission suggests. Their flawed reasoning will only invite legal scrutiny.

Speaking about distractions, Dr. Rockwell has posted that we are baring the facts based on fiction and that we are making judgements based on stereotypes and too much TV. Perhaps Mr. Rockwell is interested in speaking directly with the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council or the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Action Network or the Berkeley and Oakland Police as to the effect liquor stores have on public health and blight and crime. This is not TV or fiction. This is the reality of North Oakland and liquor stores.

Both the City of Oakland and the City of Berkeley have taken rather drastic action to declare some liquor stores a public nuisance and shut them down. We agree that not all liquor stores are nuisances. However, we are not interested in additional liquor stores in our Community because North Oakland and South Berkeley already have an abundance of liquor stores selling hard liquor and a good number of these are problem outlets. The cost of liquor stores goes well beyond the immediate impact to the nearest neighbors. The whole community suffers. There is a cost to taxpayers in increased police (if you can get it in Oakland) and emergency medical responses for alcohol related crimes and the devastating effects of alcoholism on families. Who should know this more than Mr. Pannell? We find it surprising that a former Alameda County Sheriff and a self-proclaimed pillar of the African-American community would not know or at least not seem to understand or care about the concerns neighborhs have about the nuisance activities caused by liquor stores and the public health damage to the African-American Community in Oakland caused, in part, by abundantly available liquor. Clearly, this is a situation where an individual is expecting that the economic return on his investment is more important than any cost he imposes on the Community.

So Mr. Pannell, who pays the cost and who reaps the profit?

We invite you, Mr. Pannell, to submit a guest post on We Fight Blight. We want to hear your story. We will give you an unedited platform to address our readers and the community. Just send your post to wefightblight@yahoo.com and we will post it for you.

Nic Nak Liquors---A Liquor Store Coming to Your Neighborhood Soon

North Oakland and South Berkeley are littered with liquor stores. The blighting effect of these car-oriented businesses is far and wide--litter, graffiti, loitering, boom cars, drug dealing, vandalism, and even murder. Neighbors living near liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley have had their quality of life greatly diminished by liquor stores and their patrons. Neighbors have reported drunks passed out on their lawns, bottles and cans strewn about, cars broken into and rifled through for change, and fear of alcohol-fueled disputes that end in violence, sometimes even in death.

South Berkeley and North Oakland residents have fought hard to severely limit and shut down several nuisance liquor stores. The Shattuck Crime Prevention Council has worked diligently to address crime and nuisance activities that emanate from these outlets, such as Uptown Market on Shattuck Avenue. There is little doubt that liquor stores and the ubiquitous mini-markets that sell alcohol are magnets for problems. Owners and operators have little incentive or ability to police those patrons who cause significant quality of life issues in the community because they are fearful of reprisals from violent drunks and gang members. Moreover, the owners make significant money selling single serving alcohol and fortified liquors to these patrons.

Given the problematic nature of liquor stores and mini-markets that sell alcohol, why on earth would the Oakland Planning Commission bend over backwards to approve a Major Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow another liquor store in North Oakland--particularly when the City's own Planning and Legal Staff were set to recommend denial of the alcohol sales? Why? Because of race, gentrification and an outcry to retain black-owned businesses. Nothing in the administrative record, testimony from members of the community at the public hearing, analysis by City Planning and Legal Staff or discussion by the City Planning Commission provides a legal or factual basis to support findings for a Major Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow another liquor store.

Nic Nak Liquors, which is located at 6400 Shattuck Avenue on the corner of Shattuck and Alcatraz is owned by Ashrious Pannell Sr. He has owned the property for the last forty years and has at times operated a convenience and liquor store at that location. In 2004, Mr. Pannell of his own accord, shut down his convenience and liquor store. According to Mr. Pannell, he did so because he was ill. One fact is incontrovertible; Mr. Pannell was completely shut down and out of the liquor business for at least five years. On April 28, 2004, the City Planning Department informed Mr. Pannell (the property owner and business operator) by letter, that because he had shut down for more than 90 days his permit for liquor sales had been revoked and he would have to renew his permit. In essence, his Deemed Approved Status as a legal nonconforming use had lapsed. During the 10-day appeal period, Mr. Pannell failed to appeal the Planning Department's revocation and during the five year period he was shut down failed to apply for a Major Conditional Use Permit and Variance to continue the liquor sales. All the while, Mr. Pannell retained his liquor license, which is governed by State regulation and the Alcohol Beverage Control. Several times he attempted to sell his liquor license, but the buyers backed out. Most likely because Mr. Pannell had lost his Deemed Approved Status as a legal nonconforming use.

In Spring of 2009, Mr. Pannell, using a different business name, J0 Jo's, applied for an over the counter permit from the City of Oakland Planning Department to re-establish his liquor sales as if it were a Deemed Approved, legal nonconforming use. City Staff erroneously then issued Mr. Pannell a permit and he re-opened and began selling liquor. When residents and neighbors, including the East Lorin Neighborhood Association and the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, realized that Mr. Pannell was selling liquor, they contacted the City Planning Department and requested an evaluation of his permit. The City, under Zoning Administrator Scott Miller, determined the over the counter permit had been issued in error, rescinded the permit and requested that Mr. Pannell cease liquor sales and apply for a Major Conditional Use Permit and a Variance since his Deemed Approved Status had lapsed and his business is located within 1,000 feet of an existing liquor store.

What is critical here is that the approved public policy of the City Council is to limit the establishment of new liquor stores, prevent the over saturation of liquor stores in certain areas that already have an abundance of liquor outlets, and prevent liquor stores from clustering.

The City states that: The prevalence of retail liquor sales is an important public policy issue in Oakland. The City Council has determined that there is an over-concentration of off-sale liquor facilities and that there has been a great deal of documented nuisance and other public safety problems due to the prevalence of retail liquor outlets and the conditions under which some of these stores operate. Therefore, the Council has decided to invoke its police power to control the manner, extent, type and other operational characteristics of this type of activity through the Conditional Use Permit procedure in Planning Code Section 17.134. All commercial zones, require that a use permit be approved prior to allowing retail liquor sales. This use permit process provides for public notification and hearing, assessment of extent and nature of liquor sales activity in relation to other retail sales and the conditions and requirements within which the sales will occur including type of liquor sold, extent of floor area devoted to liquor sales, hours of operation, security and anti-loitering provisions, etc.

The requirements of a Variance are specifically related to topography and physical constraints and are somewhat difficult to meet. This link to the City of Oakland website provides detailed information to applicants as to what findings an applicant must meet for the City to approve a Variance. http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/revised/planningzoning/ZoningSection/Forms/Variance%20findings%20(07-13-04).pdf

The City website states that: A Variance is permission to depart from the development standards, or setbacks, of the zoning district. Variances provide the discretion and flexibility to resolve difficulties or hardships that may be inappropriate where special or extraordinary circumstances occur on the property. These circumstances do not mean economic hardship; rather, they refer to topographic or physical attributes of the site that do not allow for the development standards of the Zoning District to be applied.

According to the City, Variances in circumstances like the Nic Nak Liquor Store are granted only when all four of the following findings can be made:

Unique Circumstance that is Specific to the Property
The strict compliance with the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning regulations, due to unique physical or topographic circumstances or conditions of design; or as an alternative in the case of a minor variance, that such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution improving livability, operational efficiency or appearance.

Minimizes the Differences Between Properties in the Same Zoning District
That strict compliance with the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of similarly zoned property; or as an alternative in the case of a minor variance, that such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution fulfilling the basic intent of the applicable regulation.

No Adverse Impacts to the Neighborhood
That the Variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the character, livability, or appropriate development of abutting properties of the surrounding area, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or contrary to adopted plans or development policy.

No Special Privilege
That the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning regulations.

The City Planning Staff in their original staff report dated August 5, 2009, recommended denial of the liquor sales, but approval of the convenience market. http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/revised/planningzoning/Commission/August-5-2009/Item4/6400shattuck1.pdf

The staff report noted that: The proposed Variance to the 1,000 foot separation standard in a neighborhood could set a precedent for other alcohol sales applications in the area...Allowing alcohol sales uses to cluster closer than the 1,000 foot radius could be detrimental to the vitality of an emerging commercial and mixed-node....Staff recommends denial of the Major Variance and Conditional Use Permit for Alcoholic Beverage Sales. The findings required by the Oakland Planning Code are not fulfilled in this case. Granting the request would cause an adverse precedent. The liquor store lost its legal status 5 years ago and community demand has been well-served by other Alcoholic Beverage Sales locations. A neighboring market already provides beer and wine services to the immediate Shattuck neighborhood. Several other liquor stores provide services near the edge of the 1,000 foot radius from this store; and this additional venue for liquor is not necessary. The potential for adverse secondary effects, such as loitering and littering, would likely increase with another operator in the future.

This appeared to an open and shut case for denial. However, the public hearing turned the tide. Mr. Pannell, who is an elderly African-American, brought a legion of supporters to the Planning Commission, almost all, with a few exceptions were African-American, including family members, his minister, members of his church, the Black Chamber of Commerce, and members of the controversial Uhuru Group. Most, but not all, of his supporters are not residents of the East Lorin Neighborhood. Those opposing his application to sell liquor were almost all white and included members of the East Lorin Neighborhood Association, the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council and other neighborhood business owners.

In introducing the matter, the City Planner, David Valeska, noted to the Planning Commissioners that they were likely to hear much testimony that was irrelevant to the issue at hand and that they needed to focus on the legal requirements for meeting a Major Conditional Use Permit and a Variance.

Those opposed to another liquor store testified about the over saturation of liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley identifying approximately 19 off-sale liquor outlets within walking distance or a short drive from the proposed Nic Nak Liquors. The Chair of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council testified about the extensive and sustained efforts the community has taken to make Beat 11x in North Oakland safer and how detrimental another liquor store would be. The Chair of the East Lorin Neighborhood Association noted that the only issue before the Planning Commission was whether the proposed alcohol sales met the requirements of a Variance. He also noted that the neighborhood and community was changing and that additional liquor stores were not what the community wanted to see. He also pointed out that there had been a significant community effort to curtail nuisance liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley.

On the other hand, Mr. Pannell and his legion of supporters did not provide any factual evidence or any supporting basis as to why his property and business should be granted a Variance from the requirements of the City Ordinances for liquor sales. What he and his supporters did testify to was Mr. Pannell's life story as a war veteran, as someone who put himself through college on the GI Bill, as an Alameda County Sheriff, as a responsible business owner, and as a "pillar of the community". He also testified that he and his family had been the single largest African-American property and business owner in North Oakland.

Then, Mr. Pannell and his entourage testified that he was a victim of City bureaucracy. That the City was somehow out to get him since they revoked his permit to sell liquor. He suggested that the opposition, which was largely white, was racist. He and his entourage testified that he was a victim of gentrification that was not only pushing out African-Americans from North Oakland, but actively working to shut down African-American businesses. He lamented at all of the convenience stores now owned by those of Middle Eastern descent and the demise of black-owned businesses. At one point, in an attempt to discredit the City Planner assigned to the case, Mr. Pannell and his entourage even claimed that the City Planner, Mr. Valeska, had been disrespectful to him suggesting that an elderly man should not be running such a business. In an odd moment, this accusation elicited a spirited rebuttal from Mr. Valeska denying the claims and a rebuke from the Planning Commission to the Pannell supporters not to make this personal. Mr. Pannell also threatened to sue the City if he was not granted his liquor sales. When queried about the acceptability of certain conditions such as not selling fortified liquors, single servings of alcohol or high octane beer, a feisty Mr. Pannell demanded that unless all existing liquor stores in Oakland be held to the same exact conditions it would be unfair to impose them upon his upstanding business.

At one point Mr. Pannell even claimed that he never got the City's letter revoking his Deemed Approved Status, then upon further questioning claimed that he did not understand the notice. One has to wonder how Mr. Pannell, a self proclaimed "pillar of the community", a former Alameda County Sheriff's Deputy, and an educated businessman could not understand a simple notice from the City. Either he got the notice or he didn't.

In short, Mr. Pannell and his entourage painted him alternately as a "pillar of the community" and as a victim of the City bureaucracy, racism and gentrification. What is strange is that We Fight Blight, despite being very active in the North Oakland community for the past nine years, had never heard of Mr. Pannell until he re-opened his liquor store in the Spring of 2009 and has never encountered Mr. Pannell at any community functions.

Several Planning Commissioners, led by the now departed Anne E. Mudge, who is an attorney at Cox, Castle, and Nicholson with 20 years of land use law under her belt http://www.coxcastle.com/lawyers/bio.cfm?attorneyID=180, correctly noted that it is the adopted public policy of the City of Oakland to limit and control liquor stores. Then in a complete turnaround that was both shocking and surprising, Commissioner Mudge posited that the findings for a Variance could be made based on the proposition that Mr. Pannell was a "pillar of the community" and the longevity of his business. What was so strange about her position was that the requirements of a Variance do not speak to the issue of a person's character or the longevity of their business. Variances within the context of land use law and the Oakland Planning Regulations are limited to unique physical or topographic circumstances or conditions of design. Commissioner Mudge, nor any of the other Commissioners, were able to provide any other basis for meeting the findings of a Variance. In a 4-1 straw vote, the Planning Commissioners sent the Planning Staff back to prepare findings and conditions for approval.

Mr. Pannell and his entourage played the community and the City Planning Commission. It is very disappointing that someone, such as Anne E. Mudge, with such a distinguished career as a land use attorney could not make the right decision. She could not see her way through the emotion and through the irrelevant arguments advanced by Mr. Pannell, failed to do her duty as a Planning Commissioner and treat Mr. Pannell as any other applicant by denying his application for a Variance and actually led the charge to approve his application despite the significant problems of not being able to make the appropriate findings to approve a Variance.

The City Planning Staff were left with the unenviable position of trying to fashion an approval for a project they were recommending be denied. Obviously, the City Planning Staff has struggled considerably to rewrite the staff recommendation and make the appropriate findings as there is little to no factual underpinnings to support approval. What the City Planning Commission asked the City Planning Staff to do has no precedent in Oakland or in land use law to which we are aware. They are moving into significantly unchartered territory.
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/ceda/revised/planningzoning/Commission/September-16-09/Item1/6400shattuckreport.pdf

The staff findings for approval states that: Historical relevance of the 6400 Shattuck Avenue property constitutes a unique physical circumstance. The facility and activity cannot be moved while retaining these historical associations, including neighborhood, social and leadership activities. Without a variance, the business may be forced to close, resulting in unecessary hardship inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations. Rather than protecting the neighborhood, denying the variance could adversely change the historical relationships in this part of the neighborhood. In addition, the physical aspects of the property are unique: the building is nearly the only commercial building in the adjacent blocks which is set back this much from the commercial street. The positions of other buildings blocks visibility of the building, perhaps reducing its commercial viability and making it more difficult to sustain sufficient commerce on convenience sales alone; alcoholic beverage sales may be needed to offset this condition of design in the existing commercial structure.

What is so laughable about this finding is that City Policy explicitly notes that: A Variance is permission to depart from the development standards, or setbacks, of the zoning district. Variances provide the discretion and flexibility to resolve difficulties or hardships that may be inappropriate where special or extraordinary circumstances occur on the property. These circumstances do not mean economic hardship; rather, they refer to topographic or physical attributes of the site that do not allow for the development standards of the Zoning District to be applied. What Planning Staff notes is that the business may be forced to close if it does not have liquor sales--This would be an economic hardship, not one of topography or physical attributes. The site is flat and is located at the corner of a major city intersection. Moreover, the Planning Staff's claim that the business may close if it does not have liquor sales is an unsubstantiated assertion not supported by the Administrative Record since Mr. Pannell and his supporters have not provided any financial data or business pro-forma to prove this. Morever, if the business failed, which is unlikely since Mr. Pannell has owned the property outright for many years and his operational and personnel costs appear to be relatively low as this is a family-owned business, this would be an economic hardship, not one of topography or physical attributes.

The notion that historical relevance constitutes a unique physical circumstance is absurd and turns land use law on its head. The fact that some type of store has been in operation at 6400 Shattuck for some 40 years and that the property owner is a self proclaimed "pillar of the community" does not constitute a special or extraordinary circumstance related to topography or physical attributes. There are any number of nonconforming legal land uses that have existed for some time in Oakland with a proprietor that could claim to be a "pillar of the community". That denying the Variance could somehow cause historic relationships to be severed is preposterous and unsubstantiated by the Administrative Record. Mr. Pannell himself does not even live in the community, although some of his family does. He reportedly has a home in Clear Lake California and a residence in the Trestle Glen neighborhood of Oakland. The majority of his supporters are not from the East Lorin Neighborhood. His business has been shut down for five years. Since that time, a wave of new residents have moved to the East Lorin Neighborhood and to North Oakland, the majority of whom do not even know Mr. Pannell and have never even set foot into his shuttered business.

The idea that because the store is set back from the sidewalk along Shattuck is somehow a special or extraordinary circumstance related to topography or physical attributes that somehow makes this property less viable and, therefore, requires alcohol sales to make it profitable is not factually supported by the Adminstrative Record. Remember that this store is located at the cross-roads of Shattuck Avenue and Alcatraz Avenue. Both Shattuck and Alcatraz Avenue are major transportation corridors that bring significant traffic into and out of North Oakland and Berkeley and to Highway 24 and 580. There are also AC Transit bus stops on three of the four corners. It is also a major pedestrian corridor for those walking to BART and a major bicycle thoroughfare. There is simply no way not to see the Nic Nak Liquor Store from this major intersection. It is highly visible from three of the four corners of this intersection. The notion that it is hidden or blocked by other structures is simply not true given the major intersection and the pole signage and the signage on the building. The setback to which the Planning Staff refers provides off-street parking. Most retailers and shop owners would view a corner lot with off-street parking as a competitive advantage, not a topographic or physical disadvantage. Moreover, the setback is not related to topography or a physical attribute of the site, but a choice by the property owner to develop his site with the setback for parking. Had Mr. Pannell chosen to do so, he could have developed the property similar to other historic building structures by pulling the building to the corner. This was a site design choice, not a result of some special or extraordinary topographic or physical constraint. The lot is of a standard depth, is flat and is located on a corner. Nothing unusual.

Remember all four of the findings must be made to approve a Variance. The Planning Staff cannot even reasonably justify the first finding for Nic Nak because there is no evidence or factual basis to support findings of approval. There is no extraordinary or unusual circumstances related to topography or the physical characteristics of the site.

According to the Urban Strategies Council, there are 325 stores in the City of Oakland that sell liquor. With a population of 411,775 residents,that means that there is one liquor store for every 1,267 people. North Oakland does not need more liquor stores. Oakland does not need more liquor stores. Despite the claims of some Planning Commissioners to the contrary, approval of this Major Conditional Use Permit and Variance means that it will set a precedent not only for North Oakland but the entire City.

Why does the City needlessly encourage such poor decisions that cry out for lawsuits? This case is ripe not only for appeal to the City Council, but may also be subject to litigation in the courts. The staff findings for approval are at best weak, and have no basis in the Adminstrative Record. You can thank former Planning Commissoner, Anne E. Mudge, for this morass. What a departing gift!

Although this matter has been highly controversial both in the community and at the hearing for denial of the liquor sales, the findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance is scheduled as a consent calendar item for the September 16, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting. Sadly, this effectively eliminates the public's ability to weigh in on the precedent setting nature of this approval and the incredibly weak staff findings.

Update on College Avenue Safeway

Below is a letter from Elisabeth Jewel regarding the status and an update on the proposed College Avenue Safeway. As many of you may remember, there has been somewhat of an uproar generated by a small number of residents about the proposal, which includes completely rebuilding the Safeway by moving away from the typical suburban model to something more urban and urbane. The proposed design includes eliminating much of the surface parking and the gas station and replacing it with retail outlets that front along College Avenue. Critics claim that the height and bulk are out of scale with the neighborhood. We disagree. We believe Safeway's proposal goes a long way in eliminating this aesthetically blighted development.
Our analysis of the proposed development shows that it can indeed be approved by the City Planning Commission with a conditional use permit. The biggest issue we see is how traffic will be managed and mitigated. Otherwise, an upgraded Safeway would re-establish a relationship with the street by pushing retail outlets right up to the sidewalk, exactly the model that exits in Rockridge.

See https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5611476449709631331&postID=180712594832418073

September 2, 2009

Dear Safeway Neighbors:

The rebuild of the Safeway at College and Claremont is moving forward and we wanted to update you on our progress.

Since our last public meeting at the Claremont Hotel in April, Safeway made a formal development application to the City of Oakland . The project you may have viewed at the April meeting is exactly what was submitted to the City. The development application has been “deemed complete” which opens the door for the city’s process to begin. The use permit applications and environmental documents are now being prepared for submittal before public hearings can be convened by the City of Oakland .

The next steps in the Oakland planning process are as follows:

An Initial Study is prepared by a Safeway’s consultant to analyze environmental issues. It will be available to the public 30 days before the Planning Commission meeting.

The Oakland Planning Commission will hold a public meeting in a few months. This meeting is called an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) Scoping Session for the purpose of deciding the scope of what environmental impacts the Safeway development may have both during and after construction. This meeting gives direction to Safeway’s team of consultants who will study traffic, noise, views, and other possible effects of the proposed development. The consultants will then take the time they need to research and prepare thorough reports on a variety of topics. The reports (a Draft Environmental Impact Report “DEIR”) will be available to the public for review and comment after completion.

The Planning Commission will then convene another meeting where the DEIR will be discussed. Input from the public and Commission will be analyzed by the consultants, who will then prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) which will be reviewed by city staff and the public and then presented to the Planning Commission, along with a presentation of the new Safeway on College. At that meeting the Commission will consider the environmental documents as well as vote to approve or deny the application for the proposed development. There will be many months between these meetings.

We are working to bring you a beautiful new store as quickly as possible and we appreciate your patience during this laborious process. Safeway’s purchase of the 76 gas station at the corner of the property will be complete in the next several months and we expect the station to close then. We will continue to update you as the city’s review of our development proposal moves forward. Please feel free to email me any questions you may have and be sure to check our website (http://www.safewayoncollege.com/) periodically for updates.

Sincerely,
Elisabeth Jewel
Safeway Community Affairs Consultant