Nic Nak Hearing Delayed Until May

The Nic Nak hearing of March 16 at the City Council has been delayed by City Council Rules Committee at the request of the Pannell's and their Attorney, Hiawatha Roberts. Mr. Roberts requested the postponement because a college friend of his and Judge in Texas recently passed away.  Mr. Roberts is to attend the funeral which conflicted with the hearing date. The hearing will be rescheduled most likely the first City Council meeting in May. We Fight Blight will keep you posted on the new hearing date.

Nic Nak Liquors Not Yet Agendized by City Council

As many of you know, approval of the Nic Nak Liquor Store by the City Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council by concerned residents including members of the East Lorin Neighborhood Association and the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council. A written appeal was submitted pointing out in excrutiating detail the flawed justification of the Planning Commission. Interestingly, the appeal was submitted in mid-October, yet the matter has yet to be agendized by the City. Members of the Community were told the matter would likely be agendized in January then it was pushed back to February, yet we still don't have a firm date. We suspect the City is having difficulty in completing the staff report which must address each and every point raised in the appeal. The approval by the City Planning Commission failed to adequately take into account the entirety of the public record, discounted or disregarded important elements of the public record, and then essentially fabricated a new definition for variances to approve the project.

Importantly, a new issue has been raised by the community. A review of public ownership records shows that the land is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ashrious Pannell, but the building itself in which the proposed liquor use would reside is owned by Mr. Robert Oosley. Mr. Oosley is not one of the applicants and was not on the application that was approved by the Planning Commission. Normally, an applicant for a permit must have adequate site control with an appropriate legal site interest such as fee title, long-term lease, or other acceptable ownership so they can agree to and satisfy the conditions of the permit. Also, the City must ensure the applicant has adequate site control so they can enforce any conditions that are imposed on the project or on the land. In this case, most of the conditions of approval relate to both the land and the building. Apparently, the applicants have been questioned by the City and have informed them that Oosely is the maiden name of Mrs. Pannell. While that may be the case, it does not prove or verify that the Pannell's have an adequate site interest to be issued a permit. Mr. Robert Oosley is not Mrs. Ashrious Pannell. There is a split in ownership. Some members of the Community contend the Pannells must either have Mr. Oosley as a co-applicant or they must purchase the building from Mr. Oosely or enter into a long-term lease agreement with Mr. Oosley or some other acceptable form of legal site. With a split in ownership, the existing permit approved by the City Planning Commission may be invalid. In any case, the City must clear up this discrepancy in ownership before the matter is agendized by the City Council as it may not be ripe for review.

College Avenue Safeway Moving Forward

Despite vocal opposition from a small cadre of nearby residents, the College Avenue Safeway continues to move forward in the entitlement process to rebuild the Safeway in Rockridge at College and Claremont. They have purchased the Union 76 Gas Station, closed it and fenced it. The City has also held a scoping meeting for the EIR. You still have until December 1st to identify issues you believe should be addressed in the EIR.

We Fight Blight believes the project will remedy an area of aesthetic blight by removing the gas station and surface parking and creating a relationship with College Avenue with a pedestrian oriented facade. However, we also believe Safeway must adequately address traffic as the most significant issue. Concerns about consistency with the C-31 zoning are overblown. The Oakland Planning Code provides sufficient discretion to the Planning Commission to approve the project with certain conditions. Ironically, opponents who support a paint and patch approach as keeping in character with the essence of Rockridge essentially argue to maintain a quintessentially suburban form in the midst of a relatively dense urban village.

Below is a letter from Elisabeth Jewel, a consultant to Safeway, describing where they are at in the process.

November 20, 2009

Dear Safeway Neighbors:

This week the Oakland Planning Commission conducted the first hearing on the proposed rebuild of the Safeway at College and Claremont . This meeting was a scoping session designed to discuss what items will be studied in the Environmental Impact Report.

Safeway’s architect, Ken Lowney, made a presentation to the Planning Commission of the slides and drawings you may have seen on the website at www.safewayoncollege.com. The hearing room was full of neighbors and other interested parties such as bicycle and pedestrian advocates. The Commissioners heard from about 21 speakers whose comments ranged from questioning the purpose of the rebuild to challenging the zoning conformity and asking for alternative projects to be studied (including one with senior housing). An architect representing a group of neighborhood architects presented a plan that made a small addition to the store while extending the parking area to cover most of the lot including the gas station parcel. Many conveyed concerns over traffic, zoning, parking, air quality, conformity with C-31 zoning, environmental sustainability and pedestrian/bike safety.

The Planning Commission agreed with the Oakland City Planning Department staff position that the EIR will study transportation and traffic, noise, and air quality. In addition, the Planning Commissioners requested that the EIR study the possible addition of housing, impact of the driveway on 63rd St., parking lot usages as well as bicycle and pedestrian impacts. The EIR consultant, working at the direction of the Planning Department, will now study these issues and prepare a comprehensive report in about six months. There will be another Planning Commission meeting scheduled when the draft report is released.

Commissioners will continue to receive written public comment until December 1st. In the mean time, please feel free to direct your comments or questions about the project to me. We have posted 4 informational handouts that Safeway gave Commissioners on our website. Please continue to check the website for updates. You can also read more about what happened at the meeting by going to http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/

Thanks for your continuing interest in the rebuilding of this Safeway store.

Sincerely.

Elisabeth

Elisabeth Jewel
Community Affairs Consultant to Safeway
510/849-4811 ph
510/849-4827 fax
www.ajepartners.com