CVS has decided not to become the anchor tenant of the proposed Village Marketplace, developer David Irmer told Patch Monday.
Irmer has been trying for years to put a new retail certer on the site of the old Lucky grocery store. It is now a parking lot opposite Pelton Center.
Fresh & Easy, a grocery chain founded by the British corporation, Tesco, had been Irmer's original anchor tenant. But Tesco announced late last year that it may pull the Fresh & Easy chain out of the U.S. market.
Irmer then tried to convince CVS to relocate to Village Marketplace and shut its two current downtown stores -- the one next to Safeway and the other at the corner of Callan Avenue and East 14th Street.
But on Monday CVS senior management decided that the Village Marketplace site did not have enough parking. Nor could it easily accommodate a drive-through lane, a must-have feature for new pharmacy buildings, Irmer said.
Irmer still has four tenants for the new development: Peet's, Chipotle, a repositioned AT&T phone store and Habitat Burger, a chain out of Southern California.
But Irmer said he can't proceed without a tenant for the largest building, and the longer things gets delayed the more likely other tenants could pull out.
Irmer said Peet's is particularly anxious to come into San Leandro and could look for a different site if Village Marketplace remains stalled.
He faces another deadline. Irmer is supposed to buy the property from the city of San Leandro by June 14. Unless he builds a retail center there within an agreed upon time the city has a "right of reverter" that allows it to take back the land -- and keep the money.
This makes it risky for Irmer to buy the property on the speculation that he will eventually find an anchor tenant, and would also prevent him from buying the property, leaving it unimproved and flipping it later.
Irmer said he and his associates will start looking for a new tenant -- a well-known brand that could profitably use the 15,000 square foot building envisioned in his plans.
He has a lot riding on the outcome.
Irmer told Patch in January that he has spent in excess of $600,000 so far on studies, architectual plans and other paperwork to pave the way for the development.
The loss of CVS as a Village Marketplace tenant will have other ripple effects on the downtown, Irmer said.
He said Safeway wants to expand into the adjacent CVS location.
And had CVS closed its Dutton/Callan CVS store, Irmer said he had wanted to buy that property and put in a mixed use retail and residential development.
Read more about Village Marketplace in the Patch archives.
What do you think should go into Village Marketplace (recalling that Trader Joe's has turned down San Leandro more than once)?
more was spent on paving,and sold in two years for three millions,Cassidy's business style. Stop corruption in City Hall before you give these criminals one cent more!!! i personally believe that this is corruption,but not a business.
The community - including me - did not want Grocery Outlet on that lot. But the community was never told that stopping Grocery Outlet from opening up would be illegal and therefore costly for the city. Note how when the second Walmart opened in San Leandro there were no protests about it - because we knew there was nothing the city could do. Now, tony, before Grocery Outlet was denied a permit, did the city attorney tell the City Council that this was potentially illegal? Did you ask?
It's even better for other people to learn from YOUR failures. And not repeat them. Go to school? We've been to the Santos School of Screwing Up. You were the headmaster.
I also notice that for all the supposed community not wanting Grocery Oulet tripe, the place sure is packed every day with all the community that didn't want it.
I'm much more curious about the potential of the site than the history in how it came to be publicly owned, though that is certainly a consideration. The city and public wanted some extra planning control, which is an exemplary goal, in my view. I violently agree with those all those who suggest in one way or another that this community planning opportunity risks being squandered. I've believed from the get go that rushing into a deal "because anything is better than a brand newly paved and well lit parking lot" is an ignorant stand for our city planners and politicians to take. Building a mistake is much worse and more expensive than putting the current plans in the drawer and starting over (or digging out a better set of plans that was shelved for reasons that are no longer tenable).
Our downtown district is central, one of the most dense and walkable districts, and it "feels" like an interconnected place. It is most convenient for those who live in San Leandro or take the BART and bus transit systems. Our planners and politicians should be embracing what is special and valuable about this site, not fighting it by trying to shoehorn in another land hogging, car dependent, big box outlet and street level parking lot.
http://www.sanleandro.org/pdf/todstrategyfinal.pdf
Before: Connections between the BART station and downtown San Leandro are difficult for pedestrians. San Leandro Boulevard is a wide street with fast moving traffic, making most pedestrians feel unsafe as they cross. Crossings are not allowed at every intersection, and where they occur they don’t give direct connections to or from downtown or they conflict with bus traffic that serves the BART station. It also is not a pleasant street to walk along. Most sidewalks face parking lots or blank walls with minimal landscaping, while in some areas sidewalks don’t exist at all. Although the sidewalks are wide enough for several people to walk together, the sidewalks are uncomfortably close to traffic, with few separations such as street trees between pedestrians and moving cars. As the gateway to downtown San Leandro from BART, San Leandro Boulevard does not make a good first impression. (cont'd)
New residential development surrounds the BART station, making San Leandro Boulevard a seam between downtown and the BART station area. Rather than a barrier to movement between these destinations, the Boulevard is an attractive corridor for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. It is visually interesting, with new residential front doors and porches facing the street, corner markets and cafes marking the important connections to and from the downtown core, and street trees on the curb and in a planted median forming a green canopy over the street. The roadway has been narrowed. Instead of six lanes of moving traffic, there are four, as well as a bicycle lane and parking on both sides of the street. With a wide sidewalk, street trees and parked cars at the curb, pedestrians feel safer walking along the Boulevard. Traffic continues to flow through San Leandro on this important north-south connection, but it is now much more attractive for walking and crossing.
I heard our newly completed multi-level parking garage design incorporates blue tiles on the building exterior "to tie in architecturally with the nearby mortuary." No joke. ;-)
The pie in the sky stuff will NEVER come to pass until it is the right time and place for a profitable business. You hit the nail on the head Dana.
Justin asserts that there is no need in our town for creative community planners or good strategic plans. We only have need of wise(?) asses like Justin (and me) and defense lawyers so that tax payers don't get sued by Wal-Mart and Grocery Outlet. Thankfully for Justin, there are copious amounts of both in our state so I guess we're on the right track....
Plus Irmer said he would develop the other CVS site into a mixed use, that corner is dead so that could be a great benefit as well.
I don't know what a larger Safeway downtown would possibly add to the downtown, other than more of what is already there (Safeway products and possibly more Safeway customers). Are you thinking of some other factors, Mike?
You would think they know better than to persecuting churches and businesses by now but Noooooo, they do it anyway to the tune of millions of dollars in lost lawsuits. We need a stupidity in government contingency plan to avert money loss through stupid investments in property and reprehensible actions by city government.
You and Tony, that's your solution--once more, with *vigor*! Double down on failure, don't think about success!
Where all the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the kids are above average.
I am saddened and confused by nearly every development of this project since the plans were first revealed for "Village Market Place." What started off as a positive goal: the city purchased the downtown site so that the local community and county can have some say in what they value and what they hope will be built (first a mixed-use, tranist-oriented, multi-level project, then a push for an upscale grocery store and a variety of good restaurants to add diversity to SL's current mix) has morphed into seemingly nothing our community asked for and already is saturated with: street level parking and existing retail tenants. Moving drug stores from one leased space to another across the street in order to grow an existing Safeway? Where has the breakdown in the community input part of the planning process occured?
You have to ask yourself: "when has local government ever done anything like this successfully before?" They can't even budget money to run Burrell Field. How can they run a new park on top of it all? lol lol
Also I don't see value in having 2 CVS stores downtown, having 1 and bringing other business's on that corner seems to be a value. And your infatuation with blaming my father for what you perceive as San Leandro's failures, he was 1 vote, still takes 4 to pass anything and that is the problem here, he wanted to can the city attorney who advised the city to take the deal on the parking lot, if he had the power you seem to think he had he would have accepted the Grocery Outlet deal. Majority rules David, or did you fail your government class in school?
The downtown Safeway /was/ remodeled less than 5-7 years ago. It's newer branding rivals or exceeds many I've shopped at within a 10 mile radius. I'd say the plus of expanding and remodeling yet again this outlet would bring a feeling of "wide shopping aisles" and "endless" choice which is anything but. This tired model, more characteristic of dusty suburbs than vibrant shopping districts, will suit our ever increasing waistlines and rear-ends as we move further and further away from getting out on the street and getting excercise. Instead of health and wellness, the current "thinking" envisions a downtown which accomodates lethargy, obesity, and chronic preventable diseases such as diabetes. Come to think of it, good thing there are so many mortuaries nearby. ;-)
1) CVS said 'no.' Therefore, Safeway's desire to expand into CVS doesn't matter. Furthermore, there *was* a big grocery store on that parcel, equivalent to or bigger than the current downtown Safeway and it failed. Making Safeway bigger across the street is unlikely to generate a different result. 2) As long as we're discussing hypotheticals, playing musical chairs with big box retailers, netting no difference in downtown is a waste of everyone's time and money. 3) As for my supposed infatuation with discussing how much your father screwed up, he's the guy who threw in the sarcasm about "all the experts" on here who supposedly know nothing about city planning, again bringing to mind, "there's an idea so stupid, only an intellectual would believe it." So, yeah, I brought in my counter. It sucks when someone points out the absolutely idiotic statements your dad says. Unfortunately, the apple didn't fall far in your case. 4) Honestly, your counter to criticism of your dad, is "he knew what to do but was ineffectual?" 5) Do you honestly think another big box downtown will differentiate downtown San Leandro and make it a place people head over to and linger? If so, you're dumber than I thought, and that's setting the bar in the sub-basement.