As the Petaluma City Council prepares to block Safeway from building its South McDowell Boulevard gas station by using an "urgency" moratorium on new fueling stations, the grocery chain bit back on Monday when it sent a 16-page letter to the city, challenging the validity of the ordinance.
"Threatening lawyer letters are nothing new at City Hall," said Councilmember Mike Healy, who proposed the moratorium, known as an "urgency ordinance" because gives the council 45 days to address an imminent concern. "I will say that the council listens carefully to the advice we receive from the city attorney (on such letters), and I do not anticipate that the council will do anything that would expose the city to meritorious litigation."
Safeway has done its homework on the issue. The letter, loaded with legalese, lists five challenges to the ordinance, citing everything from when a city can legally call for an urgency ordinance to how the moratorium violates the company's right to due process and equal protection. It seems clear that Safeway is prepared to challenge the urgency ordinance in court, should the council vote to pass it.
"We are hopeful that the City Council will see that there is neither legal right nor necessity to adopt a moratorium and that we are thus not faced with such a scenario," Safeway spokeswoman Wendy Gutshall said in a statement.
Safeway is no stranger to disputes over its fueling center; since 2008 the company has been fighting a lawsuit over its gas rewards program in Dixon, Calif., which independent gas station owners said offered prices lower than market value, a possible violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act. Safeway vehemently denies the claim, pointing out that in June, a judge sided in favor of the company in the lawsuit. In his decision, Alameda County judge Wynne S. Carvill acknowledged that "Safeway sold substantial volumes of fuel below cost" but said that the independent gas station owners failed to prove that Safeway acted with the express purpose to put competitors out of business, a requirement to determine if the company violated the Unfair Business Practices Act. He explained that Safeway's discount program, which awards points based on how much a shopper spends on groceries, aims to expand the company's grocery business, not put other fueling stations out of business.
Jim Dombroski, a Petaluma attorney who has represented the independent station owners since 2009, has appealed the judge's decision.
Dombroski has been is talks with Healy about Safeway's Petaluma proposal, and relayed facts about the Dixon case that the council member quoted in his Feb. 20 opinion commentary in the Argus-Courier. Healy cited concerns about Safeway creating "urban blights" in the community by putting competitors out of business and leaving the city with "dead gas stations" as one of the reasons the moratorium is needed. While Gutshall said that its operation in Dixon did not cause any gas stations to go out of business, Dombroski said two of his clients, Ali Salki and Amin Salki, were forced to close down their independent businesses and sell the stations to national competitors.
Safeway has proposed building an eight pump, 16 nozzle station in the area that was occupied by Peppers Restaurant and other retailers. Gutshall said the station would bring the city about $400,000 in tax revenue annually, but declined to say how it arrived at that figure.