New Safeway and Gas Sales Around Town, posted by Paul, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:11 pm
I read in a forum post that the City Council had denied Safeway the ability to sell gasoline at the new store at Bernal/680. Interested in the truth behind this...starting with the question, did Safeway actually ask for the ability to sell gas? I'm not afraid of doing my own research, but I don't know the most effective way to do this.
Posted by JR , a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 8:10 am
I only know what I have read online and do not know if it is the truth or not. It would be great to contact Safeway and the city and see what this is all about. At first I was told the gas station near the area was objecting but later heard it was all the stations in Pleasanton. Perhaps there was not any representation from Safeway when the council was considering it. I doubt that.....seems it would have come up when the city saw the plans. Again I say Pleasanton would rather had the revenue to Livermore or Dublin.
Posted by Lugnut, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:49 am
Shell/Chevron Station big supporters of certain council member(s)/mayor. Uh huh---"official" word was that there was an aqua fir problem with putting another station at Safeway. Aqua fir has always been there---"sewage" drinking water debate on that property many years ago? Reminds me of a development put up on the hill. An earthquake fault was known to be there but somehow disappears where the development of very expensive gated homes were built. The fault basically ran north/south and known by geologists to be there except for the developers paid geologist. All garbage. Money spoke/speaks in both cases.
Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Word on the street is that there was a gas station on the original plans.The plans did not move forward with the city until the gas station was removed from the plans. Something about a certain ownership conflict with the gas station across the street. Hmm.
Posted by Concerned Californian, a resident of the Valley Trails neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm
This was reported as fact by Pleasanton Weekly a few months back - Safeway indeed put in an application to sell gas and it was denied by the council. I forget the grounds for denial, but it was a BS reason.
The reality is cost-conscious shoppers in the Tri-Valley are already going to Costco in Livermore, and they'll go 3-6 miles out of their way to Safeway in Dublin. Sure, that Shell station might lose some business if Safeway were to sell gas; then again the whole city loses out on the sales tax revenues and residents waste gas (and thereby harm the environment) in search of cheap gas.
The council definitely blew it in failing to look out for consumer interests - but on the bright side the liberals on the council can portray themselves as moderates for higher office by having supported "big-oil" in an anti-green initiative.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm
When Safeway first submitted its proposal to the planning commission, most of the commission was in favor of the self serve gas pumps. They only requested that the pumps be moved further south then Safeway originally wanted.
Some commissioners did not want the gas pump portion because "it would change the nature of the development being a neighborhood center to that of a freeway attraction." (Hello?...the store is built next to a freeway!!!!!)
The biggest setback was when San Francisco Attorney Jonathan Bass made remarks that could be construed as a threat of a lawsuit if Safeway and the planning commission went ahead with the self serve gas pump section. His client, Bernal Corners, owns the Shell gas station at the corner of Bernal and Valley. He said that his client felt betrayed by the city because originally this parcel of land, that Safeway is currently developing, was to be reserved for office buildings only, circa 2000.
To be allowed to build, Safeway needed to obtain modifications to the Planned United Development from the city.
Posted by justthefacts, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Bill's got it correct. Safeway withdrew the gas station from the application after the folks who owned the shell station threatened lawsuit. They wanted to get the center built and not be held up by a law suit. The planning commission would have approved a gas station based on comments at workshops. The gas station never reached the council so anyone saying the council denied the gas station is not correct.
Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:35 pm
The truth is that the city delayed there decision until the gas station was removed from the plans. Notice that the Shell station owners sold the business after the plans were approved. Who owned the Shell station? Hmm.
Posted by JR, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:31 pm
I never go to the station across from the new Safeway being built. Past the word to go nowhere near that corner for anything. What a crazy idea just the threaten a lawsuit and the council backs down. Is that all it takes to get anything down. These are the same members that keep putting the same kind of businesses in around Pleasanton with no variety....hair, nail, spas and banks. Please remember this when you go to the polls to vote....!!!!
Posted by justthefacts, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:35 pm
JR,the council didn't back down rather the property owner/Safeway withdrew the gas station from the application. The council never had the opportunity to vote on the application with the gas station!! And in fact the planning commission also never had the opportunity to vote on the gas station.
Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:53 pm
The facts are that Safeway took the gas station off the plans because the city was not going to approove the project with the gas station. The city was protecting long time Pleasanton developers who at the time owned the Shell station. If Safeway had a gas station, then the value of the Shell site would have been lower. The Shell site was sold soon after the approoval of the gas free Safeway project.
Posted by Westsider, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:16 pm
It was reported by PW that pumps were in the initial plan. While still in planning, the city signaled they were not going to approve them so Safeway withdrew pumps from the plan to get the project approved. When PW printed that story I wrote the City Council to express my disappointment that they were protecting big oil at the community's expense. The mayor wrote back that it was about the water shed. I later heard Chevron funds her agenda...
Posted by Lily, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:42 am
Wow, Shell threatening to sue Safeway; Shell paying off politicians; Safeway attempting to pay off politicians; Shell's franchise owners engaged in nefarious practices. It's great to belong to such a well-informed community.
Posted by Mal, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:17 am
Hey, on the upside not having a gas station there leaves plenty of room for a nail salon, a couple more banks, and another massage parlor, come on city council members fess up, why was the sweetheart deal made with that shell station?
Posted by mary, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:28 am
I contacted both Safeway and the City, months ago, to discuss this issue. Basically, with the facts gleened above (Bill), the city voted down any rezoning at this time, but left it open for the future. Safeway did not want to delay its development of the project and settled with the current decision.
Unfortunately, we all are the losers. No competition for the only gas station will not bring any better pricing. Some sales will be lost to those of us who still consistently fill up in Dublin, with the better prices.
AND, the topic should have been made more public months in advance, so that our voices could have been heard.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:32 am
After talking with the City Council, I learned that they did in fact vote to turn down inclusion of the gas station, saying (in addition to other reasons) that one station sufficed for that location and the local needs. That is the fact. Heard it with my own ears. The public really should have been made more aware of our upcoming amenities.
Posted by Mal, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:34 pm
When the city council allows walmart into the old nob hill space will they also allow the misc. Trailers,motor homes and taxis, to live in the parking lot like they do at all the other stores they operate???
Posted by Reason, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:49 pm
The real reason is that our Mayor Hostermann denied Walmart being able to build a superstore in town which would have included tires and a fueling station and now they must also deny Safeway otherwise they will be hit with another lawsuit.