HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Superstore Ordinance
CITY CLERK
File # D~[ZJ~-~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 2008
SUBJECT:
Draft Superstore Ordinance
Report Prepared by Marnie R. Nuccio, Senior Planner, Jamie L.
Rojo, Assistant Planner, and Stephen Muzio, City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS: 1) August 21,2007 City Council Agenda Statement
2) August 21,2007 City Council Meeting Minutes
3) December 4, 2007 City Council Agenda Statement
4) December 4,2007 City Council Meeting Minutes
..../ Draft Superstore Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:_,/lI ~eceive report and direct Staff to proceed with adoption of a
at Superstore Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 1, 2007 City Council meeting, Councilmember Sbranti requested that the City Council
consider a ban on Superstores in excess of 90,000 square feet with over 5% non-taxable grocery items.
The Livermore City Council adopted a similar ban on March 26,2007.
On August 21, 2007 Staff returned to the City Council with an informational report for consideration of a
Superstore Ordinance (see Attachment 1). The City Council directed Staff to look at sites in the City that
have the potential to accommodate Superstore development and come back with a report before deciding
whether to proceed with an Ordinance (see minutes of meeting in Attachment 2).
On December 4, 2007, Staff returned to the City Council with an informational report on the City of
Dublin's exposure to potential Superstore development (see Attachment 3). Staff identified four (4) sites
in the City that have the potential to accommodate Superstore development (see Table 1 below) and
described the entitlements needed to develop the property (see Attachment 3).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: Applicant
File
Page 1 of3
ITEM NO.
72-
G: ISuperstore OrdinancelCC Meeting 3.18.08\03.18.08 Superstores CCSR.doc
/,,,,
Table 1. Potential Su
Pro ert
Lin Property - Area C
Dublin Land Company
erstore Develo ment Sites
Entitlements Needed
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A eement
· Planned Development Zoning including a Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan
· Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A eement
· Planned Development Zoning inCluding a Stage 2
Development Plan
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A eement
· Amended Planned Development Zoning including a Stage
1 and 2 Development Plan
· Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A eement
Robert Chen
Emerald PlacelBlake Hunt Ventures
Based on the December 4, 2007 information report, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with the
preparation of a Superstore Ordinance for consideration at a future City Council meeting at which time
further discussion about square footage limitations would be discussed (see Attachment 4).
ANALYSIS:
The term Superstore typically refers to retail establishments which sell general retail merchandise along
with non-taxable grocery sales including fresh produce, meat and bakery items similar to a grocery store.
A Superstore is distinguishable from other large scale retailers otherwise known as "big-box" retailers by
the volume of non-taxable grocery sales.
A typical large scale general merchandise retailer is between 125,000 and 145,000 square feet in size and
devotes approximately 6-12% of retail merchandise to non-taxable grocery items.
A typical Superstore is approximately 175,000 square feet in size and devotes 15-30% of retail
merchandise to non-taxable grocery items.
The draft Superstore Ordinance (see Attachment 5) would amend the existing Dublin Zoning Ordinance
by adding a new Chapter for the prohibition of large scale retail establishments that sell a combination of
taxable merchandise and groceries and other non-taxable merchandise. The draft Ordinance defines a
Superstore as a store that exceeds 170,000 square feet in size with at least 10% or more of sales devoted to
non-taxable merchandise. The proposed Ordinance would exclude large membership stores from the
prohibition.
A number of local jurisdictions throughout the State of California have enacted ordinances to either
prohibit superstores or require special impact studies; some of these jurisdictions include the Cities of
Turlock, San Luis Obispo, Galt, Elk Grove, Oakland, Livermore, and Martinez, as well as Contra Costa
County.
Environmental Review
Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, this
project is exempt from the provisions of that Act based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to
projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
Page 2 of3
environment, then that activity is not subject to CEQA. The prohibition of the construction of superstores
will not have a physical effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
NEXT STEPS:
If City Council directs Staff to proceed with the adoption of a Superstore Ordinance, a Planning
Commission public hearing would be held. The Planning Commission has the option to recommend
adoption of the Superstore Ordinance to the City Council. A first and second reading will then be
required for adoption at a City Council public hearing. Following the second reading, the Superstore
Ordinance will take into effect 30 days after its adoption.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report and direct Staff to proceed with adoption of a Superstore Ordinance.
Page 3 of3
C D"ir Y C l E IR 1}{1'~Jcx~3
file ## D~[~J1Q]=~[(2] J
AGENDA 5T A TEMIENl"
C~TY COUNC~l MEETING lOA TIE August 21, 2007
SUBJECT
ConsIderatIon of Superstore OrdInan~
Report Prepared by Chnstopher L Foss
Economic Development Director
A'I'TACHMENTS
1
City of Livermore Superstore Ordmance
RECOMMENDATION /J A,p( ConsIder CouncIl Member Sbrantl's request to evaluate the need for
(.j)'\J' a superstore ordmance and provide Staff With the appropnate
directIon
FINANCIAL 81' A l'EMENT
DirectIon to research and prepare such an ordmance would reqwre
approxunately 25 hours from the CIty Attorney's Office and 80
hours from the Commwuty Development Department
DJESClUPTION
On March 26, 2007, the Livermore City Council unammously approved a General Zomng Code Text
Amendment 07-371 prolubltmg superstores (see Livermore Ordmance - Attachment 1) The adopted
Livermore ordmance defines a "superstore" as a store that typically offers dIverse products (general
merchandIse) and customer services, centralIzed casluenng, and a full service grocery store under the
same roof that shares entrances and eXits A "superstore" IS further defmed to exceed 90,000 square feet
of gross floor area and devotes at lease five percent (5%) of the total sales floor area to the sale of non-
taxable merchandIse The defimtlon exempts dISCOunt club stores (ex Costco) where shoppers pay a
membersmp fee III order to take advantage of the dIscounted pnces At the May 1, 2007 City CouncIl
meetmg, CounCIl Member Sbrantl requested that the CIty Council conSider a ban, sundar to the City of
Livermore, on superstores In excess of 90,000 square feet, With over 5% non-taxable grocery Items
A large-scale discount superstore typically combines dISCOunt general merchandise and a full-servIce
grocery under one roof The average superstore IS between 150,000 sf to 200,000 sf Staff has found
that a number of other JurJSdIctlons have enacted superstore prohibItions mcludmg the Cities of Santa
Mana, Arroyo Grande, San LUIS ObISpo, San FranCISCo> Oakland> Turlock. Martmez as well as Contra
Costa County The prolubItlons generally lImIt superstores to no more than 10% of thelI gross floor area
dedtcated to non-taxable grocery Items
------------------------------------~---~.------------------------------------------------------------------
COpy TO
Page) of2
G \Chns\Supcrstore\Agenda Slatemenl August 7 2007 doc
/2--y.--Ot 7 a
ATTACHMENT 1
Staff has completed no addItIonal research to date on the concept ofprohlbltmg superstores m Dubhn ~ (,~.~.3
the CIty Counctl were to drrect Staff to work on tIns item, Staff could look mto, among other thmgs
o A defimtton of large format (bIg box) retad stores and dIfferentiate the vanous subcategones
(discount stores, dIscount superstores, and dtscount club stores)
o RegulatJ.on of floor space devoted to non-taxable Items
o ExemptIon of dIscount memberslnp stores
o Requrrement to prepare an economIC Impact analysiS for stores 100,000 s f and larger
o ProlubItlOn of superstores over a certam stze WIth a percentage of gross floor area dedIcated to
non-taxable grocery Items
Staff estImates that, If so dIrected, It would take 25 hours oftlme from the CIty Attorney's Office and 80
hours of Staff tIme from Commumty Development Department to complete the research and prepare the
reports and related ordmance(s)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the CIty CouDell conSIder Councll Member SbrantI' s request to evaluate the need
for a superstore ordmance and proVIde Staff WIth the appropnate drrectIon
c2~c2
(
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIVERMORE PLANNING AND ZONING
CODE, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, BY AMENDING PART 1
(GENERAL PROVISIONS) CHAPTER 1-10 (DEFINITIONS), PART 2 (ZONING
DISTRICTS) CHAPTER 2-76 (PO-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) SECTION 2-76-
100 (REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PO ZONES), AND
PART 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), CHAPTER 3-10 (SPECIAL
PROVISIONS)
3 .~~-" c>?3
....\
The City Council of the City of L1Vermore does ordam as follows
Chapter 1-10, Defimtlons - IS amended to read as follows
1-10-597 Superstore
'Superstore" means a store that typically offers diverse products and
customer services centrahzed cashlenng and a full service grocery store under the
same roof that shares entrances and eXits Such stores exceed nmety thousand
(90,000) square feet of gross floor area and devote at least five (5%) percent of the
total sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise "Sales floor area
means only Intenor bUilding space devoted to the sale of merchandise, and does
not Include restrooms office space, storage space automobile service areas, or
open-air garden sales space "Non-taxable merchandise I means products,
commodities, or Items the sale of which IS not subject to California State sales tax
These stores are often the only ones on the site but they can also be found In
mutual operation with a related or unrelated garden center or service station
Superstores are also sometimes found as separate parcels within a retail complex
with their own dedicated parking area The superstore definition does not Include a
I
discount club store, where shoppers pay a membership fee In order to take
advantage of discounted pnces on a Wide vanety of Items such as food, clothmg,
tires and appliances, and many Items are sold In large quantities or bulk
Chapter 2-76, Planned Development D/stnct - IS amended to read as follows
2-76-100(B)(7)(a)
Superstores as defined In LPZC 1-10-597 are prohibited
2-76-1 OO(C)(8)(a)(1)
Superstores as defined In LPZC 1-10-597 are prohibited
Chapter 3-10, SpeCIal PrOVISIons - IS amended to read as folfows
3-10-370 Superstores
ORDINANCE _
4 t9;.( o? 3
Superstores, as deflnea In LPZC 1-10.597, are prohibIted In all zOning
dlstncts
The foregomg ordmance was Introduced by the following vote at the regular meeting of
the City Council held on the _ day of I 2007
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meeting of the CIty CouncIl held on
, 2007, by the followmg vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
MAYOR, CITY OF LIVERMORE
ATTEST
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY CLERK
ASSISTANT CITY ATIORNEY
ORDINANCE NO
o
o
!3 ~ ;)3
ConsIller2tBon of SlIlPerstore Ordm211lce
950 pm 86 (420-20)
Economic Development Director Chns Foss presented the Staff Report and adVised that at
the May 1, 2007 City CouncIl meetmg, Councllmember Sbrantl requested the City
CounCil conSider a ban on superstores Similar to the recently adopted prohibition m the
City ofLlvennore
Cm Oravetz asked If the CIty had been approached by any superstores WIth the pOSSibilIty
of commg to the CIty What would 25 hours of City Attorney tune cost and how much
would 80 hours of Staff tIme cost?
\..
Economic Development Dlfector Foss replIed that no superstore representatIves had
approached the CIty Twenty-five 25 hours of CIty Attorney tIme would cost $5,000 and
80 hours of Staff time would cost. between $5,000-$6,000
Cm Scholz asked how large the IKEA store would have been If It had gone through
Could thiS Issue be deCided on a case-by-case basiS If It should arise and was there an
advantage to do It that way
EconomIC Development DIrector Foss replIed that IKEA would have been 265,000 sq ft
CIty Attorney ElIzabeth SIlver stated that It was not an Issue that could be deCided on a
case-by case baSIS
Vrn HIldenbrand asked If IKEA would have fallen mto thIS ordmance
EconomIC Development Dlfector Foss replIed that smce there was not a defimtton of a
superstore set by the City, one could not say If It would have
CIty Manager Ambrose stated he did not recall the square footage of IKEA If It were a
grocery or food Items that were not taxable, then It would have quahfied That was the
key m the LIvermore ordmance, It was based on non-taxable Items
DUBlLHN CHTY COUNCllL MlrNU'I'lES
VOlLUME 26
R1EGUlLAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 361
A l'T ACHMEN'!' 2
o
o
o oj. C:<3
The Conned and Staff dtscussed that WIth the LIvermore ordmance, It was 5% of any store
90,000 sq ft or larger, but It could be any size and any percentage set by the CouncIl For
example, the Dubhn Target was about 115,000 sq ft and had approximately 7,000 to
7,500 sq ft of non-taxable food
Janll Moore, Dubhn resIdent, stated she supported the restnctlOns on the superstores
Dublm CIty officIals were finally acknowledgmg that the City was reachmg the saturatIOn
pomt of dISCOunt retaIl stores and the traffic they generated
Mark Wolfe, Cahfonua Healthy CommunItIes Network, stated he had worked very closely
WIth sponsors of several ordmances slffillar the LIvermore ordmance He made himself
available to answer questIOns SInce he was a fmmhar With the text of the ordmances and
how they operated, and theIr legahty The mtent of these ordmances that had already been
passed was to prohibit superstores There were three retaIlers III CalifornIa that had these
types of stores These were uses that were dIfferent from the traditional Target store that
was In Dublm These stores were usually between 120,000 - 170,000 sq ft and devoted
a certam portIOn of theIr floor space to the sale of food Items that were not taxed That
was not what a supercenter was A supercenter was a big box retaIl store that was
combmed WIth a full sized, full-servIce supermarket StudIes had shown the negative
Impact that thIS partIcular use had on commumties Pnmanly thwartmg~ Impedmg Of pre-
emptmg Investment 10 downtowns and In hvable/walkable commurutles and Investments,
and creatmg commumtIes of dIstInctIOn based on dlscreet neighborhood servmg
commerCIal centers as opposed to very large regIOn servIce commercIal areas The
ordmance that was passed In LIvennore, which mayor not be the verSIOn that ends up
commg forward m Dubhn, would not cover a tradItional Target or Wal-Mart or tradItIonal
IKEA He supported the deCISIon to go forward or at least explore the optIon of bnngmg
one or more verSIOns of the ordmance back for more detaIled dISCUSSion or reVIew
em Oravetz asked Mr Wolfe WIth IKEA bemg the bIggest furnIture store m the world,
why would you want an IKEA but not want a super Wal-Mart or Target Would you not
say you would not want eIther If you were trymg to ban huge stores
Mr Wolfe stated there were different ratIonales for prohIbIting or restnctmg dIfferent land
uses and If you dId not want the large amount of traffic or the envIronmental Impacts
associated havmg any large store, regardless of what It sold, then you could do what a CIty
In Sonoma County did, they saId no stores over 45,000 m theIr CIty, penod The reason
DOOlLEN C][TY COUNClIL MlfNUTES
VOlLUME 26
REGUlLAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 362
o
o
~71~3
they had attended the meetmg was thIs partIcular land use had been the subject of so much
controversy
Cm Sbrantl asked Mr Wolfe what acreage was seen assocIated WIth a supercenter Was
there an average 10 lookmg at acreage
Mr Wolfe stated that the ones that had come forward 10 CahfornIa were anywhere from
12 and 20 acres
Cm Sbrantl explamed why he brought the Item forward for dISCUSSIon Lookmg at the
CIty'S Goals and ObJectIves, the superstores were the exact OpposIte of pedestrIan-
fnendly development What were some of the alternate uses for that amount of acreage
There were dIscount stores already 10 downtown The loss of revenue between a
superstore and IKEA would be sIgmficant There was also the Impact on small bus10ess
He suggested the LIvermore ord1Oance as a model, not that the CIty would adopt that
exact text He would lIke to be proactIve 10 case a proposal for such a store dId come
forward, there would already be an ordmance 10 place
Mayor Lockhart asked If someone brought a superstore type of plan forward could the
CIty then take a look at It and decIde Or If someone had enough acreage and the CIty
allowed retall, would that project automatIcally move forward
CIty Attorney SIlver stated yes, If the property was zoned approprIately and there were no
restrIctIOns on the SIze of buIldmgs or developments then It was a type of project that the
CIty had dIscretIOn WIth respect to SIte development reVIew Issues, but not over the SIze of
the development The tune to determme what type of usage you wanted 10 your
commumty was at the Land Use level and the Zonmg level Cm SbrantI's proposal would
be to amend the Zomng Ordmance to specify that buIldmgs over X sq ft were not
permitted and that was perfectly permitted for the City to do The CIty could deSIgnate the
SIze of buIld10gs and that was done 10 a tradItional Zomng Ordmance
Mayor Lockhart asked If there was presently acreage 10 the City that would quahfy for
thiS supercenter site SIze
EconomIC Development DIrector Foss stated yes there were
DlDBLlIN CITY COUNClIL MlINUlf'ES
VOLUME 26
REGUlLAR MlEETlING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 363
o
o
~ - o-f'cQ 3
f"'.
CIty Manager Ambrose clanfied If the Mayor's earlIer questIOn was at the time that an
applIcant came In to get their eqUIvalent of a Stage 2 Zomng, did the CIty have an
opportumty to change the Zonmg
CIty Attorney SlIver stated that to the extent that there were properties that had Stage 1
Zonmg, whether or not the CouncIl could place a lImItatIon on the size of the bUlldmg
would depend on the Stage 1 Zomng However, If there were no vested nghts attached to
the Stage 1 Zonmg, the CounCil could always amend the Stage I Zonmg The CouncIl
could always change the zonmg absent vested rIghts, which were for a penod of time In
terms of dealmg WIth the Issue when someone came m, the CouncIl's hands were tIed
more then because you had the eXIstmg zonmg
Vm HIldenbrand stated she supported Cm SbrantI's request to go forward and to look at
thiS Issue In further detaIl It was better to take a proactive approach Her biggest concern
was the CIty'S small busmesses and the Impacts a supercenter would have on them The
City always supported the small busmesses
Mayor Lockhart stated she would not lIke to take Staff tIme away to study somethmg that
mIght not happen If the CouncIl, by consensus felt thiS was not good for the commumty
then, why not walt untIl someone brought forward such plans
Cm SbrantI stated that If the CouncIl was saymg that the CIty was not mterested m the
superstore type busmess, then why not move forward now
Mayor Lockhart stated thIS was not a logIcal progressIOn We had created a City of
vIllages and pedestrIan walkable areas Developers would know where the CIty stood on
these types of Issues
em Oravetz stated he agreed WIth Mayor Lockhart ThiS was a solution WIthout a
problem If a bUSIness were to knock on our door, then there was a process they would go
through that was called the PlannIng ComnnsslOn He was not WIllIng to spend $10,000-
$15,000 on a problem that the CIty did not have
Cm Scholz asked City Attorney SIlver for clanficatIon If the CouncIl made a deCISion
now, could they change theIr mmds later
DUBlLffi CITY COUNC1I1L MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21. 2007
PAGE 36~
(I)
o
o
~/ 1~3
CIty Attorney Sliver stated that there was zomng on the books, and the Zomng Ordmance
could be changed ThIS was a dISCUSSIon about lookmg at changmg the zomng for
commerCIal uses to put a hmItatlOn of prolubIt10n on the SIze of certam types of uses That
was wItlun the Councll's prerogatIve It could be reversed later However, there were
certam projects that had obtamed vested nghts to develop and the vested rIghts were
always for a penod of time Dunng that tIme penod, If the CouncIl approved a
commerCIal project, the developer receIved the vested nght to bUIld that project for that
specIfied hme If dunng that specIfied tune, the CouncIl deCIded they dId not want
commerCIal development on that property, the CouncIl could change that zorung and zone
It reSIdentIal, but for that partIcular perIod of tnne prevlOusly determmed, the developer)
has the vested nght to st1l1 bulld commercIal If there was not a vested nght for that
project, and the Counclllater changed the zomng for that property, then the developer dId
not have the nght to buIld that project
CIty Manager Ambrose stated there were only three 20 acre SItes m the CIty that were stIll
vacant that mIght accommodate a supercenter The CIty mIght have to look at tillS on a
parcel-by-parcel basIS to see what the apphcabIhty of thIS would be
Commumty Development DIrectlOn Jen Ram stated that there ffilght be change over m 10
or 15 years m central Dubhn WIth some of the larger retaIl SItes If someone were to come
mto the CIty WIth a project and asked If It was conSIstent WIth the current planned
development, she would have to say yes If It was zoned commercIal If they wanted to do
somethmg to the exterIor, then they would have to go to the Plannmg ComnllsslOn But If
they were just gomg to move m and do mterIor modIficatlOn they rrught be able to do that
Cm Oravetz reIterated there was no one knockmg on the CIty'S door There was not
problem now Why spend taxpayers' money now
Cm SbrantI stated It would be a bIgger expense the mmute someone brought somethmg
m The hours would be much greater
Cm Oravetz stated there was a dIfference of opmIOn There was a process right now that
could stop thIS If they were knockmg on the CIty'S door, they could adopt an emergency
ordmance He dId not see spendmg the taxpayers' dollars to do thIS now
DUBlLliN CiTY COUNClIL MllNUfJES
VOlLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 365
.,
o
o
/.'" "9/
i v l~ ~3
Cm Sbrantl asked for clarIficatIOn on If someone could ever move forward and say here IS
my commerClal proJect, and Without having an ordmance hke thiS that, the CIty not have a
say m It
City Attorney Sliver stated thIS was complIcated because there were sites where such a use
could be allowed and there were potentIally dIfferent eXIstmg land use approvals If you
had a Stage 1 or 2 PD already approved, the CIty would have to see what uses were
permitted and were there any restnctlons on the SIze of the buIldmg If there were not, the
City'S dIscretIon was hmlted to the deSIgn, circulatIOn, etc
Commumty Development DIrector Ram stated that If somethmg new came tn, you would
have the dIscretion through the zonmg process to deal WIth 11 through the PD It was
when you came to the reuse of eXIstmg butldmgs For example, If you had a home
Improvement store where thezomng was rather broad and a reuse came m and you were
lookmg at InterIor Improvements and maybe a change In the SIgn, then the CIty would
have a more dIfficult hme m not grantmg approval
Mayor Lockhart asked the Council If It would be a compromIse to have Plannmg
Department Staff look at what opportumtles mIght be avaIlable for a supercenter site It
was not that she wanted a supercenter m the CIty, she would not support It, but wanted to
know where the real pOSSlblhtles lIed
em SbrantI stated that was a compromIse he could bve With, It was a falf solutIOn
CIty Manager Ambrose asked for clarLticatIOn from Counctllfthey wanted Staff to look at
the parcels that had the potentIal for such a development It would take tIme because PDs
were custom They would have to go mto each mdlvldual document and review Its zonmg
and If there was a development agreement, dId It vested that zomng and look at what
latItude the CIty had It was a good first step to see what was the City'S exposure
On motIOn of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm Sbrantl and by unammous vote, the CIty
Councd dIrected Staff to look at the CIty'S exposure to the Issue of a superstore and come
back Wlth a report so Councd could then deCIde whether another step was needed
~ --
DOOLIN CITY COUNCIlL MINUTES
VOILUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 366
caTV CLERK
FI~e # D~[iJ~..~~
II t1cQ 3
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCil MEET~NG DATE December 4,2007
SUBJECT
InformatlOnal Report on Superstores
Report Prepared by Marme R NUCCIO SenIOr Planner and JamIe L
ROJo, ASsIstant Planner
ATTACHMENTS 1) August 21, 2007 City CouncIl Agenda Statement
2) August 2l, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes
3) Superstore Research Mdp
RECOMMENDATlON~lVe report and provIde Staff with dlrectJon
c:k
FINANCIAL STATEMENT None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the May 1, 2007 City Counell meetIng, Councllmember SbrantI requested that the City CouncIl
consIder a ban on Superstores In excess of 90,000 square feet WIth over 5% non-taxable grocery Items
The LIvermore CIty Council adopted a SImIlar ban on March 26, 2007
On August 2l, 2007 Staff returned to the City CouncIl WIth an InformatIonal report for conSlderatlOn ofa
Superstore Ordmance (see Attachment 1) The City Council directed Staff to look at SItes III the City that
have the potential to accommodate ~uperstore development and come back with a report before deCIdIng
whether to proceed WIth an Ordmance (see mInutes of meetmg III Attachment 2)
The term Superstore refers to retail establishments WhICh sell general retail merchandise along with full
service grocery sales Many large scale retaIlers are increasingly addmg to theIr general merchandise sales
the sale of groeery Items. what dIstmgUlshes a Superstore from a large scale retailer IS the full grocery
sales component
An average large scale general merchandise retaIler IS between 125,000 and 145,000 square feet on 10-12
acres of land with approx1mately 6-12% non-taxable grocery Items
An average Superstore IS 175,000 square feet or larger on 17 or more acres of land WIth 15-30% non-
taxable grocery Items
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO ApplIcant
FIle
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 5
G IAge"dasll007112 4 07 Supers/ores CCSR doc
ANAL YSIS
1;;~c)3
The City CouncIl's directIon was for Staff to evaluate the sItes In the CIty that have the potentIal to
accommodate Superstore development Staff looked at undeveloped land III Dubhn deSignated for
General CommercIal land uses Staff also looked at the Downtown core area In the Pnmary Plannmg
Area The Primary Planmng Area land use desIgnation of RetaIl/Office allows shoppmg centers,
however, the bUildmg configuratIOn of the core area and current successful operatIons make thIs an
unlikely area for conversIOn to a Superstore, so thIS area will not be dIscussed further
The Dublm General Plan land use deSignation of General Commercia] allows for a range of reglOnal and
commumty servmg retaIl uses mcludmg supennarkets, drug stores, hardware stores and hIgh-volume retall
such as dISCOunt centers, home Improvement centers and furnIture outlets, to name a few The General
Plan also sets forth a development standard known as Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) to estabhsh a mmlmum
and maximum development potential for General CommercIal land uses The mmlmum FAR IS 020 and
the maxImum FAR IS 0 60
Table I below Identtfies the development potential for land of a vanety of acreages Utthzmg the
maxImum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for General CommercIal deSignated propertIes of 0 60, a 10
acre sIte could develop wIth 261,360 square feet ofbUlldmg As thiS smgle story bUIldmg would cover 6
of the 10 acres, the remammg 4 acres of land would have to accommodate all parkmg and assocIated
landscapmg Parkmg IS generally calculated at 1 parkmg stall for each 300 square feet ofbUIldmg area A
261,360 square foot general commercial bUlldmg would reqUIre 871 parkmg stalls Each parkmg stall
uttlIzes approxImately 300 square feet of land area when the stall Itself, aIsle wIdth/per stall and
landscapmg are mcluded The requued land area needed to accommodate 871 parkmg stalls would be
5 99 acres, well m excess of the remammg 4 acres Either the bUIldmg would be forced to go to 2 stones
to accommodate surface parkmg (not hkely as most retatlers of super store development prefer smgle
story faCIlIties) or a parkmg structure SIzed to accept 289 of the requITed 871 parkmg stalls would be
needed ThIS IS WIthout Site landscapmg
T bl 1 D
tpt tlB d FI
ARt
a e eve opmeD o en la ase on oor rea a 10
Acres Square Footage MInimum Square Footage MaXimum
GC FAR 20 GCFAR 60
10 87,120 261,360
14 121,968 365,904
18 156,816 470,448
General CommercIal Development SItes
Only vacant, undeveloped properties were analyzed because they are the only sltes avaIlable for
ImmedIate development Four areas deSignated for General CommercIal land uses whIch are currently
undeveloped have been IdentIfied as havmg the potentIal to accommodate a Superstore 1) Lm property-
portIon of Area C, 2) Dublm Land Company (DIManto), 3) Robert Chen property (Fallon VIllage), and 4)
Emerald Place (formerly Commerce OneIIKEA)
tIn Prooerty - Area C
ThIS property is located west of Fallon Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Dublm Boulevard to
the north The SIte IS approxImately 34 net acres In Slze (see Attachment 3) and IS deSIgnated as General
CommercIal In the General Plan and Eastern DublIn SpeCIfic Plan The property IS owned by Chang Su-
O- LIn
Page 2 of 5
13 91> CJ3
Perrnttted uses on the General CommerCIal site Include commumty servmg retaIl uses such as gcrleral
merchandIse stores, dISCOunt warehouse retaIl stores, and home Improvement stores (to name a few) and
regionally onented, hIgh volume, retaIl uses such as but not hmlted to, dIscount centers, home
Improvement centers and factory stores Development whIch IS consIstent With .the zOnIng ofthe property,
as adopted m the November 1997 Development Plan, would not be subject to further zomng approvals but
would reqUIre SIte Development RevIew approval and a development agreement Based on apphcable
zonmg and the slole of the property a Superstore development could be feasible
DublIn Land Company Property (DIManto)
The Dubhn Land Company sIte IS approxImately 76 acres In Size, of whIch approxImately 60 acres are
currently desIgnated General CommerCIal m the General Plan and Eastern Dubhn SpeCific Plan The
entIre SIte IS generally located east of TassaJara Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Gleason
Dnve to the north (see Attachment 3) The SIte IS governed by the 1994 pre-zomng of the Dubhn Ranch
area which established a Planned Development Zonmg DIStnCt (P A 94-030) for the SIte (Ordmance ll-94
and ResolutiOn l04-94) The regulatiOns and standards for development of the DublIn Land Company
property mcludmg land use and mtenslty of land use are subject to the adoptIon of future development
plans, no development other than that allowed under the mtenm Agncultural deSIgnatiOn IS allowed untIl
such tIme that a Development Plan IS approved
A General Plan Amendment Study was InttIated for the site In March 2003 to study consohdatmg General
Commercial land uses on the SItes between Interstate 580 and Central Parkway and placmg hIgh densIty
reSidentIal land uses on the SIte between Central Parkway and Gleason Dnve At thIS tIme, the applIcatIon
IS not actlvely bemg pursued and a Development Plan has not been submItted for reVIew for the site
The Dubhn Land property IS currently segmented by roadways mto 5 non-conhguous potentIal
development sItes The 3 SItes closest to 1-580 could accommodate General CommerCIal development
dnd total 524 acres The smallest SIte, which fronts both TassaJara Road and Northslde Dnve, IS only
1 219 acres and could not dccommodate a Superstore The sIte between Dubhn Boulevard and Northslde
Dnve IS approXImately 20 906 acres and uhhzlllg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 could be developed With a
bUlldmg or a senes of bUIldIngs totalIng 546,400 square feet Assummg parkmg could be met WIth a
combmatlOn of surface and structured parkmg, Superstore development could be feaSible
The largest property, the area located between DublIn Boulevard and Central Parkway IS 30264 acres In
Slze Agmn, utIhzmg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 as allowed by the General Plan, thiS portJOn of the
Dublm Land property could be developed With a bUIldmg or bUl1dmgs of 790,980 ~quare feet Parkmg
would have to be met by utlhzmg a senes of structured and surface parkmg Superstore development on
thIS portIOn of the property could be feaSIble
It should be noted, however, that the Eastern Dublm SpeCific Plan (EDSP) addresses maximum
commerCIal development on Dublm Land Company property at 846,153 square feet of General
CommerCial development plus an addItIonal 56,410 square feet of Neighborhood CommerCIal Land uses
for a total development potentIal of 902,563 square feet The EDSP references development on the
DublIn Land property of between 25 and 35 FAR With addItIonal analYSIS, studIes and envIronmental
reView, It might be pOSSIble to exceed the 902,563 square feet referenced 10 the EDSP In any case,
development potential of 902,563 square feet IS enough to allow development of a Superstore The
development of a Superstore on the Dubhn Land Company site would reqUIre the adoptIon of a Stage 1
and 2 Development Plan (Planned Development Zon1Og) as well as SIte Development ReVIew approval
and a Development Agreement
Page 3 of5
Robert Chen Property
)4 ~ oZ3
The Chen property IS approXimately 72 acres and IS located east of FaHon Road between Interstate 580 to
the south and Dublm Boulevard to the north (see Attachment 3) The Site IS desIgnated m the General
Plan and Eastern Dubhn SpecIfic Plan as General Commercial An addItIonal 18 5 acres to the east IS
designated General CommerCIal/Campus Office The General CommerCial/Campus Office designatIOn
allows the same types of uses but lImIts General CommerCIal uses to 70% and Campus Office uses to 30%
(for traffic Impact purposes)
ThIS sIte IS part of the overall Fallon Village project area and a Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted m
December 2005 The Development Plan allows, as a penmtted use, reglOnally onented, hIgh volume
retaIl uses mcludmg dIscount centers, home Improvement centers and other simIlar uses The
Development Plan also mcludes specific development standards, performance standards and findmgs
which must be met at the tIme of Stage 2 Development Plan proposals, for projects greater than 15 acres
m SIze, development standards can be modified through the Stage 2 Development Plan process
The development of a Superstore on the Chen property would reqUIre the adoptiOn of a Stage 2
Development Plan whIch IS reqUIred to be consIstent wIth the findmgs mcluded m the adopted Stage 1
Development Plan These findmgs among other thmgs reqUIre that the SIze, scale and mtenslty of the
proposed development do not conflict with the character of the dIStnct and adjacent land uses Based on
the SIze of the property a Superstore development could be feasible
Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures Property
The Blake Hunt Ventures site IS approxImately 28 acres and IS located west of HaCienda Dnve and east of
Arnold Road between Interstate 580 to the south and MartmellI Way to the north (see Attachment 3) The
SIte has a General Plan and Eastern Dubhn SpecIfic Plan land use deSignatIon of General CommerCIal
The property owner, Blake Hunt Ventures, has an actIve pl.mmng applIcatton III process for the
development of the SIte A Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted by the City CouncIl III November
2007 and allows for general commerClalland uses, specIfic development standards were also adopted m a
Stage 1 Site Plan which depicts multiple freestandmg bmldmgs rangmg from 10,000 square feet to 65,000
square feet In Size Blake Hunt Ventures IS acttvely movIllg forward WIth an appltcatIon for a Stage 2
Development Plan and SIte Development ReView for theIr project
The development of a Superstore on the Blake Hunt Ventures SIte IS hIghly unlIkely consldenng that a
planmng applIcation IS currently m process for development of the sIte and a Stage 1 Site Plan has been
adopted whIch IS not condUCIve for the development of a Superstore If a Superstore were to be proposed
for the SIte, an amendment to the Planned Development ZOlllng DIstnct Stage 1 Development Plan would
be reqUIred as well as the adoptIOn of a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development ReVIew
EnVIronmental RevIew
Most, lfnot all, of the potenttal development SItes for a Superstore would reqUIre a dIscretIonary approval,
and related envlTonmental reVIew Consistent WIth the CIty'S practtce, Staff would examme the extent to
whIch any proposed Superstore would nuse envIronmental Issues not already addressed In pnor CEQA
reVIews for the SIte
Page 4 of 5
CONCLUSION
/59Jd3
Below IS a summary of the entitlements WhICh would need to be secured for the development of a
Superstore on the Lm property, the DublIn Land Company property, the Robert Chen property, the
Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures property
Robert Chen
Entitlements Needed
o Site Develo ment RevIew and Develo ment A cement
o Planned Development Zoning mcludmg a Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment Review and Develo ment A eement
o Planned Development ZOnIng mc1udmg a Stage 2
Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment RevIew and Develo ment A eement
o Amended Planned Development Zonmg mc1udmg a Stage
1 and 2 Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment ReView and Develo ment A eement
Pro er
Lm Property - Area C
Dubhn Land Company
Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Venturcs
Based on an evaluatIOn of eXIstmg SItes that arc vacant and undeveloped WIth land use desIgnattons of
General Commercial, the opportUnIty for Superstore development IS limited wlthm the commuruty There
are VdrIOUS dIscretIOnary approvals that are necessary from the Plannmg COmnllSSl0n and/or City CouncIl
for the development of a Superstore Superstore uses appear to be permItted under the General
CommerCIal Land Use DeSIgnation and therefore would not be able to be denIed based solely on use
DISCretIonary reVIew would address sIte deSIgn and development standards, for mstance bmldmg
configuratton, parkmg, landscapmg, mternal cIrculatIOn and so on CEQA reVIew would also be reqUIred
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provIde Stdffwlth directIon
Page 5 of5
l""-
e
o
N
~
Q.I
J:J
E
Q.I
:>
o
Z
J:
u
~
~
Q;
VI
ClJ
rV-'
w;;
QJ
~
o
ofJ
VI
~
Q.!
Q..
:J
Vl
t:
D.
~
Q
"-
i 0
~
...
v
--
rc
I
I
!
i
\
('\\ D
\ \
(,
OJ.
r;",LJ.()l~ ~p
\
\
\
\
, ~~(;~PJ\R~WA,Y
/\l,~ '..'
, .
\
~-
~-
t:',
c.:
.,.'
~,
>'
(:
E
0<"
l..'
~,
<:.
Ct-
l-
e
LJ
'",
~,
u.j
0;
1-'
v,
"',
l.lJ
Ci
C.
~
It'
c;:'
ri-'
<.
K;'
(\
V'
<:
l.lJ
6
C
3/IWO YON3DV
~9,
4-
~).
'?
olS>
"1v'
i>).
(,...
..,
0;.
c.,
~,
~
'-
\)cope
, " ' "~O~ ROAO
,~f\1'l~- i .
I
Co'
tIC,
~
~.
c
&;:.
~:'
g-'
2,
f
0:
'ti ..... Vl
c: E' Q)
ItJ fti ...
..J Q. ~
J~ ~ c
LlU-o
:l
o
~~
-'
:
I
I
,
/
Q) .... Vl
\J r: Q)
fti ::l ...
C:J:~
:2~(X)
ftiftiN
~iD
~
w
"-
)
\.;.
""...,~
L
.,
<>
<:
.,
OJ
0=
of:
'0
.,
li;
-a
(/)
.:
:is
OJ
w
'0
,E-
II
;-1
I ,
: i
1._:
t
0:
U"J ,~
"" :0
~ OJ
0. 0
~ '0
O[~I
lfi lfi
~ I
ll. V;
..
~ r!
~ .2
1? rJ
.5 .3
;;; ~
'" 12
li; ..
~ i
B !
f i
f! &
~ ~
ml
'"
J!l
~Itl
I
I
(1~ 08
UNJFINJrSlHrElDl BUSKNlESS
Braddock & lLogan Alffordalbne IHIoUlsmg Proposan to Address lfndUllslonary Zonmg
R.e2U1lDatlODs for the AlmdersolD lProlDertv
8 21 pm 7 1 (600-30/430-80)
Semor Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and adVIsed that the CIty Couned
had dIrected Staff to work WIth the ApplIcant to Incorporate market rate umts mto the
proposed 88-unlt affordable project on the Anderson property In order to create a mIxed
mcome development Braddock & Logan had proposed a 108-umt apartment to address
the dIrectiOn by the CIty CounCIl The CIty Couned would provI~e Staff WIth further
dIrectIOn regardmg the affordable oblIgatIOn for the proposed 20 addItIOnal market rate
umts on the Anderson property
Vrn Hildenbrand stated she was the one that asked that the Anderson property have more
of a mIX rather than Just all affordable umts It was never her mtent to ask them to make
more affordable umts She would hke the Council to grant the developer the exceptIOn
The Council concurred
On motlOn ofVm HIldenbrand, seconded by Cm Scholz and by unanImous vote, the CIty
CouncIl dIrected Staff to prepare an Affordable Housmg Agreement for the proposed 108-
umt project on the Anderson property WIth a reqUIrement to prOVide a total of 88
affordable umts consistent WIth the Braddock & Logan Affordable Housmg Proposal
dated October 18, 2005
<>
lfnlformatlOoal ReJport on SUlDerstores
831 pm 72 (420-20)
Semor Planner MamIe NUCCIO presented the Staff Report that was an mformatIonal report
to the CIty CouncIl on the CIty ofDubhn's exposure to potentIal Superstore development
DUBlLllN CITY COUNClIIL MJrNUTlES
VOILUME 26
REGULAR MJElETlING
DECEMBER. ~, 2007
PAGE 500
Attachment 4
;8 ~ d 3
.
Cm Sbrantl stated that at a prevIous CounCIl meetmg, the CouncIl had asked about the
Burhngton Coat Factory bulldmg Could It accommodate a superstore?
CIty Manager Ambrose stated that the SIte could not accommodate a superstore footprmt
Staff had looked at areas wIth development pOSSIbilItIes, not those wIth multIple owners,
multIple leases, WhICh would make It more dIfficult to accommodate a superstore
Cm SbrantI stated he asked about the Burllllgton Coat Factory SIte because It was only
two bulldmgs WIth two tenants DId Staff know the square footage of those two
bUIldmgs? .
EconomIC Development DIrector ChrIS Foss stated It was two stones and only about
100,000 square feet on the ground
Cm Sbrantl asked If an applIcatiOn were to come through, would the City have to make
findmgs to deny the apphcatiOn?
ASSistant City Attorney JOM Bakker stated SIte development revIew (SDR) and
development agreements were probably not the appropnate time to make a determmatIOn
of whether a superstore came III That would be a use determmatlOn There mIght be
constramts assocIated WIth a partIcular sIte that made a superstore mappropnate at a
partIcular locatlon, m whIch case SDR would be an appropnate mechanIsm to prevent that
development from commg In The CIty would have to look at facts at that speCIfic SIte In
order to make that determmatIon If the CounCIl wanted to ban superstores as a general
matter, they could adopt a superstore ordmance m whIch case developments lIke the Lm
Site, would be subject to that rule, and therefore a superstore could not go III at the Lm
site But m the Lms' case, they had vanous development agreements, mcludIng the
master development agreement WIth certam vested nghts They mIght not be subject to an
ordmance agamst superstores because of those vested rIghts SIte development reVIew
was probably not the approprIate mechanIsm for reJectmg a superstore unless there were
SIte constramts assoclated WIth It
Cm Oravetz stated that If, hypothetIcally, regardmg the Chen property that runs along
1580, If someone came In WIth an applIcatIon for a superstore or large car lot, he could
not see It bemg approved WIth traffic bemg what It was In the area
DUBLIN CITY COlUNCIl. MINUTES
VOLUME 26
RIEGlULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4l, 2007
PAGE SOli
/q ~ c93
The CouncIl dIscussed large developments that were commg mto the Tn-Valley Would
there not be CEQA reVIew?
CIty Manager Ambrose . stated the CIty had done an EnVIronmental Impact Report
assocIated WIth the Eastern Dubhn SpecIfic Plan, and that specific plan Identified certaIn
square footages and traffic Impacts assocIated WIth those square footages for the entIre
Eastern Dublm Plannmg area, so whether or not you have three stores that total 175,000
square feet or one store that SIze, the traffic was accounted for as part of that plan And
every time you looked at a plan, lIke Fallon CrOSSIngs tomght, those homes were
evaluated m terms of theIr traffic Impacts on the road systems as part of that ongmal
envIronmental document That was the baSIS upon whIch those projects were evaluated
You would have to go through CEQA but m the context of the eXIstmg EIR and any
changes that mIght have occurred m terms of Impacts, the CIty dId look at that
JamI Moore, Dubhn reSIdent, stated she was opposed to havmg superstores In Dubhn
That was not the type of store for that area
Cm SbrantI stated that the Staff Report confirmed hIS concerns He was concerned about
what Impacts a superstore would have In terms of economIC development 10 the area The
CIty could better use that amount of land m terms of Jobs and amemtles than havmg a
superstore The CIty was getting a beautiful LIfestyle Center m place of IKEA, on the
same parcel of land The CouncIl should move forward WIth the ban before an apphcatlOn
for a superstore came to Dubhn It was faIr to property owners before they came WIth a
plan, to let them know about the CIty'S ban, If adopted
Vm Hlldenbrand concurred WIth Cm Sbrantl
Mayor Lockhart stated It was better to be upfront WIth the development commumty rather
than fight the battle after
Cm Oravetz stated he was agamst the ban A super Target was not the worse thmg m the
world If It was III the nght spot A super car dealershIp was a great way to get revenue
The CIty'S plannmg process was a gUlde on what type of bus mess came mto the CIty He
dId not support the ban
IDOOlL][N CITY COUNC][L MINUTES
VOLlUME 26
REGlJlLAR MEETliNG
DECEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 502
. dO ;fcQ3
Cm Scholz stated she had concerns regardmg a gIant store In DublIn She lIked the
concepts ofthe.'~Mom and Pop" store She supported what Cm SbrantI was advocatIng
Mayor Lockhart asked In regard to the defimtIon of a superstore, was It the amount of
grocerIes In the store that determmed If it fit under the ban? What was It the CouncIl was
lookmg to decIde?
ASSistant City Attorney Bakker stated It was not a ban on square footage It was a ban on
stores over a certaIn square footage that also contamed a certam amount of square footage
devoted to non-taxable sales A typIcal Walmart or Target would contam mostly taxable
sales But superstores also contarned a meat department and typIcal grocenes so they
were both a Walmart or Target and grocery store combmed That was the dIstInctIon
beIng made In thIS ordInance
CIty Manager Ambrose stated that you could have a department store and a grocery store
next to each other and have the same dynamIc But WIth a superstore you had a very large
bUlldmg From a deSIgn standpomt and from the standpOInt of reuse, you ran mto dIfficult
Issues The LIvermore ban and Its square footage would preclude the CIty'S own
downtown Target
em Sbrantl stated the CIty needed to adopt an ordmance that would not hurt any of the
CIty's eXIstIng busmess
City Manager Ambrose stated Staff looked at the eXIstmg superstores and that was how
they determIned acreage and square footages m the Staff Report
em Oravetz asked If Staff would return With a new ordInance for the Council to reVIew
after CouncIl's directIOn
CIty Manager Ambrose stated yes, If that was the CouncIl's dIrectIOn
Cm Oravetz stated the CIty was solvmg a problem It dId not have If someone came to
the CIty WIth a plan for such a store, the SIte development review process would help the
CIty at that pomt
lI)"OOL][N CITY COUNCiL MlINlTTES
VOLUME 26
REGlUlLAR MEETING
DECEMBER 41, 2007
PAGE 503
dJl';fC/)3
EconomIC Development DIrector Foss stated that Staff had contacted retailers and asked
what then new prototype store would be Target's response was that they were lookmg at
140,000 square feet, WIth non-taxable sales of6~12% At 140,000 square feet, 10% would
be 14,000 square feet of non-taxable sales The downtown Target was 115,000 square
feet, WIth about 5-10% range
Mayor Lockhart stated she supported lookmg at the ordmance at a future CouncIl meetmg
and havmg dIScussIon regardmg square footages at that tIme
On motIon of Cm SbrantI, seconded by Vrn HIldenbrand, and by maJonty vote (em
Oravetz votmg no), the CIty Council received the report and provIded Staff WIth direction
to prepare a superstore ban ordmance for a future CounCIl meetmg, WIth further
dlscusslOn regardmg square footage at that tIme
<>
RlECESS
9 01 pm
Mayor Lockhart called for a bnef recess
Councllmembers present at 907 p m
The meetmg reconvened WIth all
<>
NEW BUSlrNESS
Request to Permnt Rental of BeBow Market Rate For-SaBe Umts on the BaSIS of
lBIardshllD
9 07 pm 8 1 (430-80)
Housmg SpeCialIst John Lucero presented the Staff Report and adVIsed that the CIty
CounCIl would conSider the allowance to rent Below-Market Rate (Bl\1R.) For-Sale Umts
on the baSIS of a hardshIp
The CouncIl discussed how thiS was an mterestmg dISCUSSIOn that had not been
conSIdered If someone's Job took them elsewhere, or there was an Illness, It would be a
DUBlLlIN ClI:1['Y COUNCIL MlI:NU1I'lES
VOlLUME 26
REGUJLAR MJEEllNG
DECEMBER 4l, 2007
PAGE 504
c2.2~ ~3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING CHAPTER 8.42 OF THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUPERSTORES
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to amend its zoning ordinance to prohibit large-
scale retail establishments that sell a combination of taxable merchandise and groceries and other
non-taxable merchandise and are commonly referred to as "superstores"; and
WHEREAS, there is an emerging nationwide trend towards building "superstores,"
which are generally both larger and offer a wider diversity of products than most retail
establishments; and
WHEREAS, superstores typically combine general merchandise with full-service
grocery sales under one roof; and
WHEREAS, numerous local jurisdictions in the State of California have enacted
ordinances that either completely prohibit new retail stores over a certain size or require special
impact studies; and
WHEREAS, California jurisdictions that have enacted such regulations include the
Cities of Turlock, San Luis Obispo, Galt, Elk Grove, Oakland, Livermore, and Martinez, as well
as Contra Costa County.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, this project is exempt from the
provisions of that Act based on the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty
that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, then that activity is not subject to CEQA. The prohibition of superstores will not
have a physical effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of
CEQA.
Section 2. Chapter 8.46 is hereby added to the Dublin Municipal Code to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 8.42
SUPERSTORES
8.42.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter IS to prohibit the establishment of
Superstores, as defined herein, within the City.
Page 10f2
Attachment 5
C)3 ::10)3
8.42.020 Definition. Superstore means a store that exceeds one hundred seventy thousand
(170,000) square feet of Gross Floor Area and devotes at least ten (10) percent of the total sales
floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. "Sales floor area" means only interior building
space devoted to the sale of merchandise and does not include restrooms, office space, storage
space, automobile service areas or open-air garden sales space. "Non-taxable merchandise"
means products, commodities or items, the sale of which is not subject to California State sales
tax. The definition of Superstore does not include a discount club store where shoppers pay a
membership fee in order to take advantage of discounted prices on a wide variety of items such
as food, clothing, tires, and appliances and many items are sold in large quantities or bulk.
8.42.030 Superstores prohibited. Superstores, as defined in Section 8.42.020, are
prohibited in all zoning districts.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any
provision, clause, sentence, word or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or
inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or
inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences,
sections, words or parts thereof of the Ordinance or their applicability to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty
(30) days following its adoption.
Section 5. Posting. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance
to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section
36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of
,2008.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Janet Lockhart, 11ayor
ATTEST:
Carolyn Parkinson, Interim City Clerk
Page 2 of2