HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 MuniCode Superstores
CITY CLERK
File # D~~[Q]-[2J~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 2008
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.42
(Superstores) to the Dublin Municipal Code
Report Prepared by Mamie R. Nuccio, Senior Planner, Jamie L.
Rojo, Assistant Planner, and Stephen Muzio, Associate Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Ordinance adding Chapter 8.42, relating to Superstores, to the
Dublin Municipal Code.
2) Planning Commission Agenda Statement with attachments dated
April 8,2008.
3) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 8,2008.
RECOMMENDATION:
*
/).4 J)(1)
f'v'- 2)
3)
4)
5)
Receive Staff presentation;
Open the public hearing;
Receive public testimony;
Close the public hearing and deliberate; and
Waive the reading and INTRODUCE the Ordinance adding
Chapter 8.42, relating to Superstores, to the Dublin Municipal
Code.
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 2). 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's
exposure to potential Superstore development in the City (see Attachment 2). Staff identified four (4)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY TO: File
Page 1 of 4
ITEM NO.
fa. /
G:IPA#12008IPA 08-009 Superstore OrdinancelCC Mtg 05.06.08 1st Reading\CCSR 05.06. 08. doc
sites in the City that have the potential to accommod'!-te Superstore development (see Table 1 and Figure 1
below) and described the entitlements needed to develop the four identified properties (see Attachment 2).
Table 1.
Pro er
Lin Property - Area C
Dublin Land Company
Robert Chen
Emerald Place/Blake Hunt Ventures
Potential Su 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 reement
· Amended Planned Development Zoning including a Stage
1 and 2 Development Plan
. Site Develo ment Review and Develo
Emerald Place
Blake Hunt
28 acres
ilGs
:.:.:.: ('~~Jal CotM}(;;lfcial Utrx'i. U~S
l1li Superstore Resemch LOCatiOns.
ment Sites
I Un Property
I Area C
~4 a.~es
P<ucehl {.. ] Camp Pa!ks RFTA
Streets 0 CIty 01 Ou~m
.-~~--.
l" , City <.1 Oubb!1. SphettJ {If lntt~oc~
..-....-
fa
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 2).
On March 18, 2008, Staff returned to the City Council with a draft Ordinance (see Attachment 2). The
City Council directed Staff to proceed with the adoption of the Superstore Ordinance as identified in the
March 18,2008 Staff Report.
On April 8, 2008, Staff presented a report to the Planning Commission for consideration of a Superstore
Ordinance (see Attachments 2 and 3). The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-1-1, recommended that
the City Council adopt the Ordinance adding Chapter 8.42, relating to Superstores to the Dublin
Page 2 of4
Municipal Code. The Commission also recommended that the City Council take into consideration the
potential fiscal impact on the City of adopting the ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
The term Superstore typically refers to retail establishments which seH 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 Superstore Ordinance (see Attachment 1) 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 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 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 Mqrtinez, as well as Contra Costa
County. These jurisdictions have enacted such ordinances because of various concerns about the potential
of superstores to generate negative environmental and economic impacts such as: traffic and air quality
impacts as consumers make longer trips than they otherwise would to purchase groceries, and shifting
revenue from, and reducing the number of, neighborhood grocery stores, resulting in urban decay. Some
jurisdictions have also relied on studies showing that superstores have a greater traffic impact than
discount club stores.
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
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 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 Ordinance would exclude large membership stores from the prohibition.
Page 3 of4
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3)
Receive public testimony; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Waive the reading and
INTRODUCE the Ordinance adding Chapter 8.42, relating to Superstores, to the Dublin Municipal Code.
Page 4 of 4
l~ L-fl
ORDINANCE NO. 08-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING CHAPTER 8.42 OF THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUPERSTORES
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 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 2. 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 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
6~-o<g ~.\
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 0[2
;<-Jb Y \
(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 6th day of May, 2008.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Janet Lockhart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Carolyn Parkinson, Interim City Clerk
Page 2 0[2
~
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 8, 2008
3 iJfJ L1 l
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative Action): P A 08-009 Proposed
Ordinance to Regulate Superstores
Report Prepared by Mamie R. Nuccio, Senior Planner, Jamie L.
Rojo, Assistant Planner, and Stephen Muzio, City Attomey '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 Statement without attachments dated
December 4, 2007.
5) City Council Meeting Minutes dated December 4, 2007.
6) City Council Agenda Statement without attachments dated
March 18, 2008.
~
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 Ordinance adding Chapter 8.42, relating to
Superstores to the Dublin Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 2). 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 3).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COpy TO: File
Page 1 of3
G:\PA#\2008\PA08-009 Superstore Ordina~ce\PC Mtg 04. OB. 08\PCSR 04.0B.OB.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
"iDb ~I
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
Emerald Place
Blake Hunt
28 acres
Un Property
Area C
34 acres
iiIo.
~:~:~:~:i General CO~eial Land Uses
_ SUpe<store ReoearCh loealJOft6
Parcels D Camp I''''h RFTA
1;.',1::;.;-1 Str~t5 DCitYO'Oulj"
r-"'~
L---l City of Dubin. Sphere .' WIoe"",,
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:
5t1Q 4 \
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 merchandis"e 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 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 othe~ 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
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 hearing 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
~~ 41
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 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; 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 .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; 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 given 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.
AT-h~=U+2.
It Lf/
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
find that the proposed Ordinance, as set forth in Exhibit A of this Resolution, 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 Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance as Chapter 8.42 ofthe 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 Commission 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.
~Ob L/ I
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING CHAPTER 8.42 OF THE DUBLIN
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUPERSTORES
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 exceeds one hundred seventy thousand
(170,000) square feet ~f 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 2. 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 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 rema,ining 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.
Qt"4'1
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
CITY CLIER~
file # D~~IQJ-~ll2l
lO~ Lf(
I
AGENDA STATEMENT .
CITY COUNCil MEETING DATE August 21. 2007
SUBJECT
Consulcra1J.on of Superstore C>rdmantc
Report'Prepared by . ChrIstopher L Foss
EconomIc Development Duector
ATTACHMENTS
1
CIty ofL1vennore Superstore Ordmance
RECOMMENDATION /1 A~ CODSlder Councl Member Sbnm1J's request to evaluate the need for
{ .JI'<4' a superstore ordmance and proVIde Staff WIth the appropnate
chrcct:1on .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
DlreCtlon to IeSC8rCh and PrePare such an ordmance would rcqwn:
approxunatcly 2S hours from the CIty Attorney's Office and 80
hours from the Commumty Development Department
DESCIUPTlON
On March 26, 2007, the L1VCm1ore CIty Council nnammously approved a General ~g Code Text
.A~dment 07-371 prolnbttIng superstcn:s (see LIvermore Ordmancc: - Attachment 1) The adopted
LIvermore ordmancc defines a &lSUJ>CI~tun;" as a store that typIcally offers mverse products (general
merchandtSe) and customer ServiceS, centmhzed caslnenng. and a full SCl'VJce grocery store under the
SBmC rooftbat shares cntrmcc:s and.exlts A "supe:rstore" IS' further defined to c:xceed 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 nic:n:hand1sc The defimtIon exempts ~lDlt club stores (ex Costco) where'shoppeIs pay a
memberslnp fee m order to take advantage of the dIscOunted pnces At the May I, 2007 CIty CouncIl
mectmg, Councu Member SbnmtJ ~d that the CIty CoUDCll COI1S1dcr a baD, sundar to the City of
LIVCDIlDI'C, on superstores m excess of 90,000 square feet, WIth over 5% non-taxable grOcery Items
A 1arge-sca1.e cbscopnt superstore typIcally combmes cbscount general ~erchanrhse and a full-semce
groceIY under one roof The average superstore 15 between 150,000 sf to 200,000 sf Staff bas found
that a number of other JunschctIons bavc enacted superstore prolubrtIons includuig the CItIes of Santa
Mana, Arroyo Grande, San LUIS ObIspo, San Franc1SCO~ Oak1and~ Turlock, Martmcz as well as Contra
Costa County The prolub111.0DS generally ll1D.lt superstores to no more than 10010 ofthell' gross floor area
dcd1catc:d to non-taxable grocery Items .' :
COpy TO
Page ) of:Z
G \Chru\Supcntan:\Aacnda S\aSaaenl A1IpSt 7 2007 doc
a.
. . I\r-n 4-1,
Staff has completed no add1t1onal research to date on the concept of prohIbItmg superstores m Du~hn jj
the CIty CounCIl wcrc to dIrect Staff to work on t1us Item, Staff could look mto, among other thIngs
.0 A defimtlon of large format (blg box) retall stores and chffcrcntlate the vanous subcategories
(chscount stores, dIscount superstores, and discount club stores)
o Regulat10n of floor space devoted to non-taxable ltems
o ExemptIon of cbscount membmlnp stores
o R.equl1'ClI1ent to prepare an economIc Impact analYSIS for ~res 100,000 s f and larger
o ProlnbItlon of ~uperstores ovcr a certaIn S1ZC Wlth a percentage of gross floor area' dedIcated to
non-taxable grocery Items .
Staff estunates that, If so chrccted, It would take 25 hours of tunc from the CIty Attomey's Office and 80
hours of Staff tune from Commumty Development Dcpartment to complete the research and prepare the
reports and related ordmance(s)
RECOMMENDATION .
Staff'rccommends that the. CIty Council cOIlSlder Connell Member SbrantI's request to evaluate the need
1:or a ~pClStorc ordmance and provIde Staff Wlth the appropnatc chrectIon
. .
,.J1l
I
~
I '
'\
120/;' Lf I
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.lNIT'ONS). PART 2 (ZONING
DISTRICTS) CHAPTER 2-76 (PO-PLANNED DEVELOP.MENT) SECTION 2-76-
100 (REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PO ZONES), AND
PART 3 (DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS). CHAPTER 3-10 (SPECIAL.
PROVISIONS)
The City Council of the City of L1vermore does ordaan as follows
Chapter 1-10, DefindJons - IS amended to read as follows
1-10-597 SuperstoTe
. '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 ninety thousand
(90,000) square feet of gross floor area and devote at least fIVe (5%) percent of Dle
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 seMee areas, or
open-aIr garden sales space -Non-taxable merchandise' means products.
commodIties, or rtems 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 wrth a related or unrelated garden center or sei'vlce station
Superstores are also somebmes found as separate parcels WIthin a retail .complex
WIth their oWn dediCated parking area The s~perstore defimtlon does not mcl\.lde a
discount club store. where shoppers pay a membership fee In order to take
advantage of disCounted pnces em a WIde vanety of Items such as food, ClOthing,
tires and appliances, and many Items are sold In large quanbtles or bulk .
Chapter 2-76, Planned Development D1Stnct.- IS amended to read as follows
2-76-100(B)(7)(a)
Superstores as defrried In LPZC t.10-597 are prohIbited
2-76-1 OD(C)(8)(a)(1)
Superstores as.deflned ~n LPZC 1-1~597 are prohibited
Chapter 3-101 SpeCIal ProVISIOns - IS emended to read as follows
3-10-370 Superstores
ORDINANCE _
13~l{ I
. .
. Superstores, as dennea In LP;ZC 1-10-597, are prohIbIted In all zonmg
dlstncts .
. I
The foregoIng ordl~ance was Introduced by tile folloWing 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 orcl1nance was adopted at the regular meetmg of the CIty CounQI held on
. . 2007, by the following vote -
AYES
NOES
ABSeNT
ABSTAIN
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBE:RS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
rvtA VOR, CITY OF LIVERMORE
ATTEST
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY CLERK
ASSISTANT CllY ATIORNEY
ORDINANCE NO
o
o
1Ltuv, 4/
I
')
ConsIderation of Superstore Ordinance
950 P m 86 (420-20)
Economic Development Director Cbns Foss presented the Staff Report and advised that at.
the May 1, 2007 City CouncIl meetmg, Counellmember Sbrantl requested the CIty
COUDell consider a ban on superstores snmlat to the recently adopted prohIbition m the
City of Livermore . .
Cm Oravetz asked If ~e 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 tune cost?
I
~
EconoIIllc Development DIrector Foss replIed .that no superstore representatlves had
approached the City Twenty-five 25 hours of CIty Attorney tune would cost $5,000 and
80 hours of Staff tune would cost between $5,000-$6,000 .
em Scholz asked how large the IKEA store would have been If It had gone through
Could. tlus Issue be deCided ~n a case-by-case basIS If It should anse and was there an
advantage to do It that way
EconoIIlle Development Director Foss rephed that IKEA would have been 265,000 sq ft
CIty Attorney Ehzabeth SlIver stated that It was not an Issue that could be deCided on a
case-by case basIS' . .
Vm HIldenbrand asked IfIKEA would have fallen mto tIns ordmance
EconomIC Development DIrector Foss replled.that smce there was not a defimtlon of a
superstore set by the CIty, one could not say If It would h~ve
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
DUBlLlN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
. REGuLAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 361
,.~
o
o
/'
I ~ t..l- \ ___ -'
The CouncIl and Staff dIscussed that With the LIvennore ordInance, It was 5% of any store
90,000 sq .ft or larger, but It could be any Size and any percentage set by the.Counctl For
example, the'Dublm Target was about 115,000 sq ft and had approXImately 7,000 to
7,500 sq ft of non-taxable food
. J ann Moore, Dublm resIdent, stated she supported the restnct10ns on the superstores
Dubhn Clty ofticmls were finally acknowledgmg that the CitY was reachIng the sa~on
pomt of chscount retall stores and the traffic they generated
Mark Wolfe, Callforma Healthy CommUDltIes Network., stated he had worlced very clos~ly
Wlth sPonsors of sevem1 ordmances smular the LIvermore ordmance He made himself
aVB.1lable to answer queshons smce he was a famlhar Wlththe text of the ordInances and
how they operated, and thell' legahty. The mtent of these ordinances that had already been
passed was to prolnblt superstores There were three retaIlers in Cahforma that had these
types of stores These were uses that were dIfferent from the tradltlonal Target store that
was in Dublm These stores were usually between 120,000 - 170,000 sq ft and devo~
a. certam portion of therr floor spac'e to the sale of food Items that were not taxed That
was not what a supercenter was A s,,"percenter was a big \lox retaIl store that was
combIned Wlth a full SIZe~ full-semce supennarket StudIes had shown the negative
.unpact that tlns partlcular use had on commumtles Pnmanly 1hwartmg, unpedmg or pre-
emptIng Investment m downtowns and In hvable/walkable communItIes and Investments,
aiid creatIng communitIes of dIstInctIon based on cbscreet nelghborho'od servIng
c~mmcrclal centers as opposed to very 18rgc regIon servlce commercial areas The
ordmance that was passed m Llvermore, wlnch may or not be the versIOn that ends up
commg forward In Dublm, would not cover Ii trad1t1onal Target or Wal-Mart or tracbt10nal
lKEA He supported the decIsIon to.go forward or at least explore the option ofbnngmg
one or more vers10ns ofth.e orchnance back for more detalled mscusslon or reVlew .
em Oravetz asked Mr Wolfe Wlth IKEA bemg the bIggest furnIture store In the world,
why would you want an IKEA but not want a super Wal-Mart or Target Wouid you not
say you would not want eIther uyou were trymg to ban h~ge stores
Mr Wolfe stated there were drfferent rabo~es for prolubltmg or'restJ'lctmg chfferent land
uses and If you did not want the large amount of traffic or the enVll'Onmental nnpacts
asSOCIated haVIng any large store, regardless of what It sold, then you could do what a CIty
m Son0ID;8 County did, they saId no stores over 45,000 m therr CIty, penod The reason
-:
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
. .
REGULAR MEETING
August 21,.2007
on. ... 1"'tT.o ~ L"
.
o
o
IW~ Lfl
they had attended the meetmg was tlus partIcular land use had been the subject of so much
controversy
Cm Sbran~ asked Mr Wolfe what acreage was seen ~soclated WIth a supercenter Was
there an average'm lookmg at acreage .
Mr Wolfe stated that the ones that had come forward m Cahforma were anywhc;re from
12 and 20 acres
em Sbrantl explalned why he brought the Item forwarq for dIsCUSSIon Lookmg at the
City'S Goals and ObJectIves, the superstores were the exact OppOSite of pedestnan-
fnendly development What were some of the alternate uses for that amount of acreage
There were dIscount stores already m downtown The loss of revenue between a
superstore and IKEA would be slgIllficant There was also the unpact on small bUsiness
He suggested the LIvermore ordInance as a model, not that the CIty would adopt that
exact text' He would hke to be proactIve m case a proposal for such a store dId come
forward, there would already be an ordmance m place
Mayor Lockhart asked If spmeone brought a superstore type' of plan forward could the
CIty then take a look at It an~ deCide Or If someone had enough acreage and the City
, allowed retall, would that project automatically move forward
CIty Attorney Sliver stated yes, If the property was zoned appropnately and there were no
restnctIons on the sIZe of bwldmgs 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 In your
commumty was at the Land Use level and the Zonmg level em Sbrantt's proposal would
be to amend the Zomng Ordm8.nce 'to specIfy ~t bulldmgs over X sq ft were not
penmtted and that was perfectly penmtted for the City to do The City could desIgnate the
SIze ofbwldmgs and that was done m a tradltlOi1al Zo~g Ordmance
Mayor Lockhart asked If there was presently acreage m the CIty that would qualIfy for
tlus supercenter SIte SIze
, EconOmiC Development DIrector Foss stated yes there w~e
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINurEs
VOLUME 26
REGULAR ME~tING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 363
.
o
o
l7 ob 4-1,
. City Manager Ambrose clanfied If the Mayor's earlIer questlon was at the tIme that an
apphcant came m to get therr equlValent of a Stage 2 Zomng, dtd the City have an
opportumty tc;> change the Zonmg
CIty Attorney Silver ~tated that to the extent that there were propertIes that had Stage 1
Zonmg, whether or not the Councll could place a Im1118tlon on the SIZe of the buudmg
would depend on the Stage 1 Zonmg However, If there were no vested nghts attached to
the Stage 1 Zonmg, the Councll could always amend the Stage 1 Zomng The Council
could always change the zomng absent vested nghts, which were for .a penod of bme In
terms of dealmg Wlth the-Issue when someone came 'In, the COunCIl'S hands were bed
mOre then because you had the eXisting zonmg
Vm HIldenbrand stated she supported em Sbrantl's request to go forward and to look at
thiS Issue m further detaIl It was better to take a proacuve approach Her ,biggest concern
was the City'S small busmesses and the lnlpacts a supercenter would have on them The
City always supported the small busmesses
Mayor Lockhart stated she would riot hke to talc.e Staff tune away to study somethn1g that
might not happen If the Counell, by consenSus felt tillS was not good for the - community
then, why not Walt untIl someone brought forward such plans .
Cm Sbrantl stated that If the CouncIl was saymg that the City was not mterested m the
superstore type bus mess, then why not move forward now
Mayor Lockhart stated tins was not a logical progresSIon We had created a City of
V1llages and pedestnan walkable areas Developers would know where the CIty stood on
these types of ISsues
em Oravetz stated he agreed 'with Mayor Lockhart TIns was a solutlon WIthout a
problem If a busmess were to knock on our door, then there was a process they wo~ld go
thi:ough that was called "the Planmng ComIIllsslOn He was not wIllmg to spend $10,000-
$15,000 ona problem that the City dId not have
Cm Scholz asked CIty Attorney SlIver for clanficatlon If the Council made a deCISIon
now, could they chang~ theIr nunds later .
DUBLlN CITY COUNCllL MINU'lI."ES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
ADguS~ 21, 2007
- . -- -,. ~
.
'0
.0
l~Db Y-I
.'
City Attorney SIlver stated that there was zonmg on the books, arid the Zonmg OrdInance
could be changed ThIs was a discussion about 10010ng at changmg the zomng for
commercial uses to put a llInltatlon of prohIbItion on the size of certaIn types of uses That
was mthm the Councll's prerogative It could be reversed later However, there were
certain projects that had obtamed vested nghts to develop and the vested nghts were
always for a peno~ of tune Dlinng that tune peno~ 1f the Council approved a
commercial project, the developer receIved the vested nght to bwld that project for that
specified tune If dunng that specrlied tune, ~e CouncIl deCided they 4Id not want
commercial ~evelopment on that property, the Council could change that zonmg and'zone
It resIdential, but for that partlcular penod of tune preVIously determmed, 'the developer I
has the vested nght to stIll bwld commercial If there was not a vested nght fot 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 only three 20 acre Sites m the City that were sull
vacant that might accommodate a supercenter The City' nught have to look at tlus on a
parcel-by-parcel basIS to see what the applIcabilIty of tins would be
Commumty Development DirectIon J en Ram stated that ther~ IIl1ght be change over m 10
or 15 years m central DublIn WIth $Ome 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
somethIng to the extenor, then they would have to go to the Planmng CommISSion But If
they were JUst gomg to move m and do mtenor modIfication they Illlght 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 mmute someone brought somethIng
m The hours would be much greater
. -
em Oravetz stated there was a drlIere:r;1ce of oplDlon There was a process nght now that
could stop tlus If they were knoc~g 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
VOLUMlE 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21, 2007
PAGE 365
I)
o
o
l'1llb Lfl'
em SbrantI aske~ for clanficatIon on If someone could ever move forward and say he;re IS
my commercial proJect, and Wlthout havmg an otdmance hke tlus that, the City not have a
say m It
City Attorney Sliver stated thts was complIcated because there were Sites where such a use
could be allowed and there' were potentIally dIfferent eXIstmg laIld use approvals. If you
had a .Stage 1 or 2 PD already approved, the City would have to see what uses were
permitted and w~e there any restnctlOns on the SIze of the -bwldmg If th~re were not, the
CIty'S mscretlOn was hmlted to the deSIgn, cU'CuIatton, etc
. .
Commumty Development Dlrector Ram stated that If somethmg .new came in, you would
have the chScrcbon through the zorong process to deal WIth It through the PD It was
when you came to the reuse of eXIstIng bUlldmgs For example, If you had a home
Improvement store where the ~nmg was rather broad and a reuse came m and y~u were
lookmg at Intenor lmprovements and maybe a change In the SIgn, then the City would
have a more dIfficult tune In not grantIng approval .
Mayor Lockhart aSked the CouncIl If it would' be a compronuse to have PlannlDg
Department Staff look at what opporfumtIes 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 wh~ the real posslDllJ~es hed
em SbrantI stateq that was a compromiSe he could lIve With, It was a fau' solutIon
CIty Manager Ambrose asked for clanficanon from Counculfthey wanted Staff to look at
the parcels ~at had the potentlal for such a development It would take tlme because PDs
were custom They would have to go mto each mdlVldual document and reVIew rts zonmg
and rf there was a development agreement, chd It vested that zonmg and. look at what
latItude the City had It was a good first step ~o see what was the CIty'S exposure
On motlon of Mayor Lockhart, seconded by Cm Sbrantl and by unammous vote, the City
CouncIl chrected Staff to look at ~e CIty's exposure to the Issue of a supersto~e and come
back WIth a report so CouncIl could then decIde whether another step was needed
. --:- ~ ---..
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
August 21,'2007
'P A ~lIi'_ 'Uti
.
CITY CLERK
File # Dl!J[i]~~~
9.D~ 41
.'
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE December 4, 2007
SUBJECT
Informatlonal Report on Superstores .
Report Prepared by Mamie R NuccIo SenzorPlanner and JamIe L
ROJo, Assistant Planner '
ATTACHMENTS 1). August 21, 2007 City CouncIl Agenda Statement
2) August 21, 2007 CIty CouncIl Meetmg MInutes
3) Superstore Research Mdp
RECOMMENDATION ...... - ~,ve report and prov1dc Staff WIth dJreclIon
~ V'{A.JJY ReceJ .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the May 1, 2007 City COUDCII meetlDg, COUDC1lmember Sbrantl requested that the City CounCll
cODSlder a ban on Superstores 1n excess of 90,000 square feet WIth over 5% non-taxable grocery Items
The LIvermore City Caunell adopted a sunIlar ban on March 26, 2007
On August 21 t 2007 Staff returned to the City CaUDell WIth an mformatlonal report for consIderatlon of a
Superstore Ordmance (see Attachment 1) The CIty CouncIl directed Staff to look at SItes 1D the City that
have the potcntlal to accommodate f>uperstore development and come back WIth a report before declChn~
wh~er to proceed Wlth an OrdInance (see mmutes of meetIng m Attachment 2)
The term Superstore refers to rewl establIshments wlnch sell general retall merchandise along With full
SeI'Vlce grocery sales Many.Jarge scale retallers are mcreasmgly adding to theIr general merchandISe sales
the sale of grocery Items, what dlstmgulshes 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,OOQ square feet on 10-12
acres of land With approx1mately 6-1.2% non-taxable grocery Items '
An av~ Superstore IS 175,000 square feet or larger on 17 or more acres of land WIth 15-30% non-
taxable grocery Items
COpy TO Appbcant
Fde ..
... ..........--.---
Page 1 of 5
ANALYSIS
2t ov t+1
..,
I'
J
The CIty CouncIl's dITeCtIon was for Staff to evaluate the Sltes In the CIty that have the potentIal to
accommodate Superstore development Staff looked at undeveloped land In Dublin designated for
General CommercIal land uses Staff also looked at the Downtown core area In the Pnmary Planmng
Area The' Pnmary Planmng Area land use desIgnatIon of RetaIl/Office allows shoppmg centers,
however, the bUlldmg configurabon of the core area and current successful operatIons make tlus an
unhkely area for conversIon to a Superstore, so thIS area WIll not be dISCUSSed further
Thc Dublm General Plan land use desIgnatIon of General CommerCIal allows for a range of regIonal and
commumty servIng retaIl uses m~ludmg supermarkets, drug stores; hardware stores and lngh-volume retatl
such as dIscount centers, home unprovement centers and furmture. outlets, to name a few The Geneml
Plan also sets forth a development standard known as Floor to Area RatIo (FAR) to establish a minImum
and maximum development potential for General CommercIal land uses The mInimum FAR IS 0 20 and
the maxImum FAR IS 0 60
Table 1 below IdentIfies the development potentIal for land of a. vanety of acreages UtIhzmg the
maxImum penmtted FloOT Area RatIo (FAR) for General CommercIal desIgnated propertIes of 0 60, a 10
acre SIte could develop Wlth 261,360 square feet ofbwldmg As thIS smgle stOI)' bUlldmg would cover 6
of the 10 acres, 'the remaunng 4 acres of land would have to accommodate all parlang and asSOCIated
landscapmg Parkmg IS generally calculated at 1 parkmg stall for cach300 square feet ofbulldmg area A
261,360 square foot general co~mercla1 bUIldmg would reqUIre 871 parkIng stalls Each parkmg stall
utIlIzes approxunately 300 square feet of land area when the stall Itself, au;le WIdth/per stall and
landscaPlIlg are Included The reqUlIed land .area needed to accommodate 871 parlang stalls would be
5 99 acres, well m excess of the remalnmg4 acres EIther 'the buIldmg would be forced to go to 2 stones
to accommodate surface parkmg (not hkely as most retaIlers of super store development prefer Single
story faclllUes) or a parlang structure SIZed to accept 289 of the reqwred 871 parkmg stalls would be
needed ThIS IS WIthOut SIte lands.capmg
Table 1 Deve DPment otenb ased OD Floor Area Rano
Acres Square Footage MIDlmum Square Footage MaXimum
GCFAR 20 GC FAR 60
10 87,120 261,360
14 121,968 365,904
18 156,816 470,448
I
p
aID
General Comm~rcUlI Development Sites'
Only vacant, undev~loped propertles were analyzed because they are the only srtes avallable fOT
ImmedIate development Four areas dCSlgnated for Genei~ CommercIal land uses winch are currently
undeveloped have been IdentIfied as havmg the potenttal to accommodate a Superstore I) LIn property-
. portIon of Area C, 2) Dubhn Land Company (DIManto), 3) Robert Chen property (Fallon VIllage), and 4)
Emerald Place (formerly Commerce OnelIKEA) .
LID Propertv-- Area C
. TIns property IS located west of Fallon Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Dublm Boulevard to
the north The slte ]s approxnnately 34 net acres In SIZe (see Attachment 3) and IS desIgnated.. as General
CommcTClal m the General Plan and Eastern DublIn SpecIfic Plan The property 1S owned by Chang Su-
. b< ';), ~ ~I
PermItted uses on the General Cornmemal site mcludc communIty servmg retail uses such as gC:rleral
merchandIse stores, dIscount warehouse retaIl stores, and bome unprovement stores (to name a few) and
regionally onented, blgh volume, retaIl uses such as but not lUnlted to, discount centers, home
Improvement centers and factory stores Development whIch IS consIstent With ~e zomng of the property,
as adopted In the November 1997 Development Plan, would not be subject to further zOnIng approvals but
would require Site Development ReVlew approval"and a development c1gI'Cement Based on appbcable
zomng and the Slole of the property a Superstore development could be feasible
Dublm Land Comoanv Prooerty (D1Manto)
. The Dubhn Land. Company sIte IS approXImately 76 acres In SIze, of whIch approxlma~ely 60 acres are
currently deslgndted General Commercial m the General Plan and Eastern Dubhn SpecLfic Plan The
enure 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-zonmg of the Dublm Ranch
area which establ1shed a Planned Development Zomng Dlstnct (p A 94-030) for the SIte (OrdInance 11-94
and Resoluuon 104-94). The regulatIons and standards for development of the Dubltn Land Company
property IncludIng 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 Generall'lan Amendment Study was 1IlltIated for the site m March 2003 to study consohdatmg Gene~l
Commercial land uses on the sites between Interstate 580 and Central Parkway and placing lngh densIty
residentIal land uses on the sIte betwcen Central Parkway and Gleason Dnve At tlus ttme~ the applicatIon
IS not actIvely beIng pursu~ and a Development Plan has not been submItted for reVIew for the site
The Dubhn Land property 15 currently' segmented by roadways mto 5 non-contIguous potcnbal
development SItes The 3 Sltc;S closest to 1-580 could accommodate General CommercIal development
dIld total 524 acres The smallest $lte, whIch fronts both TassaJara Road and Northslde Dnve, IS only
1 219 acres and could not cl.Ccommodate a Superstore The SIte between Dubltn Boulevard and Northslde
, Dnve IS approXImately 20 906 acres and uhhzmg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 could be developed With a
buLldIng or a senes of bUlldmgs totalmg 546,400 square feet Assummg parkmg could be .met With a
combmabon of smface and structured parlang, Superstore development could be feasIble
The largest property, the area located between Dubhn Boulevard and Central Parkway IS 30 264 acres m
SIze Again, utlhzmg the maxImum FAR of 0 60 as allowed by the General Plan, tlllS porbon of the
Dublm Land property could be developed With a bmldmg or bUIldIngs of 790,980 ~quare feet Parlang
would have to be met by utlhzmg a senes of structured and surface parlang Superstore development on
tlus portIon of the property could be feasIble .
. .
It should be noted, however, that the Eastern DublIn Spec1.fic Plan ,(EDSP) addresses maxIIDlDll
commercial development on Dubhn Land Company property at 846,1 S3 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 adchttonal analystS. studJes and envu'Onmental
revlew, It nught be pOSSIble to exceed the 902,563 square feet referenced m the EDSP In any case,
dcve~opment potentIal of 902,563 square feet 15 enough to allow development of a Superstore Th~
development of a Superstore on the DublIn Land Company sIte would reqUIre the adopt10n of a Stage 1
and 2 Development Plan (Planned Development Zonmg) as well as S1te Development RCYlcw approval
and a Development Agreement
~3 E1(j t.+ I
Robert Chen Property
........,
The Chen property IS approxunately 72 acres and ~s located east of Fallon Road between Interstate 580 to
the south and Dublm Boulevard to the north (see Attachment 3) The Site IS deSlgnated m the General
Plan and Eastern Dublm SpecIfic Plan as General Commercial An addInonal I ~ 5 acres to the east IS
desIgnated General CommerclaVCampus Office The General CommercIal/Campus Office desIgnatIon
allows the same types of uses but bmlts 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 ar~ and a Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted In
December 2005 The Development Plan allows, as a pernlltted use. reglonally onented, hIgh volume
retall uses mcludmg mscount centers. home Improvement centers and other sIxmlar uses The
Development Plan also mcludes specrli~ development standards. perfonnance standards and, findIngs
whl~h must be met at the tnne of Stage 2 Development Plan proposals, fOI 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 wouldrequlIe the adoptIon of a Stage 2
Development Plan whIch 1S required to be consIstent With the findmgs Included In the adopted Stage 1
Development Plan These findmgs among other thIngs reqUJre that the SIze. scale and mtenslty of the
proposed development do not conflIct WIth the character of the wstnct and adjacent land uses Based on
the Slze of the property a Superstore development, could be feasIble
Emerald PlaceIBlakc Hunt V entures Prop~v
The Blake Hunt Ventures site IS approxunately 28 acres and IS located west of Hacienda Dnve and east of
Arnold Road between Interstate 580 to the south and Mamnelh Way to the north (see Attachment 3) The
S1te has a General Plan and Eastern Dublm Specific Plan land use deslgn~on of General CommercIal
The property owner, Blake Hunt Ventures. has an actIve pl.anmng apphcanon tn process for the
development of the SIte A Stage 1 Development Plan was adopted by the Clty Councllm November
2007 and allows for general commerclalland useS, spec1fic development standards were also adopted m a
Stage' I SIte Plan wh1ch depICts multIple fteestandlDg bUlldmgs rangIng from lOJOOO square feet to 65,000
square feet In SIze Blake.Hunt VentUres 1S acnvely movmg forward With an apphcanon for a Stage 2
Development Plan and Site Development ReVIew for their project
The development of a SuperStore on the Blake Hunt Ventures SIte lS lughly unhkely cODSldenng that a
plannmg appl1canon IS currently In process for development of the site and a Stage 1 Site Plan has been
adopted wluch 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 Zomng DIstnct Stage 1 Development Plan would
be required as well as the adoption of a Stage 2 Development Plan and SIte Development RevIew
E7IVU'onme7ltal RevIeW
Most, Ifnot all, of the potentIal development SItes for a Superstore would reqwre a dIscretIonary approva~
and related environmental revIew 'Consistent Wlth the CIty'S practIce, Staff would examme the extent to
wluch any proposed ~uperstoIe would raJse enVlIonmentallssues not already addressed 1D pnor CEQA
, revIews for the Slte .
CONCLUSION'
~Y"n Y I
'J -
Below 15 a smnmary of the entitlements wlnch would need to' be secured for the development of a
Superstore' on the Lm property, the Dubhn Land Company property, the Robert Chen property, the
Emerald PlaceIBlake Hunt Ventures property
Pro er
Lm Property - Area. C
Dubhn Land Company.
Robert Chen
EntItlements Needed
o Site Develo ment RevJcw and Develo ment A cement
o Planned Development Zonmg Includmg a Stage 1 and 2
Development Plan
o Site Develo ment ReVIew and Develo ment A eement
o Planned Development Zomng mcluchng a Stage 2
Development Plan
o SIte Develo ment Review and Develo ment A eement
o Amended Planned Development Zomng Includmg a Stage
1 and 2 Development Plan
o Site Develo ment Review.md Develo ment A
Emcrald Plac~lake Hunt Ventures
Based on an evaluation ~f eXiStIng Sites that arc vacant and undeveloped Wlth land use 'deslgnatiOnS of
General Commercial, the Opportunity for Superstore .development is !tmlted Wltlun the commumty There
are VdIlOUS discretionary. approvals that are necessary from the Planning Comnussion 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 bedemed based solely on use
DiscretiOnary reVIew would address SIte deSIgn and development standards, for mstance bUlldmg
configuratlO1it parkmg, landscapmg, mternal clI'Culatlon and so on CEQA revIew would also be reqUired
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and proVide StclffWlth dll'ecbon
'"
-
s u pe~r;-;~ sea rC \1
to
.'
'. ,.: '..<'" ", ...~,...... '.
'r,;";" \..\:',. "'" ....~<
:-('. . ... ',; .,;',
'..\ ,,;... .:.-:". \
.~~f~ "..:'
~~I"';:~-"~'" '
~ ..: I 1-:20 .' . .' .
<,. . " :"!<I . :' ' '. ' jl:)
. '_ i IJ.,J' ',~ ~r'
'. ....""J:?..:.;.-l_-;-..: ........: .~~-~..
.!.J . ,'--' --< I ,,~CJJ. .'
'\~'.'._ .;'t '. '. '~> . "'." .
, ,..~..,., ... ..,' --
, ' . . _.r\ '. . ":' y ,-.
. It,' . \, Fft~" "" ; .
.. ,_ . . '.'l.., ..' /
. .. r'" [0" .' ... ....
..!. "",,..~~" .,..,'.-
.->--:". ". '.' '.'
f '. ...
." .... \......'
\........,....... ,...:...........,
.., //.......
\ ..../ \ ....'-.
/\ .... '-
,
.. r.otl P1ttJ~
(!<\..~J~
.. -
BRODEn sTREET
. GU:}\SO^'~
Ul ,,!Nf..
~'
~.
o
<:
a,.
ffi~' .'
U' putll:.JN R(1\1J..E"I\1ft'
ENrn .
1\''- Pl\J11(\'/.''''''''
.'.
DUb"n land
company
60 acres
Emerald Place
B1ake HUI'lt
29 acres
...--1 ""'"'_ "",> c:::J "" of -" _of-
~~
-k
"
,
\
\
I
\
\
~
~
'Z.
1b
~D
un rroP~
Area C
34 acres
---
Z GO[) t.f f
UNFOOSHEID BUS]NESS
Braddock & Logan AffordabUe HousIng Proposal to' ~ddress lfnclus)()nary Zoning
~latIons for the Andenon ProlDerty
8 21 pm 7 1 (600-30/430-80)
Semor Planner Jeff B~er presented the Staff Report and adVlsed that the City CounCIl
had dIrected Staff to work Wlth the ApplIcant to Incorporate market rate muts mto the
proposed 88-unlt affordable project on the Anderson property m order to create a mIxed
mcome development Braddock & Logan had proposed a 108-mut apartment to address
the d1rect1on by the CIty CounCIl The CIty CouncIl would prOVIde Staff WIth further
mrecnon regardIng the affordable oblIgatlon for the proposed 20 addItional market rate
umts on the Anderson property
Vm HIldenbrand state4 she was the one that asked that 'the Anderson property ~ave more
of a mIX rather than Just all affordable UnIts It was never her mtent to ask them to make
more affordable umtS She wo:uld hke the Council to grant the developer the exceptIon
The Councll concurred
I
On monon ofVm HIldenbrand, seconded by Cm 'Scholz and by unanImous vote, the CIty
Council chrected Staff to prepare an Affordable Housmg Agreement for the proposed 108-
uIllt project on the Anderson proPerty Wlth a. requIrement to provide a total of 88
affordable umts conSistent WIth the Braddock & Logan Affordable Housmg Proposal
dated October 18, 2005
<>
InformatIOnal Renort on SUlDerstores
831 pm '72 (420-20)
SeOlor Planner Marme NUCClO presented the Staff Report that was an mfonnauonal report
to the CIty CouncIl on the CIty ofDubl~' s expOsure to potennal Superstore development
DUBLllN CITY COUNClOL MlNUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR ?dEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2007
. ,
.".-- ~
6<1 VCJ Lf 1
em Sbranb stated that at a preVIOUS CouncIl ~eetmg, the Councll had asked about the
B'urlmgton Coat F8;Ctory bulldmg Could It accommodate a superstore?
CIty Manager Ambrose stated that the SIte could not accommodate a superstore foot,p~rtf
Staff had looked at areas wrth development pOSSlblhtIes, not those WIth mul~lple owners,
multIple leases, whIch would make It more d1fficuJt to accommodate a superstore
Cm Sbr~tI stated he asked 'about the BurlmgtoD Coat Factory' SIte beca~se It was only
two bwldmgs WIth two, tenants DId Staff know the square footage of those two
bmldmgs? .
EconomIC Development DIrector Chns Foss stated It was tWo stones and only about
100,000 square feet on the ground
Cm Sbrantl asked If an appheatIon were to come through, would the City have to make
findIngs to deny the applIcatIon?
AsSIstant CIty Attorney John Bakker stated SIte development reVlew (SDR) and
development agr~eme~ts were probably not the appropnate tIme to make a detemunatlOD
of whether a superstore came m That would be a use determmatlon There mIght be
constraInts assocIated WIth a partJ.cular. site that made a superstore InapproprIate at a
partIcular'locabon, m which case SDR would be an appropnate mechamsm to prevenfthat
development from commg m The CIty would have to loole. at fa~ts at that ,specIfic sIte In
order to make that determmatlon If the CouncIl wanted to ban superstores as a general
matter, they could adopt a superstore ordmance m'wmch case developments lIke the L~
Site, would be subject to that rule, and therefore a superstore could 'not go In at the Lm .
SIte But m the' Lms' case, they had vanous development agreements, mcludms the _
. master development agreem~t WIth certam vested nghts They rillght ~ot be subject to an
ordmance agamst superstores because of those vested rIghts Site development reView
was' probably not the appropnate mecharusm for rejectIng 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
DUBUN CITY COUNCll., MINlITES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR 1\1DEETING
n 1Ii"'.t""1Cl'1lArD'lIl' 'D .of 1^^""
t&
.......
~~06 L11
1-
The' COUDCll dlscussed large developments that were commg mto the Tn-Valley Would
there not be CEQA reVlew,? '
. '
CIty Manager Ambrose . &tated the CIty had done an EnVIronmental Impact Report
assocIated Wlth the Eastern Dublin SpecIfic Plan, and that speclfic plan IdentIfied certaIn
square footages and traffic impacts associated WIth those square footages for the entire
Eastern Dublm Planmng 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 hme you looked at a plan, hke Fallon Crossmgs tomght, those homes were'
evaluated m terms of thell' traffic unpacts on the road systems as part of that ongmal
enVlI'onmental document, That . was the baSIS upon wInch those projects were evaluated
You would have to go through CEQA but m the context of the eXlstmg EIR and any
changes that mIght have' occurred m terms of unpacts, the CIty dId look at that
. .
Janll Moore, Dubhn reSIdent, stated she was opposed to 'havmg supel'Stores In Dublm
~~~~~~~b~~ '
em Sbran~ stated that,the Staff Report confirmed hIs concerns He was concerned about
what unpacts a superstore would have In terms of econormc development In the area The .
Clty could better use that amount of land m terms of Jobs and amenItIes than havmg a
super~tore 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 fa.11' to property owners before they came With a
plan, to let them know about the CItY'S ban, If ~dopted.
Vm HIldenbrand concurred With. em Sbrantl
Mayor Lockhart stated It was better to be upfront WIth the deYelopment commum.ty rather
than fight the battle after
em Oravetz stated he was agamst the ban A super Target was not the worse thmg m the
world If It was m the nght spot A super car dealerslup was a great way to get revenue
The City'S planmng process was a gu1de on what type of bUSIness came mto the Clty He
chd not support the ban
DUBLIN CI1'Y COUNClrL MINUTES
. VOLlTME 26
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2007
~
\.
. 2~0() 4(
Cm Scholz stated she had concerns regardmg a giant store m Dublm She liked the
'concepts ofthe."Mom and Pop" store She supported what Cm Sbrantl was advocatmg
Mayor Lockhart asked m r~gard to the defmltlon' ~f a superstore, was It the amount of
grocenes m the store that detennmed 1f It fit under the ban? What w~ It the CouncIl 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 certaIn square footage that also contamed a certaIn amount of square footage
devoted to non-taxable sales A typICal Walmart or Target would contaIn mostly taxable
sales But superstores also contauied a meat departmep.t and typ]c~ grocenes so they
were both a WaIm~ or Target and grocery store combmed That was the dlstmctlon
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
buIldmg From a deSign standpomt and from the standpomt of reuse, you ran mto dtfficult
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 bilsmess
City Manager Ambrose stated Staff looked at the eXistIng superStores and that was how
they detenmneq acreage and square footages m the StaffRepoIt
em Oravetz asked If Staff would return Wlth a new ordmance for the Council to review
after COunCIl'S chrectlon
City Manager Ambrose stated yes, 1f that was the CouncIl's dIrectIon
Cm Oravetz stated the CIty was solvmg a problem It dtd not have If someone came to
the City WIth a plan for such a store, the site dev~lopment reVlew process would help the
CIty at that pomt .
DUBLIN CITY COUNClDL MINUTES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETING
,~
30 t56 4-1
Ec~noOl1C Development Dlrector Foss stated that Staff had contacted retailers and asked
what therr new prototype store would be Target's response was that they were loolang at
140,000 square feet~ WIth non-taxable s81es 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, Wlth about 5-10% range
Mayor Lockhart stated she supported loolang at the ordInance at a future CounCIl meetIng
and havmg mSCUSSIon regarc:hng square footages at that tune
On motIon of Cm Sbrantl, seconded by Vm HIldenbrand, and by maJonty vote (em
Oravetz votmg no), the Clty CouncIl receIved the report and prOVIded Staff WIth dlI~ctIon
to prepare a superstore ban ordln~ce' for a future CounCll meetmg, With further
dISCUSSion regardIng square footage at that tune
-- <>
RECESS
901 pm
Mayor Lockhart called for a bnef recess The meetIng reconvened With all
Counctlmembers present at 9 07 p m
<> --
NEW BUSlINlESS
Request to Permit Rental of Below Market Rate lFor~SaJe Units OD the BaSIs of
lttardshlp
9 O~ pm. 8 1 (430-80)
Housmg Speclahst John Lucero presented the Staff Report and. adVised that the CIty
Councu would consider the allowance to rent Below-Market Rate (BIv1R) For-Sale Umts
on the basIS of a hardslup
The Council' dIscussed how thIs was an mterestlng m.scUSSlon that had not been
consIdered If someone's JO~ took them elsewhere., or there was an Illness, lt would be a
DUBUN CITY COUNCIL MINU'lrES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEET][NG
DECEl\1IBER 4, 2007
~
" '--'
3 \ ~ i{\
Econonuc 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 loolang at the ordInance at a future CouncIl meetIng
and havmg mscUSSIon regardtng square footages at that tmle
On motlon of em Sbranh, seconded by Vm HIldenbrand, and by maJonty vote (em
Oravetz votmg no), the CIty 'Councll receIved the report and prOVIded Staff WIth drrc;ctIon
to prepare a superstore ban ordmance. for a future CouncLl meetmg, With further
mscUSSlon regardIng square footage at that tune
.- <>
RECESS
901 pm
Mayor Lockhart called for a bnef recess The meetIng reconvened Wlth all
Councllmembers present at 9 07 p m
<> -
NEW BUSINESS
ReQuest to Permit Rental of Below Market Rate lFor~Sale Units on the BaSIS of
IttardshlP
9 07 pIn. 8 1 (430-80)
Housmg SpecIahst John Lucero presented the Staff Report and' adVIsed that the CIty
Councll would consIder the allowance to rent Below-Market Rate (BMR) For-Sale Umts
on the basIS of a hardshIp
The CouncIl dIscussed how tlus was an. mterestlng mSCUSSlon that had not been
considered If someone's Job took them elsewhere, or there was an lllness, It would be a
DUBLllN CITY COUNCllL MlINlJ'1l'ES
VOLUME 26
REGULAR MEETnNG
DECEl\1[8ER 4, 2007
ta
CITY CLERK
File # D~~~-[I]~
'3:2 uo 1.J.\
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 18, 2008
SUBJECT:
Draft Superstore Ordinance
Report Prepared by Mamie R. 'Nuccio, Senior Planner, Jamie L.
Rofo, 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
, ....i Draft Superstore Ordinance
RECOMMENDATlON:_ .;'Q/ ~eiv. .q,ort and direct Staff to proceed with adop~on of a
Ot' 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 Staffretumed to the city Council with an informational report for consid~tion ofa
Superstore Ordinance (see Attachment I).. 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 yrith 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
______1l1
'u....
.Page 1 of 3
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
"3300 l.fl
Table 1. Potential Su
Pro e
Un Property - Area C
Dublin Land Company
Robert Chen
Based on the December 4, 2007 information report, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with the
prepaiation 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 ubi:g-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
Tur1o~k, San Luis Obispo, Galt, Elk Grove, Oakland, Livermore, and M'artinez, 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
3~~J
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 dire~ts 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.
,
T'II___ ", _~"t
~
Planltil1g C01111ni~sion Minlltes 3r;;U{j LlI
Tuesday, Apnl 8, 2008
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 of 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
p[annillfJ Commission
<R.fHuwr ;,Yfeeting
37
)lpri[ 8, 2008
Attachment 3
3~t!b '+1
continued that some of the Council Members have articulated some rationales for this
ordinance, for example, the potential blight that a superstore could 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 proposed 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-approved under the General Plan and
this ordinance would restrict traffic by limiting the number of 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 have 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 restrictions.
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.
g>[annirtfJ Commission 38 )lpri[ 8) 2008
'1<rgufar ~,'rfectiTlfj
3,ObY-/
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 stated 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 with 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 box 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
Pfanniug Commission 39 )lpn'Oi, zoo/:!
1?mufar :,tfeeting
proposed ordinance is directed towards is a particular type of store, and its impa~~n~e4- (
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 membership 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 Un'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 enough 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 Wal-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 lithe
City's ability to provide municipal seroices depends on the income generated by business. II 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
P[annil1g Commission 40 )1prir 8, 2008
tJ?JfJut4r :JdeetinfJ
size of a Safeway. He stated that he has no investment in Wal-Mart projects and ha~0~es~e1
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 Dublin 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.
Pfannil/g Commission
1?riJ ufar :lfeetin.CJ
41
)lpri( 8, 2008
Cm. King commented one of the potential impacts of a big box store is the POSSibili~2f~ttTtJ
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, independently 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(anning Commission
. 1?.fgu14r ~Meeting
42
)Ipn[ 8) 2008
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
Lf-/ Of) t.1'
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 school, 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 article 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,
Greg T omIinson
Planning Commission Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
Mary Jo Wilson, AICP
Planning Manager
G: \ MINUTES \ 2008 \ PLANNING COMMISSION \ 4.8.08.doc
(P[annillg Commission
'1?JfJlluJr 5'deeting
43
)lpri( 8, 20(}8