The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 SB 343 MuniCode Superstore 4z{)- 20 SB 343 Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that have been received by the City Clerk's office that relate to an agenda item after the agenda packets have been distributed to the City Council be available to the public. This document is also available in the City Clerk's office, the Dublin Library, and the City's Website. The attached document was received in the City Clerk's office after distribution of the May 6, 2008 City Council meeting agenda packet. G:\CC-MTGS\FORMS\SB 343 Form.doc f;-UJ - O'g to. I nct_ Page 1 of2 Jeri Ram From: Bill Schaub [bschaub@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, May 02, 200810:21 AM To: Janet Lockhart; T Sbranti AOL; kasieHild; Tony Oravetz; KateEDU@aol.com Cc: Jeri Ram Subject: My thoughts on the anti-superstore ordinance Unfortunately, I ended up sick the night of the anti-superstore Commission hearing. I believe that you deserve my thoughts on this important matter given the considerable time I spent doing independent research (we had virtually no Staff Report) and the fact that I have almost 4 years now focusing on our city's land use direction and policies. BTW, I will not speak on this matter at the City Council meeting. I do not judge this proposed anti-superstore to be in the best interest to our residents today for two significant economic reasons. First, though we are assured by Counsel that we are on solid legal footing, we are placing Dublin on a list of those government entities opposing at least one known, deep pocketed developer of such stores. If this company (or an unforeseen company for that matter) chooses to target California for commercial retail facilities larger than 175,000 sq. ft. with more than 17,500 sq. ft. dedicated to selling non-taxable items (groceries) we will be sitting in the crosshairs. I my opinion, we are adding financial risk to the City for simply the desire to pro actively keep all development larger than 175,000/10% NTax out of Dublin. That brings me to the second significant reason for my opposition to this proposed ordinance. It is not in the best interest to our City to "proactively" eliminate us from at least discussing a possible future development that could have major revenue potential without having a dialogue about a real project. Here is an example. What if Safeway wanted to bring a new concept in commercial retail to the Chen property off Fallon Rd. that was 175,001 sq. ft. and had 17, 501 sq. ft. of food? Don't you think that our residents expect us to consider such a facility on a parcel that sits in the airport protection zone across the freeway from similar land uses being discussed on Staples Ranch? After all, this hypothetical project would be about the size of our current Lowes combined with the approved Pad B on Grafton Station that also has five or six additional retail buildings on it. I have reviewed all of the arguments supporting the proposed anti-superstore ordinance for possible environmental and negative land use impacts and they simply don't hold up. (Let me know if you want to see that analysis.) Remember that we have an existing EIR for East Dublin that has cleared the way for such projects. If there were environmental impacts from a proposed project where those impacts exceed the existing regulations, the project would be subject to new environmental review and I believe not CEQA exempt. My research shows that a 200,000 square foot retail center on the Chen property could provide the City with more than $1 m in revenue on land that is completely suitable for such a project with or without groceries with virtually no negative impacts on our residents. Why would we not at least have that discussion? Who are we pro actively protecting here? In summary: · We don't need this ordinance as it only adds possible financial burdens to the City and restricts revenue generating land use choices in the future. Again, who are we protecting here from what? I believe that placing our City on the list with other cities who have drafted such anti-superstore ordinances places us in more legal risk than we have today not being on the list. Denying our residents the possibility for significant increased sales tax revenues without even 5/5/2008 Page 2 of2 entertaining a potential project is in my opinion, not the way we manage our City's business. We have all the skills, processes and planning tools already in place to bring about any land use outcome that we desire. This proposed ordinance has much more downside risk due to future unintended consequences and unforeseen outcomes than present benefits. What is the present benefit? Please see Vice Chair Tomlinson's comments in the PC minutes. Respectfully, Bill 5/5/2008