pages: PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-10-24 | 10 | met with the existing changes from development along Park Street. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch how this potential development would impact leakage, Mr. Knopf replied that a separate report addressed leakage, and used sales tax data from five years ago. He noted that the most vulnerable areas were those that had not been touched by the resurgence on Park Street. He discussed retail characteristics based on demographics and geography. He noted that the Gap was not interested in Alameda, and added that retailers were extremely conservative and wanted to go into a market where they were sure to succeed, and where they would find neighbors that they are used to having. He believed that Target would serve as an anchor that would attract other medium-sized retailers such as William Sonoma or Gap. He had not seen any readiness on the part of Banana Republic to place a store in Alameda. He believed that while Target could attract the Wal-Mart shoppers, he did not believe that Wal-Mart could attract the Target shoppers. Ms. Kohlstrand liked the Target shown in an urban setting, but added that most Targets she was familiar with were not like that. She would like to go through this process in a rational way with quantifiable data, rather than taking a leap of faith. Ms. Congleton noted that she would respond to the Board's concerns. Ms. Congleton noted that she could provide a quantification analysis. Mr. Lynch suggested that a demand analysis also be performed. Vice President Cook would like to understand who some of the other potential tenants would be, and an idea of the center at full buildout. Ms. Congleton noted that she could look at some co-tenants, and the kinds of shops that generally surround Target. Vice President Cook would also like to see what would be a reasonable capacity for the center. Ms. McNamara supported the need for the Board to have more substantial financial data. She believed that an 85%/15% split was a cookie-cutter marketing approach to Alameda's particular situation. She believed that there would be a greater influx of people coming in to Alameda to shop because of the increasing amount of development in the Port of Oakland area and along the Oakland Estuary area. She noted that there was a huge upscale development on the other side of Park Street that was nearly completed. She believed the potential impact of inbound customers from affluent surrounding areas. Ms. Congleton replied that would be able to provide that information, and that she would examine the quantity of those homes as well. Ms. McNamara expressed concern about the traffic impact in that area, which was congested even without a Target. Ms. Eliason emphasized that the economic consultant was not a traffic consultant. Ms. McNamara noted that she would bring that issue up at a later time. Ms. Kohlstrand advised that her main issues were traffic, design, and the scale issue. She would like to discuss the size of the store further, which Target should respond to. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 October 24, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-10-24.pdf |