HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-009 Proposed Ordinance to Regulate Superstores
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 8, 2008
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative Action): P A 08-009 Proposed
Ordinance to Regulate Super~;tores
Report Prepared by Marnie Ii. Nuccio, Senior Planner, Jamie L.
Rojo, Assistant Planner, and Stephen Muzio, City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance
as Chapter 8.42 of the Dublin Municipal Code relating to
Superstores with the Draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
2) City Council Agenda Statement with attachments dated August
21,2007.
3) City Council Meeting Minutes dated August 21,2007.
4) City Council Agenda StHtement without attachments dated
December 4,2007.
5) City Council Meeting Minutes dated December 4, 2007.
6) City Council Agenda SUltement without attachments dated
March 18, 2008.
I~
1) Receive Staff presentation;
2) Open the public hearing;
3) Receive public testimony;
4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the City
Council adopt an Ordinan,;:e adding Chapter 8.42, relating to
Superstores to the Dublin Nunicipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
At the May 1, 2007, City Council meeting, Councilmember Sbnmti 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 2). The City Council directe,j 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 3).
-------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------
COpy TO: File
Page 1 of3
ITEM NO.
S.I
G:IPA#\2008IPA08-009 Superstore OrdinanceIPC Mlg 04,08.08IPCSR 04. 08. 08.doc
On December 4, 2007, Staff returned to the City Council with an informational report on the City's
exposure to potential Superstore development in the City (see Attachment 4). Staff identified four (4) sites
in the City that have the potential to accommodate Superstore development (see Table 1 and Figure 1
below) and described the entitlements needed to develop the four identified properties (see Attachment 4).
Table 1.
Potential Su erstore Develo ment Sites
Entitlements Needed
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A reement
. Planned Development Zoning including a Stage 1 and
Development Plan
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A reement
. Planned Development Zoning including a Stage
Development Plan
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo ment A reement
. Amended Planned Development Zoning including a Stage
and 2 Development Plan
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo
Pro e
Lin Property - Area C
Dublin Land Company
Robert Chen
Emerald PlacelBlake Hunt Ventures
Fi ure 1. Ma
~,
f .\
'~'\
J
'.
~11
A;,<
J-~
~
l~
",<:g
Emerald Place
Blake Hunt
28 acres
Un Property
Area C
34 acres
iles
~:!:~:~:i General Convnerclal Land Uses
_ Superslore ResearCh loeaooM
Parcels D Camp Parks RFTA l~~~-:J C.ty 01 Dublin. Sphere 01 Intluence
o Streets ~ CIty of Dullhn
e
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 5).
On March 18, 2008, Staff returned to the City Council with a draft Ordinance (see Exhibit A). The City
Council directed Staff to proceed with the adoption of the Superstore Ordinance as identified in the March
18, 2008 Staff report.
Page 2 of3
ANALYSIS:
The term Superstore typically refers to retail establishments which 5ell 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, otherNise 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 ;ize and devotes 15-30% of retail
merchandise to non-taxable grocery items.
The draft Superstore Ordinance (see Exhibit A of Attachment 1) would amend the existing Dublin
Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Chapter for the prohibiting Superstores that sells 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 excludl~ 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 the;e 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 thl~ 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 the construction of superstores
will not have a physical effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed Ordinance would regulate the prohibition of a Superstore that sells 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. In the absence of such an Ordinance, four (4) sites in the City have been identified
that have the potential to accommodate Superstore development and Staff has described the entitlements
needed to develop each of the properties in Table 1 of this Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public
hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public h.earing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt
Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.42,
relating to Superstores to the Dublin Municipal Code.
Page 3 of3
RESOLUTION NO. 08-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AS CHAPTER 8.42 OF
THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUPERSTORES
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to amend its zoning o~dinance 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 mos: 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, an:! Martinez, as well as Contra Costa
County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on August 21, 2007, December 4,2007
and March 18, 2008 to study the regulation of Superstores; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, this project is exenpt 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 cer1 ainty 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; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report dated April 8,2008 and incorporated herein by reference was
submitted recommending the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt an Ordinance as
Chapter 8.42 of the Dublin Municipal Code relating to Superstores; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application
on April 8, 2008 for which proper notice of the public hearing was gi\'en at all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations
and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project.
ATTACHMENT 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublir Planning Commission does hereby
find that the proposed Ordinance, as set forth in Exhibit A of this Res,)lution, is consistent with the Dublin
General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans, and recommends that the City Council find the same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Cc.mmission recommends that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance as Chapter 8.42 of the Dublin Municipal Code related to Superstores.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April 2008 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commi:;sion Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager
G:\PA#\2008\PA08-009 Superstore Ordinance\PC Mtg 04.08.08\PC Reso 04.08.08.doc
2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING CHAPTER 8.42 OF THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUPJ8:RSTORES
Section 1. Chapter 8.42 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.
8.42.020 Definition. Superstore means a store that exceed:; 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 mbject 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 )n 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 2. The City Council hereby finds that, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, ths 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, l:xempt from the provisions of
CEQA.
Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordirance 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
Page 1 of2
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 1
(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, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carolyn Parkinson, Interim City Clerk
Page 2 of2
1
C I i Y C LIE R KI :~3
F'lle f# D~[f]k21~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIl,.. MEEnNG DATE AuglJst 21,2007
SUBJECI'
COnsIderatlon of SupeIStore Orduwu:c
Report Prepared by . ChnstophlJr L Foss
EconomIc Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
1
City ofL1vennore Superstore Ordmance
RECOMMENDATION /1 Ai< CODSlder CoUIl.Cll Member Sbran:tl's request to evaluate the need for
/..//'4' a superstore ordmance and pr'JVlde Staff WIth the appropnatc
c:hrect1on
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
DlleCtlon to research and prepal": such an ordmance would ICqU1l'e
approxunately 2S hours from the City Attorncy's Office and 80
hours from the Commumty Devel.opment Department
DESCRIPTION
On March 26, 2007, the LIvermore City Council llnarnmously apPI1lved a General Zonmg Code Text
Amendment 07-371 prolubItmg supemon:s (see Livermore Ordman::c: - Attachment 1) The adopted
Livermore ordmancc defines a ccsuperstoreto as a store that typically offers chvme products (general
merchandtse) and customer semces. centrahzed caslnenn.g. and a :fill sel'Vlce grocery store under the
same roof that shares entrances and.exIts A "superstore" IS' further d,mned 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 mcn:hand1se The defimbon exempts ~O\Dlt club stores (ex Castco) where 'shopPers pay a
memberslnp fee m otder to take advantage of the discOunted pnccs At the May I, 2007 City Councd
meetIng. Councu Member Sbrantl requested thai. the CIty Co\Dlcd C(II1lIlder a ban, sundar to the CIty of
Livermore, on superstores m excess of 90,000 square feet, Wlth over 5% Don-taxable grocery items
A large-scale cbscolUrt superstore typically combmes cbscount general Inerchandtse and a full-seMce
grocery under one roof The average superstore 1$ between 150,000 II f to 200,000 sf Staff has found
that a number of other Junschct10ns have enacted superstore prolnbltIons mcluduig the ctbes of Santa
Mana, Arroyo Grande, San Lws ObIspo, San FranclSCo. Oakland. TW'lock. Marunez as well as Contra
Costa County The prolub1t1oDS generally lumt superstores to no mOle than 10% oftheU' gross floor area
dedIcated to non-taxable grocery Items .
COpy TO
ATTACHMENT 2
Page ] of2
G 1Chns\Supcntare\Ascnda SlaII:menI Al/CIISl7 2007 doc
12--'4-0[ 7 ~
Staff has completed no addItIonal research to date on the concept of prolubltmg superstores m Dubhn ~ ~~
the CIty C0UDC11 were to chrect Staff to work on tlns Item, Staff could look mto, among other thmgs
.0 A defimtlon of large fonnat (blg box) retall stores and chffcrci1tJ.ate the vanous subcategories
(dIscount stores, d1scount superstores, and dIscount club stores)
o Regulat10n offioor space devoted to non-taxable Items
o ExemptIon of d1scount members1up stores
o Requll'cment to prepare an economIc unpact analYSIS for ~res 100,000 s f and larger
o Prolubluon of superstores over a certaln S1Ze WIth a percentage of gross floor area' dedIcated to
non-taxable grocery Items
Staff estnnates that, If so d1rccted, It would take 2S hours of tune from the CIty Attorncy's Office and 80
hours of Staff tune from Commumty Development Department to complete the research and prepare the
reports and related ordmance(s)
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrccommends that the City CouncIl consuler Council Member Sbranu's request to evaluate the need
(or a superstore ordmance and provlCle StaffWltb the appropnatc cbn:ct1on
02~D1
~
(
3 9(' ~3
f
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 (DEF.INI~'ONS), PART 2 (ZONING
DISTRICTS) CHAPTER 2-76 (PO-PlANNED DEVELOPMENT) SECTION 2-76-
1 DO (REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PO ZONES). AND
PART 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS), CHJ~TER 3-10 (SPECIAL
PROVISIONS) .
The City Council of the City of Livermore does ordiun as follows
Chapter 1-10, DefimtIons - IS amended to read as follcrws
I '
1-10-597 Superstore
. 'Superstore- means a store that typically l:rffers dIVerse products and
customer services centrahzed cashlenng and a full SI!Nlce grocery store under the
same roof that shares entrances and eXits Such stores exceed ninety thousand
(90,000) square feet of gross floor area and devote alleast fIVe (5%) percent of tl1e
total sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchanchse -Sales floor area
means only mtenor bUlldmg space devoted to the s~lle of merchandise, and does
not Include restrooms office space, storage space automobile service areas, or
open-aIr garden sales space -Non-taxable melchandlse' means products,
commodrtles, or rtems the sale of which IS not subject to California state sales tax .
These stores are often the only ones on the site t:ut they can also be found In
mutual operation with a related or unrelated gardl::n center or service station
Superstores are also sometlTnes found as separate parcels wrthln a retail complex
WIth theIr own dedicated parking area The superstor'3 definrtaon does not anclude a
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, ClOthing,
tires and appliances, and many Items are sold In larg';! quantities or bulk
Chapter 2-76, Planned Development Dlstnct.- IS ame,'1ded 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.deflned In LPZC 1-10-597 are prohibited
Chapter 3-10, SpeCIal ProVISions - IS E;fmended to read as follows
3.10-370 Superstores
ORDINANCE _
4~~3
. Superstores, as deftnea In LP:ZC 1-10-597, are prohibIted In all zomng
dlstncts
The foregOIng ordl~ance was Introduced by tile follow'lng vote at the regular meetmg of
the City Council held on the _ day of I 2007
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
The ordinance was adopted at the regular meetmg of the CIty CounCIl held on
. 2007, by the following vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
~VOR, CITY OF LIVERMORE
ATTEST
APPROVED AS TO FORM
ASSISTANT CITY ATIORNEY
CITY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO
o
() .
!5 ~ ;)3
Consideration of Superstore Ordinance
950 P m 86 (420-20)
Economic Development Director ChllS Foss presented the Staff Report and adVised that at.
the May 1, 2007 City CouncIl meetIng, Councllmembflr Sbrantl requested the City
Councll consider a ban on superstores SimIlar to the recently adopted promblbon m the
City of Livermore
Cm Oravetz asked If the City had been approached by any superstores Wlth the posslblhty
of commg to the City What would 25 hours of City Attorney tune cost and how much
would 80 hours of Staff tlUle cost?
I-
Economic Development Director Foss replIed that no !,uperstore representatlves had
approached the City Twenty-five 25 hours of City Attoml~y tune would cost $5,000 and
80 hours of Staff tune would cost. between $5,000-$6,000 .
Cm Scholz asked how large the IKEA store would have: been If It had gone through
Could tlus Issue be deCided on a case-by-case basiS If It should anse and was there an
advantage to do It that way
EconoJIllc Development Director Foss rephed that IKEA WiJuld have been 265,000 sq ft
CIty Attorney Ehzabeth Silver stated that It was not an Is:;ue that could be deCided on a
case-by case basiS . .
Vm HIldenbrand asked IflKEA would have fallen mto tlm: ordmance
Economic Development Director Foss replIed.that smce there was not a defmltlon 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 LlvennoJ;'e ordmance, It was based on non-taxable Items
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGuLAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 361 AttHchment 3
(I
o
o
G e;F 0:<.3
The Councl! and Staff dtscussed that Wlth the Llvermore ordInance, It was 5% of any store
90,000 sqft or larger, but It could be any sIze and any percentage set by the CounCIl For
example, the Dublm Target was about 115,000 sq ft and had approxunateIy 7,000 to
7,500 sq ft of non-taxable food
. J arm Moore, Dublm resIdent, stated she supported the restnctlons on the superstores
DublIn City offiCIals were finally acknowledgmg that the CItY was reachIng the sa~on
pomt of dtscount retaIl stores and the traffic they generated
Mark Wolfe, CalIforma Healthy CommuDltles Network, stated he had worked very closely
Wlth sPonsors of several ordmances smular the LIveimore ordInance He made hImself
aVaIlable to answer questIons smce he was a wmhar Wlth the text of the ordmances and
how they operated, and thel! legahty The mtent of these ordmances that had already been
passed was to prohIbIt superstores There were three retallers in Cahforma that had these
types of stores These were uses that were chfferent from the tradlUOnal Target store that
was in Dubhn These stores were usually between 120,000 - 170,000 sq ft and devoted
a certam portion of thel1 floor space to the sale of food Items that were not taxed That
was not what a supercenter was A supcrcenter was a big hox retall store that was
combmed Wlth a fUll SIZed, full-service supermarket Stuches had shown the negatlve
lDlpact that tins particular use had on commumties Pnmanly thwartmgt IDlpedmg or pre-
empting Investment m downtowns and m hvable/walkable commurutles and Investments,
and creatIng communltles of mstlnctIon based on chscreet neIghborhood servmg
c~rnmercIal centers as opposed to very large regIon servIce commercial areas The
ordmance that was passed m Llvennore, wh1ch mayor not be the version that ends up
commg forward 10 Dublm, would not cover a trad1t1onal Target or Wal-Mart ortramtJonal
IKEA He supported the decIsJon to go forward or at least explore the optIon ofbnngmg
one or more versIons of the ordInance back for more dewled chscusslon or reView .
em Oravetz asked Mr Wolfe Wlth IKEA bemg the bIggest furmture store m the world,
why would you want an lKEA 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 restrIcting dlfferent land
uses and If you did not want the large amount of traffic or the enVlIOnmental tmpacts
assocIated havmg any large store, regardless of what It sold, then you could do what a CIty
10 Sonoma County did, they saId no stores over 45,000 10 fuel! CIty, penod The reason
DUBlLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 362
.
o
()
'1 ~cQ3
they had attended the meetIng was thIs partIcular land use had been the subject of so much
controversy
Cm SbrantI asked Mr Wolfe what acreage was seen ~soc:.ated Wlth a supercenter Was
there an average m lookIng at acreage .
Mr Wolfe stated that the ones that had come forward m Cahfonua were anywhere from
12 and 20 acres
Cm Sbrantl explaIned why he brought the Item forward, itir mscusslon Lookmg at the
CIty'S Goals and Objectlves, the superstores were the l~xact OpposIte of pedestnan-
fnendly development What were some of the alternate uses for that amount of acreage
There were chscount stores already m downtown Thel loss of revenue between a
superstore and IKEA would be slgIllficant There was also the Impact on small busmess
He suggested the LIvermore ordInance as a model, not that the CIty would adopt that
exact text. He would hke to be proactIve In case a proposal for such a store d1d come
forward, there would already be an ordmance 10 place
Mayor Lockhart asked If someone brought a superstore ~fPe of plan forward could the
CIty then take a look at It an~ decIde Or If someone had enough. acreage and the CIty
allowed retaIl, would that project automatically move fOIW2iI'd
CIty Attorney SIlver stated yes, If the property was zoned a.ppropnately and there were no
restrlctlons on the SIze of bwldmgs or developments then 1t' was a type of project that the
CIty had mscretlon WIth respect to. SIte development reVIew Issues, but not over the SIze of
the development the tune to detemune what type c,f usage you wanted m your
commumty Was at the Land Use level and the Zonmg level em Sbrantl's proposal would
be to amend the Zomng Ordmance to speCIfy that buIldmgs over X sq ft were not
permItted and that was perfectly penmtted for the City to do The CIty could desIgnate the
SIze ofbwldmgs and that was done 10 a tradltlOi1al Zo~g Ordmance
Mayor Lockhart asked If there was presently acreage m the CIty that would quahfy for
thIS supercenter SIte SIze
. Econormc Development DIrector Foss stated yes there W~l~
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINlITES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR ME~TING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 363
I)
o
o
g- ~ cQ3
. City Manager Ambrose clanfied If the Mayor's earber question was at the tnne that an
apphcant came m to get therr equivalent of a Stage 2 Zomng, did the City have an
opportunIty to change the Zonmg
City Attorney Silver &tated that to the extent that there were propertles that had Stage 1
Zomng, whether or not the Councll could place a hmltatlon on the SIZe of the bulldmg
would depend on the Stage 1 Zonmg However, If there were no vested nghts attached to
the Stage 1 Zomng, the Councll could always amend the Stage I Zonmg The Councll
could always change the zomng absent vested nghts, which were fora penod of time In
terms of dealmg With the Issue when someone camem, the COunCIl'S hands were tied
more then because you had the eXisting zonmg
Vm Hlldenbrand stated she supported Cm Sbrantl's request to go forward and to look at
thiS Issue m further dewl It was better to take a proactive approach Her biggest concern
was the City'S small busmesses and the unpacts a supercenter would have on them The
City always supported the small busmesses
Mayor Lockhart stated she would not like to talce Staff tune away to study somethIng that
might not happen If the Council, by consenSus felt thiS was not good for the communIty
then, why not Walt untll someone brought forward such plans
Cm Sbrantl stated that If the Council was saymg that the CIty was not Interested In 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 pedestnan walkable areas Developers would know where the City stood on
these types of Issues
Cm Oravetz stated he agreed With Mayor Lockhart ThIs was a solutlon WIthout a
problem If a busmess were to knock on our door, then there was a process they would go
through that was called 'the Planmng Commission He was not WIllmg to spend $10,000-
$15,000 on a problem that the City did not have
Cm Scholz asked City Attorney SIlver for clanficatJon If the Councll made a deCISion
now, could they change therr mmds later .
DUBLIN CITY COUNClIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
Augus~ 21, 2007
PAGE 364
.
o
()
~ 1~3
City Attorney Sliver stated that there was zonmg on the books, arid the Zonmg Ordmance
c'ould be changed Thls was a discussion about 100Iang at changmg the zorong for
commercial uses to put a 1ll111tatlon of prblubltlon on the size of certaIn types of uses That
was WIthin the COunCIl'S prerogatlve It could be reverse:d later However, there were
certaIn projects that had obtaIned vested nghts to develop and the vested nghts were
always for a penod of tune Dunng that tune penoc., If the Councd approved a
commercial proJect, the developer received the vested nght to bul.ld that project for that
specified tune If dunng that specified tune, the CounCil decided they did not want
commercial development on that property, the Council could change that zonmg and zone
It resIdentIal, but for that particular penod of tIme preVIously detennmed, 'the developer'
has the vested nght to stIll bwld 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 bulld that project
City Manager Ambrose stated there were on~y three 20 acr~: sItes m the City that were sull
vacant that mIght accommodate a supercenter The City' IOlght have to look at tlus on a
parcel-by-parcel basIS to see what the apphcablllty oftlus would be
Commumty Development DU'ectlon Jen Ram stated that there IIllght be change over m 10
or 15 years m central Dublm WIth $Ome of the larger retaIl luteS If someone were to come
mto the City WIth a project and asked 1f It was consistent WIth the current planned
development, she would have to say yes If It was zoned ccmmerclal If they wanted to do
somethmg to the extenor, then they would have to go to the Planmng CommISSion But If
they were JUst gomg to move In and do mtenor modIficatIon they II11ght 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
em SbraritI stated It would be a bIgger expense the mmt,te someone brought somethmg
m The hours would be much greater
em Oravetz stated there was a difference of oplD.1on Thc::re was a process nght 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
DUBLiN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 365
I)
o
o
10 r;fd<3
em Sbrantl asked for clanficanon on If someone could ever move forward and say he.re IS
my commercIal proJect, and WithOut haVIng an ordmance lIke tlus that, the CIty not have a
say m It
CIty Attorney SIlver stated tlus was complIcated because there were Sites where such a use
could be allowed and there were potentially different eXIstIng 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 .bwldmg If there were not, the
CIty'S c:hscretlOn was lumted to the deSIgn, c1I'Culatlon, etc
,
Commumty Development Dlrector Ram stated that If soznethmg new came m, you would
have the c:hScretlon through the zomng process to deal With It through the PD It was
when you came to the reuse of eXIstIng bwldmgs For example, If you had a home
Improvement store where the 20nmg was rather broad and a reuse came m and yc;>u were
lookmg at mtenor Improvements and maybe a change In the SIgn, then the CIty would
have a more c:hfticu1t tune In not grantmg approval
Mayor Lockhart asked the Counell If It would' be a compronuse 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 pOSSIbIlItIes lIed
Cm SbrantI stated that was a compromISe he could bve With, It was a faU' solutIon
CIty Manager Ambrose asked for clanficanon from CouncIl If they 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, chd It vested that zonmg and. look at what
latltude the City had It was a good first step ~o see what was the City'S exposure
On motion of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm Sbrantl and by unammous vote. the City
Council c:hrected Staff to look at ~e CIty'S exposure to the lssue of a superstore and come
back With a report so CouncIl could then decIde whether another step was needed
- .0.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL :MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21,2007
PAGE 366
.
CITY CLERK
File # D~~~~~
." ~3
-'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE December 4, 2007
SUBJECT
InformatlOnaJ. Report on Superstores
Report Prepared by Marnze R Nuccio Senzor Planner and JamIe L
ROJD. Assistant Planner .
ATTACHMENTS 1). August 21, 2007 City CouncIl Agenda Statement
2) August 21,2007 City Council Meetmg Mmutes
3) Superstore Research Mdp
RECOMMENDATlO~Ve report and pfOVlde Staff WIth dlrecnon
ck
FINANCIAL STATEMENT None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the May 1, 2007 City CounCil meetlDg, CounC1lmember Sbr~lntI requested that the City Councll
conSIder a ban on Superstores In excess of 90,000 square feet WIth over 5% non-taxable grocery Items
The LIvermore CIty CouncIl adoptcd a sumlar ban on March 26, 2007
On August 21,2007 Staffretumed to the City CounCil WIth an mformatlonal report for conSideration ofa
Superstore Ordmance (see Attachment 1) The City CounCil directed Staff to look at SItes m the City that
have the potennal to accommodate &uperstore development and corne back With a report before decldm~
whether to proceed WIth an Ordmance (see mmutes of meetmg m Atlachment 2)
The term Superstore refers to retail establishments wh1ch sell gene::al retall merchandise along With full
servIce grocery sales Many large scale retallers are mcreasmgly addmg to theIr general merchandISe sales
the sale of grocery Items, what dIstmgUlshes a Superstore from aarge scale retaIler IS the full grocery
sales component
An average large scale general merchandise retaIler IS between 125,1)00 and 145,000 square feet on 10-12
acres ofland With approxtmately 6-l2% 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 Apphcant
Fde ..
Attachment 4
Page I of 5
ANALYSIS
lo?~o?3
The CIty CouncIl's dlrecbon was for Staff to evaluate the SItes In the CIty that have the potentIal to
accommodate Superstore development Staff looked at undeveloped land In Dublm designated for
General CornmercIalland uses Staff also looked at the Downtown core area In the Pnmary Planmng
Area The' Pnmary Plannmg Area land use desIgnation of Retall/Office allows shoppIng centers,
however, the bUIldmg configuratIon of the core area and current successful operabons make tlus 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 CommercIal allows for a range ofreglonal and
communIty servmg retaIl uses Includmg supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores and lugh-volume retall
such as dISCOunt centers, home unprovement centers and funnture outlets, to name a few The General
Plan also sets forth a development standard known as Floor to Area RatIO (FAR) to estabhsh a mlmmUDl
and maximum development potential for General CommercIal land uses The mInImUm FAR IS 0 20 and
the maxImum FAR 15060
Table 1 below IdentIfies the development potentIal for land of a vanety of acreages UtIlIzmg the
maxImum penmtted Floor Area RatIO (FAR) for General CommercIal desIgnated propertIes of 0 60, a 10
acre SIte could develop Wlth 261,360 square feet ofbmldmg As thlS smgle story bUlldmg would cover 6
of the 10 acres, the fernalmng 4 acres of land would have to accommodate all parlang and assocIated
landscapmg Parkmg IS generally calculated at 1 parkmg stall for cach 300 square feet ofbulldmg area A
26i,360 square foot general cOlI1mercIal buIldmg would reqUIre 871 parkmg stalls Each parkIng stall
utIlIzes approxunately 300 square feet of land area when the stall Itself, alslc Width/per stall and
landscapmg are mcluded The reqwred land area needed to accommodate 871 parkmg stalls would be
5 99 acres, well m excess of the remmnmg 4 acres EIther the buIldmg would be forced to go to 2 stones
to accommodate surface parkmg (not lIkely as most retaIlers of super store development prefer Single
story facIlItIes) or a parlang structure SIZed to accept 289 of the reqUIred 871 parkmg stalls would be
needed ThIS IS WIthout site lands.capmg
bl 1 D 1
t P t ual B ed F1
Ra
Ta e eve opmen o en as on oor Area no
Acres Square Footage MIDlmum Square Footage MaXimum
GC FAR 20 GC FAR 60
10 87.120 261,360
14 121,968 365,904
18 156.816 470,448
General CommercUlI Development Sites'
Only vacant, undeveloped propertles were analyzed because they are the only srtes aVailable for
ImmedIate development Four areas designated for General CommercIal land uses WhICh are cw:rently
undeveloped have been IdentIfied as haVIng the potentIal to accommodate a Superstore 1) Lm property-
. porbon of Area C, 2) Dublm Land Company (DIManto), 3) Robert Chen property (Fallon Vlllage), and 4)
Emerald Place (formerly Commerce OnellK.EA) .
LIn Prooertv. - Area C
. TIns property IS located west ofFa11on Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Dublm Boulevard to
the north The SIte ]S approXImately 34 net acres In size (see Attachment 3) and IS desIgnated as General
CommerCIal In the General Plan and Eastern DublIn SpecIfic Plan The property 1S owned by Chang Su-
O-LID
. , 13 ().f ~3
Peml1tted uses on the General CommeI'Clal sIte Includc commumty servmg retaIl uses such as gcr1eral
merchandIse stores, dISCOunt warehouse retail stores, and home Improvement stores (to name a few) and
regIonally onented, lngh volume, retad uses such as but not hmlted to, dIscount centers, home
Improvement centers and factory stores Development which IS consl:.tent WIth .the zonmg ofthe property,
as adopted m the November 1997 Development Plan, would not be s\lbjcct to further zomng approvals but
would reqUIre SIte Development ReVlew approval'and a developme;nt cigreement Based on apphcable
zonmg and the Slole of the property a Superstore development could bf: feasible
Dublm Land Comoanv Prooerty (DIManto)
The Dubhn Land Company sIte IS approXImately 76 acres In Size, (If whIch approXImately 60 acres are
currently designated General CommercIal m the General Plan and Eastern Dubhn Specmc 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 ofthe Dublm Ranch
area whIch establIshed a Planned Development Zomng Dtstnct (P A 5'4-030) for the SIte (Ordmance 11-94
and Resoluuon 104-94) The regulations and standards for development of the DublIn Land Company
property mcludmg land use and mtenslty of land use are subject to the adoptlon 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 lDltlated for the SIte In March 2003 to study consohdatmg Genera,l
Commercial land uses on the SItes between Interstate 580 and Central Parkway and placing }ugh densIty
resIdentIal land uses on the SIte betwcen Central Parkway and Gleason Dnve At tlus tlme, the apphcatlon
IS not actIvely bemg pursued and a Development Plan has not been submItted for reVIew for the sl1e
The Dubhn Land property IS currently' segmented by roadways Into S. non-contIguous potcnl1al
development Sites The 3 SItes closest to 1-580 could accommodate General CommercIal development
cmd total 524 acres The smallest SIte, whlch fronts both Tassajanl Road and Northslde Dnve, IS only
1 219 acres and could not dCcommodate a Superstore The site between Dublm Boulevard and Northslde
Dnve IS approXImately 20 906 acres and utIlIzmg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 could be developed WIth a
buIldIng or a senes of bwldmgs totalIng 546,400 square feet Assummg parJang could be .met WIth a
combmatlon of surface and structured parkmg, Superstore development could be feasIble
The largest property, the area located between Dubhn Boulevard and Central Parkway IS 30 264 acres 10
SIze Agam, utlhzmg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 as allowed by the General Plan, tins porbon of the
Dublm Land property could be developed WIth a bUlldmg or bUllcb::Igs of 790,980 ~quare feet Parlang
would have to be met by utIhzlllg a senes of structured and surface parlong Superstore development on
thts pOrtlon of the property could be feasIble
It should be noted, however, that the Eastern Dublm SpeCIfic Plan. (EDSP) addresses nWClmwn
commercIal development on DublIn Land Company property d 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
Dubltn Land property of between 25 and 35 FAR WIth adchtlonal analYSIS, studles and enVlronmental
reVIew, It nught be pOSSIble to exceed the 902,563 square feet reJmnced m 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 DublIn Land Company site wOll.ld reqUIre the adoptlon of a Stage 1
and 2 Development Plan (Planned Development Zonmg) as well ~; SIte Development ReVlew approval
and a Development Agreement
Page 3 of5
Robert Chen Prooertv
)~ ;f c.{3
The Chen property IS approxImately 72 acres and IS located east of Fallon 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 addItlonal 18 5 acres to the east IS
deSIgnated General CommercIaVCampus Office The General CommerclaVCampus Office deSIgnatIon
allows the same types of uses but hmlts 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 In
December 2005 The Development Plan allows, as a penmtted use, reglOnally onented, lugh volume
rewl uses mcludmg dIscount centers. home Improvement centers and other sunIlar uses The
Development Plan also Includes spec1fi~ development standards. performance standards and findIngs
which must be met at the tIme of Stage 2 Development Plan proposals, for projects greater than 15 acres
In SIze, development standards can be modIfied through the Stage 2 Development Plan process
The development of a Superstore on the Chen property would requll'c the adoption of a Stage 2
Development Plan wluch IS required to be conSIstent With the findings Included 10 the adopted Stage 1
Development Plan These findmgs among other thIngs reqwre that the SIze, scale and mtensIty of the
proposed development do not conflict WIth the character of the mstnct and adjacent land uses Based on
the SIze of the property a Superstore development could be feasible
Emerald Place/Blakc Hunt Ventures Propertv
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 MartInellI Way to the north (see Attachment 3) The
SIte has a General Plan and Eastern Dublm Specific Plan land use designatIon of General CommercIal
The property owner, Blake Hunt Ventures, has an actIve pl.mmng apphcanon In process for the
development of the SIte A Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted by the Q.ty Councllm November
2007 and allows for general commercial land uses, specific development standards were also adopted In a
Stage-I Site Plan WhICh depicts multIple freestandIng bUIldmgs rangmg from 10,000 square feet to 65.000
square feet In SIze Blakc.Hunt VentUres 15 actIvely mOVIng forward With an applIcatIon 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 lnghly unhkely cODSIdenng that a
planmng apphcatlon IS currently In process for development of the site and a Stage 1 SIte Plan has been
adopted wlucb 15 not condUCIve for the development of a Superstore If a Superstore were to be proposed
for the SIte. an amendment to the Planned Development Zonmg Dlstnct Stage 1 Development Plan would
be reqUired as well as the adoptIon of a Stage 2 Development Plan and SIte Development Review
EnVIronmental Revu!W
Most, Ifnot all. of the potentIal development SItes for a Superstore would reqwre a dJ.screnonary approva~
and related enVIronmental revIew 'Conslstent With the CIty'S practIce, Staff would examme the extent to
wluch any proposed ~uperstore would ralse enVll'Onmenta1Issues not already addressed In pnor CEQA
revlewS for the Slte .
"n__ _ .. _r~
CONCLUSION
15 &jc:?3
Below ]s a summary of the entItlements wInch would need to b€: secured for the development of a
Superstore' on the Lm property, the Dubhn Land Company propl:rty, the Robert Chen property, the
Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures property .
Pro er
Lm Property - Area. C
Dubhn Land Company.
Emerald PlaceIBlake Hunt Ventures
EntItlements Needed
o Site Develo ment R~lCW and Develo ment A cement
o Planned Development Zonmg Includmg a Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment Re'lew and Develo ment A eement
o Planned Development Zomng mcludmg a Stage 2
Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment ReVIew and Develo ment A eement
o Amended Planned Development Zomng mc1udmg a Stage
1 and 2 Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment ReVIew dIld Develo ment A eement
Robert Chen
Based on an evaluation of eXIsttng SItes that arc vacant and undevl:loped wIth land use 'desIgnatIons of
General Commercial, the OppOrtunity for Superstore .development IS :lImIted wtthm the commumty There
are v.mous discretIOnary. approvals that are necessary from the Planmng COmmIssion and/or City Counctl
for the development of a Superstore Superstore uses appear to be permitted under the General
CommercIal Land Use DesIgnatIon and therefore would not be ah.e to be demed based solely on use
DiscretIonary review would address SIte deSIgn and development standards, for mstance buddmg
configuratIon. parkmg, landscapmg, Internal clfCulatlon and so on CEQA reVIew would also be reqUired
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provIde Std.ffWlth dlrecbon
Page 5 of 5
.....
o
o
N
~
GI
.Q
E
~
>
o
Z
r
J:
u
k
.~
CIJ
In
Q,t
1:.=
Q1
....
o
..,
It\
'-
CI.I
Q.
::J
V\
c
-
-
.CI
::J
0
...
I. 0
>.
..
. .
Q
0'-'. ..f)'t'
. .....O~ "0'
ovo
VClVlYs-sv l
-}
.:; 1 ~r'
- I.~ I
. .
.. ,~ '.. --:
~
C\.l
III IV
5~
\)0'
..."
'-
p:
Q
Z
o
1-
':l
.1:;
t;
lIoI
::
'"
Il::
lIoI
8
II:
~
e,
'"
~
~
::
C
D:
~
6
:I
. Q
3/luicr\.i6i-i3b
"C :>. III
.CI:2;!
S !. \.l
~~1tI
:sU~
C
~
t:.
~
<
~
\.?
CU"'1Il
\.l 5 III
ItI ...
E:.:t\.l
"C III
_~cc
RlIQN
10;;15
~
o .
-,.., ,
.....~;.;...,......, ~
-:: ';~;' '/~:"'<" i/ i
, , ,.... ~ ." ,.
,;~_.:... ~'i';"",,\,' ..)'
'. _ ~;:!~\ w~::]i-;;,~,"~ ' '; /,
\/ . . .. ' I ' I , ". " ., ,. \. ...,'.
~_ ,<:::,),i:\:?:'t~:~;Yj~:, \/
.,::.._~:~ -1'r., ; -j~[~ ' f{~'-"; ", -
. '" . \ . ....., J ' - . , " --
~_ ~J~' ,-y5- .1.-'
~.. ,,\~...'. ~\.....- \
i
~.
'l5
..
t
III
~
~
'5
5
r1
i i
--'
t
0:
I !
~ 'ti
~ 5
DO
I J
-\
~ 1
~ !
ii 1!
I i
I I
~ !
WI
.
.
~In
..:
1"1' ~ rS8
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal to' Address '[neluslOnary ZonIng
Re1!11latlons for the Anderson Property
8 21 pm 7 1 (600-30/430-80)
Semor Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advIsed that the City Councd
had dIrected Staff to work WIth the ApplIcant to Incorporate market rate urnts mto the
proposed 88-UDlt affordable project on the Anderson property m order to create a mIxed
mcome development Braddock & Logan had proposed a 108-urnt apartment to address
the d1rect1on by the CIty Councll The CIty CouncIl would proVIde Staff WIth further
mrecbon regardIng the affordable obhgatlon for the pro:;>osed 20 addItIonal market rate
umts on the Anderson property
Vm HIldenbrand stated she was the one that asked that the Anderson property have more
of a mIX rather than Just all affordable unIts It was never her mtent to ask them to make
more affordable UnItS She would lIke the CouncIl to graIlt the developer the exceptIon
The CouncIl concurred
On motlOn ofVm Hlldenbrand, seconded by CmScholz and by unanllnous vote, the CIty
Councll dIrected Staff to prepare an Affordable Housmg Agreement for the proposed 108-
urnt project on the Anderson proPerty WIth a reqUIrement to provIde a total of 88
affordable unIts consistent WIth the Braddock & Logan Affordable Housmg Proposal
dated October 18, 2005
<>
Informational ReDort on Superstores
831 pm 72 (420-20)
Semor Planner Marrue NUCC10 presented the Staff Repor: that was an mformatIOnal report
to the CIty Counell on the CIty ofDublm's exposure to potennal Superstore development
DUBLIN CITY COUNCJIL MlINUTES
VOLUME 26
RlEGUl.AR MEETlIN(j
DECEMB~ 4, 2007
PAGE 500
Attachment 5
.
/8 c;f ;23
Cm Sbranu stated that at a prevlOus CouncIl ~eetmg, the COlmcll had asked about the
BurlIngton Coat F8;Ctory buildIng Could It accommodate a superstore?
CIty Manager Ambrose stated that the SIte could not accommodate a superstore footpnrtt
Staff had looked at areas Wlth development possIblhtles, not those WIth multIple owners,
multIple leases, whIch would make It more dIfficult to accommodate a superstore
. .
Cm SbrantJ. stated he asked 'about the Burlnigton Coat Factory sIte beca~se It was only
two bwldmgs Wlth two. tenants DId Staff know the square footage of those two
bUlldmgs? .
EconomIc Development DIrector ehns 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
findIngs to deny the apphcatlon?
AsSIstant CIty Attorney Jolm Bakker stated site development reVIew (SDR) and
development agreements were probably not the appropnate tune to make a detennmatIon
of whether a superstore came m That would be a use determmatJon There mIght be
constramts asSOCiated Wlth a part:J.cular site that made a superstore mapproprIate at a
partIcular locatlon, m whIch case SDR would be an appropnate mechanIsm to prevent' that
development from commg m The Crty 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 10 whIch case developments lIke the Lm
Site, would be subject to that rule, and therefore a superstore could not go In at the LID
SIte But m the' Lms' case, they had vanous development agreements, mcludm~ the _
. master development agreement WIth certaln vested nghts They riught not be subject to an
ordmance agamst superstores because of those vested rights SIte development review
was' probably not the appropnate mechanIsm for reJectmg a superstore unless there were
SIte constramts asSOCIated WIth It
em Oravetz stated that If,hypothetIcally, regardmg the Chen property that runs along
I 580, If someone came m WIth an apphcanon for a superstore or large car lot, he could
not see It bemg approved WIth traffic beIng what It was In the area
DUBLllN CITY COUNCIL MINlITES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2007
1) A K.!lIi' cn1
.
1'1 r;f 0(3
The COUDCll chscussed large developments that were commg mto the Tn-Valley Would
there not be CEQA reVIew? .
CIty Manager Ambrose . stated the CIty had done an EnvlTonmental Impact Report
assoclated Wlth the Eastern Dublin SpecIfic Plan, and that specrfic plan ldentdied certaIn
square footages and traffic unpacts assocIated Wlth 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 SlZe, the traffic was accounted for as part of that plan And
every time you looked at a plan, lIke Fallon Crossmgs tomght, those homes were
evaluated m terms of thel! traffic unpacts on the road systems as part of that ongmal
envrronmental document That was the baSIS upon wInch those projects were evaluated
You would have to go through CEQA but m the context of the eXIstmg EIR and any
changes that mlght have occurred In tenns of unpacts, the CIty dId look at that
ISDn Moore, Dubhn reSIdent, stated she was opposed to havmg superstores 10 Dubhn
That was not the type of store for that area
Cm SbrantI stated thatthe Staff Report confirmed rus concerns He was concerned about
what unpacts a superstore would have In terms of economIC development 10 the area The
City could better use that amount of land m terms of JO~:>s and amenItIes than havmg a
superstore The City was gettmg 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 fall' to property owners before they came Wlth a
plan, to let them know about the City'S ban, If adopted.
Vrn H11denbrand concurred Wlth Cm Sbrantl
Mayor Lockhart stated It was better to be upfront WIth the: development commumty rather
than fight the battle after
em Oravetz stated he was agaInst the ban A super Target was not the worse thmg In the
world If It was In the nght spot A super car dealerslup was a great way to get revenue
The City'S pIannmg process was a gUide on what type of bus mess came mto the Clty He
chd not support the ban
DUBLIN CI1'Y COUNCIL MINlJTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING.
DECEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 502
.
. r2 0 ;(;23
Cm Scholz stated she had concerns regardmg a giant store m DublIn She lIked the
concepts ofthe."Mom and Pop" store She supported what Cm Sbrantl was advocatmg
Mayor Lockhart asked m regard to the defmltlOn ~f a superstore, was It the amount of
grocenes m the store that determmed If It fit under the ban? What was It the Councll was
loolang to decide? .
AsSistant CIty Attorney Bakker stated It was not a ban on square footage It was a ban on
stores over a certam square footage that also contamed a certain amount of square footage
devoted to non-taxable sales A typICal Walmart or Target would contam mostly taxable
sales But superstores also contauied a meat department and typlCaJ. grocenes so they
were both a WaIm~ or Target and grocery store combined That was the dtstmctlon
beIng made In thIS ordInance
CIty Manager Ambrose stated that you c<,>uld 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
bullchng From a deSIgn standpomt and from the standpomt of reuse, you ran Into dlflicult
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 ordtnance that would not hurt any of the
CIty'S eXistIng bUsmess
City Manager Ambrose stated Staff looked at the eXIstIng superStores and that was how
they determmed acreage and square footages m the Staff Report
em Oravetz asked If Staff would return. WIth a new ordmance for the CouncIl to reVIew
after CouncIl's dIrection
City Manager Ambrose stated yes, rrthat was the CounCIl'S mrectIon
Cm Oravetz stated the City was solvmg a problem It chd not have If someone came to
the City Wlth a plan for such a store, the site development reVIew process would help the
CIty at that pomt .
DUBLIN CITY COUNcn. MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2007
'D ""..... I:'R'2
.
o?lfJ;fd<3
Economic Development DIrector Foss stated that Staff had contacted retaIlers and asked
what thetr new prototype store would be Target's respom,e 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 loolong at the ordmance at a future Counctl meetmg
and havmg mscussIOn regarmng square footages at that tmle
On monon of em Sbrann, seconded by Vrn HIldenbrand, and by maJonty vote (Cm
Oravetz votmg no), the City CouncIl receIved the report and proVIded Staff WIth drr~ctlon
to prepare a superstore ban ordmance for a future Council meetmg, With further
discussIon regardIng square footage at that tIme
- <>
RECESS
9 01 pm
Mayor Lockhart called for a bnef recess
Counctlmembers present at 9 07 P rn
The meetIng reconvened WIth all
<> --
NEW BUSlINJESS
ReQuest to Permit Rental of Below Market Rate For':'Sale UnIts on the BaSIS of
liardshlD
907 P rn. 8 1 (430-80)
Housmg SpecialIst John Lucero presented the Staff Rc::port and' adVIsed that the City
CouncIl would consIder the allowance to rent Below-Ma:~ket Rate (BMR) For-Sale UnIts
on the basIS of a hardsmp
The CouncIl dIscussed how tlllS was an mterestmg mSCUSSlon that had not been
considered If someone's Job took them elsewhere, or there was an lllness, It would be a
DUBLIN CITY COUNCllL MIWTES
VOLUME. 26
REGULAR MElET][NG
DECEMBER 4,2007
PAGE 504
.
o?/~~3
Economic Development Director Foss stated that Staff had contacted retailers and asked
what therr 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 loolong at the ordmance at a future CouncIl meetIng
and havmg mscusslOn regarchng square footages at that tmle
On motIon of Cm SbrantJ., seconded by Vm HIldenbrand, and by maJonty vote (em
Oravetz votmg no), the CIty Council receIved the report and prOVIded Staff WIth drr~ctlon
to prepare a superstore ban ordmance for a future Council meetmg, With further
dISCUSSion regardmg square footage at that tune
<>
RECESS
901 pm
Mayor Lockhart called for a bnef recess The meetIng reconvened WIth all
Councdmembers present at 9 07 P m
<> -
NEW BUSINESS
ReQuest to PermIt Rental of Below Market Rate lFor~Sale Units on the BaSIS of
HardshIP
9 07 pm. 8 1 (430-80)
Housmg SpecIahst John Lucero presented the Staff Report and adVised that the City
Councu would consIder the allowance to rent Below-Market Rate (Bl\1R) For-Sale UnIts
on the basIS of a hardsh.tp
The Councll dtscussed how tlus was an mterestmg dIscUSSIOn that had not been
considered If someone's Job took them elsewhere, or there was an tllness, It would be a
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINlITES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETJ[NG
DECEMBER 4, 2007
PAGE 504
(I
CITY CLERK
File # D~[ZJ~-~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: ~1arch 18,2008
SUBJECT:
Draft Superstore Ordinance
Report Prepared by Mamie R. Nuccio, Senior Planner, Jamie L.
Rojo, Assistant Planner, and Sl ephen 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
.. J Draft Superstore Ordirumce
RECOMMENDATION:_1J<J.I ~eceive report and direct Staff to proceed with adoption of a
at Superstore Ordinance.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None~
BACKGROUND:
At the May I, 2007 City Council meeting, CounciImember Sbranti requested that the City Council
consider a ban on ~uperstores 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 ofa
Superstore Ordinance (see Attachment lL 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 A:tachment 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 developmei:J.t (see Table 1 below) and
described the entitlements needed to develop the property (see Attac:hment3).
COpy TO: Applicant
File
Attachment 6
ITEM NO.
7.Z
Page 1 of3
_ '"___..___ "'-J,:____I,.,,..II_~__ ~ 'fD Aft....... ........._
Table 1. Potential Su
Pro e
Lin Property - Area C
Dublin Land Company
Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures
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
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 Mlutinez, 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
Pal!e 2 of 3
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, c:xempt 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. FollowiDg the second reading, the Superstore
Ordinance will take into effect 30 days after its adoption.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report and direct Staff to p:roceed with adoption of a Supers':ore Ordinance.
Page 3 of3