Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-2008 PC Minutes Planl1il1g Comlnission Minutes Tuesday, April 8, 2C08 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 8, 2008, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Vice Chair Tomlinson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Tomlinson; Commissioners Wehrenberg, King and Biddle; Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager; John Bakker, City Attorney; Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Chair Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. Biddle the minutes of the March 25, 2008 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 08-009 Superstore Ordinance. The City of Dublin is considering an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would prohibit the development of superstores. A superstore is defined as a store that exceeds 170,000 square feet in size with at least 10% or more of sales devoted to non-taxable merchandise. Jamie Rojo, Assistant Planner presented the specifics of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked if the proposed ordinance contained findings cf fact. John Bakker, City Attorney answered the ordinance does not have findings of fact beyond the findings required by the City's Zoning Ordinance. He continued that an ordinance is a law therefore, it does not require findings, but approvals of SDRs, CUPs, etc. do require findings to ensure that the application complies with the law. Cm. King referred to a letter from Meyers, Nave sighting a Turlock Ordinance which provided three rationales for prohibiting superstores and asked if rationales should be mentioned in this ordinance. Mr. Bakker stated that it is useful, but not necessary, to provide a rationale for an ordinance, but if the City had to defend the ordinance in court we would have to articulate a rationale. He (pfarmmg Commission 1;ffpwr'lfet'ting 37 zoos continued that some of the Council Members have articulated some rationales for this ordinance, for example, the potential blight that a superstore (ould cause, take customers away from existing grocery stores, leading to store closures. He felt there is a rational basis for this type of ordinance and the Turlock case supports that. Cm. King asked if one rationale is traffic impact, but the proFosed ordinance states there is no need for a CEQA study because there is no significant impact on the environment, but he felt that traffic is a significant impact and would that create a problem. Mr. Bakker responded that Staff reviewed the existing land use designation for this ordinance which would apply in those places where retail businesses would be allowed but this ordinance restricts the types of commercial development that could occur in those areas. He continued there is already a baseline amount of traffic that is pre-apprcved under the General Plan and this ordinance would restrict traffic by limiting the number 0:: trips, therefore it does not have the potential for an adverse effect on the environment because it's actually restricting the amount of development rather than increasing it. He stated that it would be a project under CEQA if it was increasing the amount of development potential. Cm. King asked if any of the other cities had been taken to court for approving this type of ordinance. Mr. Bakker stated that, with a number of the ordinances being enacted, he has not heard of any court action since the Turlock decision. He continued that prior to that time there were quite a few legal challenges. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that most of the disputes she had read about came after the ordinance had been enacted and felt that the City was trying to be proactive. Mr. Bakker stated that was a key point to keep in mind that if a store came in with existing laws and the City had concerns about those types of stores then the City would have to review it according to existing ordinances and the City would not haye as much authority over them, whereas if you adopt a prohibition at a legislative level then you are not subject to the same legal strictures. He stated that if the City has concerns about these types of stores then they would want to do it on a legislative level rather than an ad hoc basis at a project-by-project level where you are subject to findings and evidence, whereas you are not constrained by these rules when adopting a law. Cm. King asked if the criteria restrictions of square feet and percentage of non-taxable items could cause an unintended consequence, for example, if there was a business that the City wanted but would be prohibited by this ordinance's restriction,. Mary Jo Wilson, Planning Manager commented that there are no active applications. She continued with an example, if a business came in that was over 200,000 square feet with 20% non-taxable items they would not be allowed in the City under the proposed Superstore Ordinance. She stated Staff has spoken with retailers who be subject to the Superstore Ordinance criteria to understand what the appropriate square footage should be and to ensure that we have uses that are appropriate for the community. (p[annmg Conwmsicn 38 >If/irs, 200S <R.ff/u[ar ~Met'tm8 Cm. Wehrenberg asked what type of businesses has been found that meet those criteria~ Ms. Wilson answered that when the research was done Staff reviewed two companies, Target and Wal-Mart that build su perstores as a large retail format, but also have a full grocery component which includes non-taxable items. Cm. Wehrenberg asked for the square footage of the existing Target. Ms. Wilson answered they did not have the specific square footage. Cm. Wehrenberg stat<~d that the Target was an existing building and had a garden center. She asked how the proposed ordinance would affect that scenario if they remodeled and added a grocery component. Ms. Wilson stated that an assumption would be that if the grocery component is smaller than 10% of the overall square footage of the site and the overall size of the building is under the 170,000 square feet it would not be affected by the ordinance. She continued that if Target decided to expand to a greater percentage of overall store size and over the 10% non-taxable, they would not be allowed to do that if the proposed ordinance is in effect, but as the code exists today they would not be asked to leave. Cm. Wehrenberg and Cm. Biddle asked why the non-taxable item limit was set at 10%. Marnie Nuccio, Senior Planner answered that Livermore's ordinance had started the discussion and they set the limit at 90,000 square feet and 5%, but that would effectively prohibit Dublin's existing Target which was not the intent of the City Council in asking Staff to look at the issue. She continued when doing the research and reviewing potential sites that could accommodate superstore development, Staff looked at acreage and the typical business model for the three retailers. Based on a typical model from experts that work wib these models it was determined that 170,000 square feet and 10% would be appropriate. She stated the limit is more than a typical big box store because the intent was not to prohibit a regular Target store. Cm. Wehrenberg was concerned if an existing business left a building and another business came in and remodels the existing building. She asked also why Staff is only looking at the grocery component, is it because of the economic problems to neighborhood grocers, lose of jobs, etc. Ms. Wilson stated that Staff is not targeting one particular retailer, this is a superstore ordinance and superstores by definition have a retail component AND a non-taxable grocery component with varying percentages. She continued that based on the research and the City Council's direction, Staff determined the number of 170,000 square feet and 10% is non-taxable. She stated that the grocery component is what defines a superstore. She continued that a retail business could have, as an example, 200,000 square feet and have some grocery component (below 10%). Cm. Wehrenberg reiterated that the City is not opposing big be <x stores. Mr. Bakker wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission understood that they could adopt an ordinance that restricts stores over 150,000 square feet or 170,000 square feet but what this C()mmLHion 39 Y!pn(S. zoos 'Kriiii[ar '\1eeting proposed ordinance is directed towards is a particular type of store, and its impact on the community . Cm. King asked in order to be prohibited; a superstore would have to meet the two criteria of 170,000 square feet and 10% non-taxable grocery. He felt that a large store without the grocery component would still generate the same problems of traffic and putting small businesses out of business. He asked if the City's ordinance could prohibit both criteria. Ms. Wilson stated that the ordinance could prohibit both criteria but then the City would not be able to approve a store such as Lowes and it would limit a lot of different retailers due to their size. Mr. Bakker felt that they would not want to focus on non-taxable criteria because then the City could not approve a Safeway. Cm. Wehrenberg asked why the City is excluding the membenhip or club stores. Mr. Bakker stated there are studies that indicate that club stores do not generate as many trips as superstores due to the fact that they sell in bulk which would reduce the number of trips. Cm. Biddle asked about the status of the designated properties Marnie Nuccio answered that the Lin's property is covered under the original zoning for Dublin Ranch which occurred in approximately 1994 and predates the Stage 1 and Stage 2 process, therefore the zoning is already in place as long as they come forward with a proposal that is consistent with that zoning they would only require a Site Development Review. Cm. Biddle asked if an developer found property large encugh or combined two pieces of property together would this ordinance apply to that situation as well as undeveloped property. Vice Chair Tomlinson answered that the ordinance would apply to that situation. Vice Chair Tomlinson opened the public hearing and hearing no comments closed the public hearing. Cm. Tomlinson was seriously concerned about the ordinance. He stated the City of Turlock spent approximately $300,000 defending their city against Wd-Mart. He felt comfortable that our City Attorney had indicated that the City could prevail if challenged in court as did Turlock. He stated that one of the Commission's key roles is recommending to the City Council and advising them on the implementation of the General Plan and in Section 2.2 it states "the City's ability to provide municipal services depends on the income gmerated by business." He felt that one of the things that must be taken into account is the potential revenues generated by big business. He stated that there are only two retailers that would fit the scope of the ordinance; Target and Wal-Mart. He stated that Target does not have any stores of this nature on the West Coast; therefore Wal-Mart would be the only example of a retailer that would fit the scope of the ordinance. He stated that during his research he found that approximately 30% of the sales of a Wal-Mart super center were related to non grocery items which translate to approximately the (Plannmg Commission 40 Apnt (I, zoos <R.fflllwr'Meeting size of a Safeway. He stated that he has no investment in Wal-Mart projects and has no vested interest except to do the best for the people of the City of Dublin. He felt it was the Commission's duty, in times of difficult budget issues, to do whatever is possible to generate sales tax revenue. He felt that if the cities surrounding Dub:jn were to approve a superstore then they would have the benefit of the sales tax revenue. He felt that if the City of Dublin were to establish a policy that indicates superstores are not welcome then we would be turning our back on a store which could make a considerable fiscal impact to City. He was also concerned about public policy ramifications by telling people these stores are not allowed. Cm. King was concerned that the Commission is not given the financial information to take into consideration for land use issues and felt that fiscal ramifications are issues to be resolved by the City Council. He was concerned that the areas large enough to allow a big box store are areas that would have the most concerns regarding traffic impact and that the Commission should take that into consideration. Cm. Biddle commented the Commission's resolution asks if the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plans. The part of the General Plan that Cm. Tomlinson referred to is regarding income to the City and that is what makes the 10% non-taxable number so important. Cm. Tomlinson referred again to the Commercial and Industrial Land Use section 2.2 and stated that if it is in the General Plan then it's the Commission's job to recommend and advice the City Council on their implementation of the General Plan. He then read the section regarding Commercial and Industrial Land Use. Cm. Biddle stated the ordinance indicates that the City limit the amount of non-taxable sales in a store which would create two separate kinds of stores instead of one superstore. He stated that there could be a grocery store at 50,000 square feet and another store at 120,000 square feet instead of having them combined. Cm. Tomlinson stated the City does not want to prohibit grocery stores, but the issue of the Ordinance is when the two are combined which is the driving force for some City Council members. Cm. Wehrenberg agreed with Cm. Tomlinson but stated that the City should be aware of how it will affect the other businesses. She also felt that the traffic in the east part of Dublin is already heavy enough and this type of store would generate more traffic problems. Cm. King asked Cm. Tomlinson if the fiscal impact were taken out of the equation would there be any other reason not to recommend the adoption of this ordinance. Cm. Tomlinson stated that his personal opinion is the City would be in a position of telling people they can only shop in certain stores. He stated in reference to traffic impact, if I need something sold at Target or Wal-Mart but also need groceries then I'm going to make two trips instead of one trip. He was not convinced of the traffic impact at this point. He discussed the property in Pleasanton where they are considering putting an auto mall and the possibility that a superstore could be built there. 'Planning C()mmissi<m 'l';fHuwr C,\1et'ting 41 ,4pn(8, Z008 Cm. King commented one of the potential impacts of a big box store is the possibility of putting smaller businesses out of business. He noticed that the east Dublin are has a lot of upscale enterprises and compared with the west part of Dublin where there are strip malls that aren't new but have lots of small shops that people need. He wondered if a big box store opened in the east part of Dublin would it contribute to the further deterioration of the western area. Cm. Tomlinson commented that Wal-Mart is already in the market area, in Livermore and Pleasanton, and has been for a long time and all the businesses compete effectively because they are still in business. He felt the issue of the grocery component is driving the ordinance. He stated the City would have to determine if there are small, ind~pendently owned grocery stores in Dublin that would be affected and felt the answer would be no, all the grocery stores are large corporations. Cm. King stated that the City cannot disregard the fiscal impact of the ordinance and suggested to recommend the ordinance but with a statement that asks them to carefully review the fiscal impact. Cm. Biddle suggested a better solution would be to encourage shopping centers like Blake Hunt that will have a mixture of stores including a food store. Cm. Wehrenberg pointed out that the specific plans encourage the village concept in Dublin and superstores would detract from that image. She is in favor of the ordinance because it is proactive; a similar ordinance has been upheld in court and it is more consistent with the idea of villages. Cm. Biddle felt the ordinance is consistent with both the General Plan and the Specific Plans. Cm. Tomlinson commented on a news article regarding the City of Inglewood which had approved a Wal-Mart development and was then subject to a referendum which ultimately lost but the Mayor was in support of the development because it would bring jobs and tax revenue to the city. On a motion by Cm. Biddle and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 3-1-1, with Chair Schaub absent and Cm. Tomlinson voting against the Resolution, and with a recommendation that the City Council take into consideration Cm. Tomlinson's fiscal policy issues, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 08-08 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 P A 08-009 p{annillfl Comllmsion <R.fffuwr (Hening 42 Apri( 8, 2008 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - 1. Cm. King, whose son is Chairman of Dublin Youth Advisory Committee, stated they had never been asked their views on any subject by the Commission, and one of the purposes of the committee is to give feedback on different subjects that affect the youth of Dublin. He asked the Commission if they should reach out and ask the Youth Advisory Committee their views on downtown. Ms. Wilson stated that typically we send notices to all the different committees and commissions in the City as well as general noticing. Ms. Wilson agreed to work on his suggestion. 2. Cm. Wehrenberg suggested going to the local high sC::lool, in civics class and help get involved with City processes. OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). . Oil Changers color modification SDR appeal will be heard by the City Council on May 6,2008. . Marnie Nuccio, Senior Planner is working on the Housing Element and a joint kick-off meeting with the Housing Committee scheduled on 5-13-08 from 5pm t07pm in the RMR. . Cm. Wehrenberg commented regarding an artide in the Tri Valley Herald this week, and how Cm. King was identified regarding Measure M as being proactive and being an example for the City of Pleasanton. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~1//~ ~nlinson Plannin~; Commission Vice-Chair ATTEST: G: \ MINUTES \ 2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 4.8.08.doc :I'Dwnmg C()mllmsion J:<Hilwr ~Meeting 43 4pn{s, 20IJh