HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 7, 2004 I-05AGENDA ITEM V 5
ACIL CITY OF LODI
tV COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
FM
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion and Appropriate Action Regarding 1) Placing a Ballot Measure
Establishing B*Box Size Limits on the November 2, 2004 Bagot
2) Establishing a Big -Box Size Limit for the Ballot Measure 3) Placing a
Moratorium on Big -Box Retail Pending the Results of a November 2, 2004
Ballot Measure
MEETING DATE: April 7, 2004
PREPARED BY: Deputy City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council discuss and take appropriate action regarding 1)
Establishing a ballot measure regarding big -box size limits on the
November 2, 2004 ballot 2) Establishing a big -box size limit for
the proposed ballot measure 3) Consider a moratorium on big -box retail pending the results of a
November 2, 2004 ballot measure.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the March 17, 2004 City Council meeting, Council and the
public debated the merits of restricting, by size, big -box retail
development in the City of Lodi. The outcome of the discussion
resulted in the suggestion that an agenda item be placed on the April 7, 2004 Council agenda with the
specific issue of whether or not to allow the voters in Lodi to vote, via a November 2, 2004 ballot
measure, on big -box retail size restrictions.
The Council will need to address the following issues as they relate to a proposed ballot measure:
1. Does Council want to take the big -box retail size restriction to the voters in November 2004?
2. If so, does Council want the size restriction to be established at no greater than 100,000 square
feet?
3. If not, then what size?
4. Does Council want to impose a moratorium on big -box retail with a 100,000 square feet
restriction until the voters take a position on the issue in November 2004?
5. If so, will this include remodel and expansions of existing retail stores?
Additionally, in order to place a ballot measure on the November 2, 2004 ballot, certain deadlines will
need to be met by staff and the City Council. A resolution must be adopted by Council by July 21, 2004
and the staff report will be due to the City Clerk's Office by July 12, 2004.
Attached for Council's information are two documents: 1) Memorandum from the City Clerk's Office
dated March 30, 2004 — Subject -- Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition (Exhibit A) and 2) Voter
Information Pamphlet Containing Measure L Contra Costa County (Exhibit B).
APPROVED:
H. Dixon Flynn, City Manager
FUNDING: Not Applicable
i
Jane S. Keeter
Dep ty City Manager
JSKISI
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT., NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE PETITION
The attnhed Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition was filed in my office on
March �$O. Payment of the $200 fee for processing an initiative petition was also
received in accordance with Resolution 98-28.
Pursuant to California Elections Cade Section 9203 () the City Attorney has 1
days from the date the Notice of Intention was filed with the City Clerk to prepare
ballot title and summary, The proponents will then publish the notice, title, and
summary in Lodi News Sentinel, after which circulation of the petition can
commence. e. Signatures from a minimumof 10% of the registered voters in the
City of Lodi must sign the petition for it to qualify for certification by the San
Joaquin Registrar of Vetere. As was reported to the Secretary of State's Office
on larch 2, 2004, the total number of registered voters in the City of Lodi was
26,3132 (10% � 2,634),
Ms. Susan lackston
City Clerk, City of Lodi
1 W, Pinc t,
Lodi, CA 9524.0
March 30, 2004
To the Honorable Clerk of the City of Lodi;
EE
11131, MA'D
Below is our notice of intention to circulate an initiative petition. We request that a title and summary of if be
prepared by the city attorney, We further petition you to submit this Measure to the city council for adoption
without change orsubmission omission to the voters of the City of Lodi at the earliest regular or special election for:
which it qualifies.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE PETITION
NOTICENOTICETS HEREBYGIVEN by tbe persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the
petition within the City of Lodi, -Ibe petition proposes to amend: the City of Lodi`s zoni.ng ordip , Lodi
-Municipal Cade, 'Title 17, to impose a maximum size limitation of 100,000 square feet upon all Iar e-�scale retail
steres.
statement of reason for the proposed action as contemplated is as follows. Lodi is conf ont d with
increasingly larger scale regal stares and increasingly larger scale commercial development projects, 'These`
projects, and the likelihood of similarly large -scaled projects in the future, have raised concerns based € n the
hidden costs, economic, environmental, and social, these may have on the City of Lodi.
4hese include.
1. Costs of adverse traffic congestion and infrastructure,
2. L-oss of trees, open space and farmland,
3, Displacement of loc=ally awned small businesses,
4, Erosion or even elimination of L:odi's unique "small town atmosphere,"
. Potential for urban blight.,
. Disruption of" the City's policy to support the downtown as a retail and cultural area,
7, pollution of air and water,
8. 1. crea e in crime, and
9. Tendency for city services to cost. more than in ome generated by t revenue.
In order to protect the city from the adverse effects cased by the proliferation of large-scale retail. stores and
commercial pr jects, the measure provides as follows;
o is Sensible Scale and Character Initiative
The people of the City of Lodi do hereby ordain as follows:
do �s ext lei s
A. Purpow The purpose of this Initiative is to protect and preserve the existing community character
and fabric, and promote the-continua.:tion of neighborhood/community commucial centers.and the
downtown commercial center, Also, the purpose of this Initiative is to ensure that the purposes and
principles set fords in the City of Lodi's General Plan are fully considered by establishing sensibly
scaled reit it development and maintenance of the City of L.,o is unique character. This action:
recognizes that large -scaled retail stores affecting the city shall be subject to a public vote.
B. Findings, The people of the City of Lodi find that regulating size and bulk of retail stores, through
this iiiitiati e, promotes the welfare, economy, and quality of life of the residents of Lodi, based upon
the fo Rowing:
y
An important component of the City of Lodi is maintaining its unique character. L odi's small-town and rural
qualities .re a valuable trait of the to m. Large-scale retail stares detract f orn the community's character and
aesthetics. Large retail stores are usually located some distance away from residential neighborhoods because
they require large sites, which are usually found only in. zones outside of the downtown area, Large-scale retail
often consists of ton , plain facades, a sea of parking, and sparse landscaping.
he unique character of the City of Lodi and the duality of life enjoyed by city residents and visitors depend on
the protection of the small-town and rural qualities. The protection of such attributes aids the continued
viability of the city and brings mental and physical benefits from the broad protection of Lodi residents' quality
oflil
. Strengthening Loch's Economy.
It is im ortatit to have sensible scale retail stores in order to continue to strengthen and sensibly develop L€ di's
existing econorny. Lodi has a number of shopping centers providing the community with merchandise and
ser prices, large-scale retail stores affect existing shopping centers by causing the existing stores to> o out of
business, thus.destabilizing the shOpping centers, and leaving empty, boarded -up buildings, which increase crime
and blight, The surrounding area loses the merchandise and services offered by the existing businesses.
Sometimes alar e -sale retail company will close down an existing stare;, and replace it with a superstore, which
also results in a lame, empty stare.
3. Ensuring adequate Public Services for the City.
There are negative impacts to not. having sensibly scaled retail stores, includi : safety° Large-scale retail stores
require significantly higher roan itm nt of police, fire, and public mtety resources compared to smaller
WJghborhood stores. Usually large-scale stares fail to provide provisions for the pedestrians entering the stare
It is often dangerous even to walk from the parking lot to the entrance of the stare, with cars driving and
rnaneuverinng in the very large parking area. The larger stores usually involve longer trips and generate more
traffic in a concentrated area, and thus require improved street capacity in their immediate neighborhoods, The
elderly, handicapped, and poor may not have access to larger retail stores because they are located at greater
distwices away from their neighborhoods due to the large laird acquisition requirements of the larger retail stores.
C, Effect of Initiative. To achieve the above -stated purposes, this Initiative would amend. the City of
Lodi's Ordinance to establish a limit on large-scale retail stares that exceed 100,000 square feet of gross
floor area. Also it would require that any project proposal that exceeds 1.00,000 square feet of grass floor
area be :subject to a public vote for approval.
Exhibits. This initiative does not have any exhibits attached but relies upon the design standards for large-scale
stores recently adopted by the City.
legion 2. Zon' di rase is
Whereas, the Lodi General Plan establishes a policy framework that forms the City of Lodi's strat gy'for r --tail;
and
Whereas, the Lodi General plans recognizes three distinct types of shopping centers — nci hborhoo /community
commercial; general commercial; and downtown commercial; ars
Whereas, the Lodi General Plan establishes policies encouraging promoting downtown Lodi as the City's social
and cultural center and an economically Friable retail and professional office district, it promotes locating fature
commercial retail in d v town Lodi and preserving the existing small-town scale and character of Dodi; and
Whereas, General Plan policies promote and encourage vital neighborhood commercial districts that are evenly
distributed throughout the city so that residents are able to meet their basic daily shopping needs at
neighborhood shopping centers; and
Whereas, the, California Government code also provides that in order for the ordinance to be consistent with the
General. Plan the various lard uses authorized by the ordinance should be compatible with the objectives,
polities, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan; and
Whereas, the Dodi zoning ordinance (Title 1. 7 of the Lodi Municipal Code) has not l e t pace with. the evollAtiorl
of the retail sector and fails to adequately distinguish the size, scale and ,scope of various retail activities; and
Whereas, an emerging national trend exists toward increasing the size of retail outlets and the diversity of
products offered atsuch large-scale discount stares and discount superstores; and
Whereas, the establishment of discount stares in Lodi is likely to negatively impact the vitality and economic
viability of the city's neighborhood community commercial and. downtown commercial centers by drawing sales
away from traditional retail stores located in these centers; and
Whereas, discount superstores adversely affect the viability of small-scale, pedestrian -friendly neighborhood
c ommercial areas, contributing to blight its these areas; and
Whereas, given the city's current population of 60,000, there are currently adequate retail stores to support the
market for large-scale retail; and
Whereas, the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance are intended to preserve the city's existing
neighborhood -serving shopping centers that are, centrally located within the community; and
Whereas, this distribution of shopping and employment creates a land use pattern that reduces the reed for
vehicle trips and encourages walking and biking for shopping; services, and employment; and
Whereas, a significant concern with large retail discount sures is that. they combine neighborhood -serving retail
in a more re iaote, regional -servinretail center which would result in the decline of neigh borbood-serving retail
sures by consolidating their activity in a single, outlying location; and
Whereas, the remote location of large retail discount sures means that local residents are forced to drive further
for basic; services such as groceries, and are forced to take longer and more frequent traffic trips to the >regional
com erci ai center to satisfy basic everyday needs, increasing overall. traffic and overburdening streets that were
not designed to accommodate such traffic; and
Whereas, the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, by limiting large-scale retail stores, will 'prevent the
negative transportation and related air quality impacts that establishment of such stores is likely to have, and
Whereas, numerous local jurisdictions in the country and the State of California, taking all of the above
considerations in mind, have enacted ordinances on new large retail stores over a certain size that either
Completely prohibit new retail Mores over a certain size or require special impact studies; and
Whereas, California jurisdictions that have recently enacted such regulations to help sustain the vitality of small-
scale, more pedestrian -oriented neighborhood shopping districts include the Cities of Turlock, Santa Maria, San
Lis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, t alcl and and Maltirnez; and
Whereas, a potential discount superstore would directly contravene the approach the city's General Plana
established for retail3 and
Whereas, the proposed regulations will place stricter controls on the establishment of, or conversion to large-
scale sures std would prevent a large-scale store with potential negative environmental impacts faro n eitx
established is Lodi; but. will not itself generate environmental impacts or necessitate environmental review. and
Whereas, the adoption of these regulations does not approve any development project nor does it disturb the
physical environment either dircetly or indirectly as the regulations modify the limitations of land use by
limiting large-scale retail stages Haat exceed 100,000 square feet of gross floor area and require such projects be
approved by the citizens' votes; and
Whereas, requiring voter approval of land use development of large-scale retail stores that exceed 100,000 square
feet of gross floor area will ensure opportunities for full public participation in decisions affecting facture land
Use, quality of life, and character of the City of Lodi.
W, THEREFORE, the City of Lodi hereby ordains that.
The Lodi Zoning Ordinance (Title 17 of the Lodi Municipal Code) is amended by the addition of Section
17,36.035, which shall read as follows:
"Retail stmetares in the C- I district shall not exceed 100,000 square feet in gross floor area unless
approved by public vote. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "gross floor area" shall include
outside retail areas,"
'Fhe Lodi Zoning Ordinance (11fle 17 of the. Lodi Municipal Code) is further amended by the addition of
Section 17,39,035, which shall read as. follows:
"Retail structures in the C-2 district shall not exceed 100,000 square feet in gross floor area unless.
approved by public vote, For the purposes of this subsection, the term "gross floor area sh0 include
outside retail areas."
T'he Lodi Zoning Ordinance ('title 17 of the Lodi Municipal. Code is ftnt.her amended by the addition of
Sections 17, 36-036 and 17,39.036 which shall read as follows:
"Nothing is. this Chapter shall give the City Council the authority to grant a variance from the. provisions
of 17,36,035 and 17,39.035 relating to the maximurn size of structures in the C-1 and C-2 Diskriem'
A. Effective Date. As provided in Elections Code section 9217, this Initiative shall take':effect ten days
afterthe date on which the election results are declared by the City Council, Upon the effective date of
this Initiative, the provisions, of Section 2 of this Initiative arv, hereby inserted into the City of Lod. i's
Planning and Zoning Code as an amendment thereof
B. Interim. Amendments, 'The City of Lodi's Zoning Code in effect at the time the Notice of Intent to
circulate this. Initiative was submitted to the City of Lodi Elections Official on March 30, 2004
("Submittal Date"), and the ordinances as amended by this Initiative, comprise an integrated, internally
consistent and compatible statement of policies for the City of Dodi. h-1 order to ensure that the City of
Lodi. s Planning and Zoning remains an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of
policies for the City as required by state law and to ensure that the actions of the voter in enacling this
Initiafi�ve are gi.vQ-n effect, any provision of the Planning and Zoning Code that is adopted between the
Submittal Date and the date that the Planning and Zoning Code is amended by this measure shall, to the
extent that sueb interini-enacted provision is inconsistent with the Planning and Zoning Code provisions
adopted by Section 2 (if this Initiative, be amended as soon as possible and in the manner and time
required by state law to ensure consistency between the provisions adopted by this Initiative and other
elem=ts of the City's Planning and Zoning Code.
C. Other City Ordinances and Policies, The City of Lodi is hereby authorized and directed to amend
the Planning and Zoning Code, other ordinances, the General Plan, and policies affected by thi s Initiative
as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by any applicable state law to ensure
consistency between goals, ojectives and policies adopted in Section 2 of this Initiative and other
clew rats of the City's Planning and Zoning Code, General Plan, all community and specific plans, and
other City ordinances and policies,
A -Mem P -t i -O Wns-f-0 r- C- eff-W-n—P Vec —ts
This Initiative shall not apply to any of the fcsllowin : (i) any project that has obtained as of the effective cute
of the Initiative a vested right pursoant to state or local law; () any land that, under ,state or federal law, is.
beyond the power of the local voters. to a 'ect by the initiative power reserved to the people via the California
Constitution
-irr a tt�rs®
Except for the renewal or repeal (if this Article, any direct or indirect casts to the City of Lodi caused by the
lectics s mandated by this article shall be borne by the applicants for the large-scale development project i
excess of 100,0 square feet, unless otbe vise prohibited by state law.
Elections mandated by this Article shall be consolidated nth other elections, whenever fusible. Dit " vent..
pi-oposa.ls may appear an the same ballot at the sante election provided that each separate proposal affecting a
discrete property or development project shall be submitted to the voters as a separate measure.
iona vera i and _Int tati jR.
This Initiative shall; e interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state taws, rules, and regulations. If. .
any sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this trait€ tive is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a fatal Judgment of a. court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions ofthli Initiative. The voters hereby declare that this Initiative, and.each.
section, sub -section, sentence, clause; phrase, part, or portion thereof would have been adopted or passed even
if one or more sections, sale -sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts, or portions are declared invalid or
unconstitutiQal. If any provision of this Initiative is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance,
such invalidity shalt not affect any application of this Initiative that can be given effect without the invalid.
application, This l itiat.ive shall be broadly construed in carder to achieve the purposes stated in this Initiative,
toy, r t or :Re eA
Except as Othelivise provided herein, this initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City
of Lodi.
Elizabeth M Fiske
723 S. Lee
Me-
VOTER INFORMATION
PAMPHLET
Containing
MEASURE L
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004
Arguments in favor of or against the proposed measure are the opinions of the authors.
[CCC LOGO]
ALL STYLES
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Shall the Large -Scale Retail Businesses Ordinance, Contra Costa
County Ordinance No. 2003-18, be adopted?
COUNTY COUNSEL'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed the
Large -Scale Retail Businesses ordinance (Ordinance No. 2003-18) on
June 3, 2003. Later, a referendum petition protesting the ordinance was
presented to the Board of Supervisors. Since the petition contained the
required number of voter signatures, the ordinance did not become
effective. The Board of Supervisors then had to decide whether to
repeal the ordinance entirely or submit the ordinance to the voters of the
County. On October 7, 2003, the Board of Supervisors decided to
submit the ordinance to the voters of the County.
This ballot measure asks voters whether the Large -Scale Retail
Businesses ordinance should be adopted. The ordinance will become
effective if a majority of voters voting on the measure favor the
ordinance. If the ordinance becomes effective, it will only be effective in
the unincorporated areas of the County, not in the cities.
The Large -Scale Retail Businesses ordinance prohibits any
large-scale retail business from devoting more than 5 percent of its total
sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise. The ordinance
includes definitions of key terms. A large-scale retail business means "a
retail business with more than 90,000 square feet of gross floor area,"
but "does not include wholesale clubs or other business establishments
that charge membership dues or otherwise restrict merchandise sales to
fee -paying customers." The sales floor area "includes 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 "includes
products, commodities, or items not subject to California state sales tax."
According to the Large -Scale Retail Businesses ordinance, its
purpose "is to limit the negative impacts of large-scale retail businesses
on traffic circulation, land use patterns, and the economic and social
health of neighborhood commercial areas, by prohibiting large-scale
retail businesses from devoting more than 5 percent of their total sales
floor area to the sale of non-taxable merchandise."
A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of adopting the Large -Scale Retail
Businesses ordinance.
A "no" vote is a vote against adopting the Large -Scale Retail
Businesses ordinance.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
In order to prevent increased traffic congestion, protect the County's
remaining open space and agricultural lands, and to prevent unplanned
growth, the Board of Supervisors adopted this ordinance to place
reasonable restrictions on large scale "big box" retail stores larger than
90,000 square feet. This ordinance does not apply to cities but only to
those areas of our County where open space and agricultural lands are
most at risk.
Corporate interests from outside California are trying to block this
ordinance.
Traffic congestion in the County continues to overburden our existing
streets and roads, diminishes economic productivity, our quality of life,
and our environment. Unplanned growth and sprawl continues to
consume our County's increasingly scarce open space and agricultural
lands.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers has determined that "big box"
retail stores larger than 90,000 square feet — the size of five football
fields — that sell large volumes of non-taxable grocery items generate
substantially more daily traffic than typical neighborhood -serving
supermarkets, standard discount retail stores, and wholesale warehouse
club stores. These businesses also consume as much as 20 acres of
land, including a parking lot for over 1,000 cars — five times as much as a
typical supermarket.
As a result, these businesses impose higher costs on the County than
other retail businesses, in the form of increased traffic congestion,
strained roadway infrastructure, and loss of open space, while
generating little additional sales tax revenues to offset these costs. We
seek to limit the negative impacts of such stores by placing reasonable
size restrictions on them.
These restrictions apply only to retail stores greater than 90,000 square
feet that devote more than 5 percent of floor space to the sale of non-
taxable items. This ordinance won't affect standard supermarkets,
discount stores, and warehouse clubs.
2
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
John Gioia, Member
Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors
Federal Glover, Member
Millie Greenberg, Member
Board of Supervisors
Board of Supervisors
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
If the Board of Supervisors cared about growth, why did they write an
ordinance that would apply to only stores like Wal-Mart Supercenters but
not all of its competitors?
Because Measure L isn't about growth. It isn't about traffic. It's
about politics.
Caving into pressure from labor unions that have a dispute with Wal-
Mart, the Supervisors wrote Measure L for the sole purpose of
preventing Wal-Mart from opening a Supercenter in unincorporated
areas of Contra Costa County.
Stores like Wal-Mart Supercenters actually reduce the number of traffic
trips because consumers can get all their shopping done in one place
instead of driving to several stores. The ability to get all your shopping
done at one time at a Wal-Mart Supercenter would be a big help for
working parents AND reduce traffic.
Measure L would also hurt working families in Contra Costa County
who depend on Wal -Mart's low prices and seniors who benefit from their
lower prescription drug prices.
And by limiting competition, Measure L takes away our basic right to
choose where to shop.
Consumers, not politicians, should decide whether Contra Costa County
has a Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Measure L's restrictions apply only to stores like Wal-Mart
Supercenters. Not to Costco. Not to Home Depot. How does that
protect agricultural land? It doesn't.
Local government has no business writing laws that discriminate. It is
wrong and so is Measure L. Please vote NO.
3
Charlie Abrams
Mayor of Walnut Creek
and traffic engineer
Susan M. Rainey
Walnut Creek City Council
Arne Simonsen
Antioch City Councilmember
Dave Hudson
San Ramon Vice Mayor
Ronald E. Leone
Director, Mt. Diablo Health Care
District
ARGUMENT AGAINST
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
Should consumers be allowed to choose whether or not they wish to
shop at Wal-Mart?
Of course they should. But our County Supervisors disagree.
The ordinance proposed by County Supervisors is not about controlling
growth. It's about politics.
The restrictions of this highly unfair ordinance apply only to stores like
Wal-Mart Supercenters, and not to stores like Costco and Home Depot.
How does that control growth?
Why did the Supervisors propose this ordinance? Because they were
Pressured by unions who want to organize Wal-Mart employees.
Unions shouldn't use local ordinances that limit competition and
consumer choice in their fight against Wal-Mart.
And it is just plain wrong for local politicians to write laws that
discriminate.
Regular zoning laws already apply to the location of large retailers.
Besides, we should let consumers decide where to shop, not politicians.
Not everyone can afford to shop at fancy department stores. Many
working families depend on Wal -Mart's low prices, and seniors benefit
from their lower prescription drug prices.
What's more, the ability to get all your shopping done in one place like a
Wal-Mart Supercenter is a big help for working parents.
When a new Wal-Mart Supercenter opens in a community, it typically
2
creates 500 new jobs and generates at least $500,000 in new sales tax
revenue.
In today's economy, why are the Supervisors discouraging new
businesses?
This issue is not just about shopping at Wal-Mart. It's about the right to
shop where you choose.
Consumers, voting with their feet and pocketbooks, should make those
choices. Not politicians.
The Board of Supervisors is practicing the worst kind of special
interest politics when it proposes an ordinance that applies to
stores like Wal-Mart Supercenters, but not all of its competitors.
This ordinance is not about growth. It's about politics.
It's not fair. And it's wrong. Vote NO.
James W. Conley
Antioch City Councilman
David E. Hudson
San Ramon Vice Mayor
John T. Nejedly
Contra Costa Community College District Trustee
Susan M. Rainey
Walnut Creek City Council
Charlie Abrams
Mayor, City of Walnut Creek
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
Measure L is about protecting our quality of life. It's not about Wal-Mart
or the unions.
We have a history in Contra Costa County of locally controlling how
we grow and prosper. It's what makes Contra Costa County an
attractive place to live and work.
5
If we are to maintain our quality of life we must maintain our power to
make land use decisions.
We can't allow company executives in other states to make choices for
us. Their bottom line is profits, not the well-being of our community.
Big box superstores that sell groceries generate substantially more
traffic than typical supermarkets -- as many as 4,000 additional car
trips per day. This increases congestion on our already over -crowded
roadways.
These superstores consume huge amounts of open space. This
ordinance would protect the last remaining open spaces and
agricultural lands in our County.
Big box superstores hurt local small businesses and destroy more
jobs than they create. For every one superstore that opens, two
supermarkets close.
Don't be fooled by Wal -Mart's claim of $500,000 in new sales tax
revenue. Superstores don't generate new tax revenue or jobs, they take
it away from existing local businesses that anchor vibrant neighborhood
shopping areas.
Keep the power in your hands. Vote yes on Measure L to keep local
control.
Congressman George Miller
Rev. Phil Lawson,
President, NAACP, Hercules -Pinole -Crockett -Rodeo Branch
Maria Alegria
Executive Director, Faith Works
City Council Member, Pinole
Arnold Kasendorf
President, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Richmond
Chapter
Greenbelt Alliance/People for Open Space
1.1
FULL TEXT OF
ORDINANCE MEASURE L
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-18
LARGE-SCALE RETAIL BUSINESSES
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows
(omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted
or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code):
SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 82-38 to the
County Ordinance Code to prohibit large-scale retail businesses from
devoting more than 5 percent of their total sales floor area to the sale of
non-taxable merchandise.
SECTION II. Chapter 82-38 is added to the County Ordinance Code, to
read:
Chapter 82-38
LARGE-SCALE RETAIL BUSINESSES
82-38.002 Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to limit the
negative impacts of large-scale retail businesses on traffic circulation,
land use patterns, and the economic and social health of neighborhood
commercial areas, by prohibiting large-scale retail businesses from
devoting more than 5 percent of their total sales floor area to the sale of
non-taxable merchandise. (Ord. 2003-18 § 2.)
82-38.004 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms have
the following meanings:
(a) "Large-scale retail business" means a retail business with more
than 90,000 square feet of gross floor area. "Large-scale retail
business" does not include wholesale clubs or other business
establishments that charge membership dues or otherwise
restrict merchandise sales to fee -paying customers.
(b) "Non-taxable merchandise" includes products, commodities, or
items not subject to California state sales tax.
(c) "Sales floor area" includes 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. (Ord. 2003-18 § 2.)
7
82-38.006 Prohibition. No large-scale retail business shall devote more
than 5 percent of its total sales floor area to the sale of non-taxable
merchandise. (Ord. 2003-18 § 2.)
82-38.008 Duty of owner and operator. Every owner and operator of a
large-scale retail business shall maintain the business in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter and is liable for violations of this
chapter regardless of any contract or agreement with any third party
concerning the business. (Ord. 2003-18 § 2.)
82-38.010 Enforcement. If a violation of this chapter occurs, the County
may seek compliance by any remedy allowed under this code and any
other remedy allowed by law. (Ord. 2003-18 § 2.)
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30
days after passage, and within 15 days after passage shall be published
once with the names of supervisors voting for or against it in the Contra
Costa Times, a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED on June 3, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Glover and DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None Supervisor Uilkema recused herself from the vote
**District III Seat VACANT**
ATTEST: JOHN SWEETEN, Mark DeSaulnier
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
By: Danielle Kelly
Deputy
1.1
Question Analysis: Final Draft
(From DataCycles Survey of Lodi Residents, March -April, 2004).
To what extent do you approve of 'big box', large-scale retailers
entering Lodi? (E.G. SUPERWALMART, COSTCO)
Overall Respondents (Both surveys)
Responses
% Response
Strongly approve
454
30.1%
Somewhat approve
233
15.4%
I'm neutral about it
205
13.6%
Somewhat disapprove
184
12.2%
Strongly disapprove
433
28.7%
Participants responding: 1509
1509
100.0%
Average score: 3.1
Utility Customers (General Survey)
Responses
% Response
Strongly approve
216
29.3%
Somewhat approve
113
15.4%
I'm neutral about it
104
14.1%
Somewhat disapprove
80
10.9%
Strongly disapprove
223
30.3%
Participants responding: 736
736
100.0%
Average score: 3.0
Voter Registration Panel (Random Selection)
Responses
% Response
Strongly approve
235
30.6%
Somewhat approve
118
15.4%
I'm neutral about it
101
13.2%
Somewhat disapprove
104
13.6%
Strongly disapprove
209
27.2%
Participants responding: 767
767
100.0%
Average score: 3.1
Background: Residents responded to this question in the context of the overall
survey, which was to help the City prioritize services due to budget shortfalls.
Residents were asked to keep in mind the City's need to cut expenses or find new
revenue when filling out the survey. Therefore, some respondents may have
indicated approval of 'big -box' retail to the extent that they connected the addition
of a 'big -box' retailer in Lodi to increased tax revenue for the City. Secondly,
residents were asked about 'big -box retail in a generalized, conceptual question,
without regard to the type, size, or location of any proposed new retail. It is
possible that the approval scores would drop if the respondents knew the exact
location(s) of any proposed sites, as there might be a subset of respondents who
approve of these retailers but not at the proposed location(s). It is unlikely that
respondents who do not approve of these retailers in a general sense would
change their minds based on specific information, such as location. DataCycles
could, at the City's request, re -survey those who responded to this question, asking
them if they approve based on a specific location or any other specific qualifying
information. Results would be available in 24-48 hours.
Analysis: Overall, respondents are divided between approval and disapproval
(45.5% approve — 40.9% disapprove), with a large number (13.6%) being neutral
about the issue. Given the limited amount of information presented in the question,
coupled with a relatively even split on the issue and a significant number of
respondents in the 'neutral' category, it is impossible to predict how residents would
feel if offered more specific, qualifying information. Older respondents (65+), which
represented 35% of total response, are less in favor of 'big -box retailers (38%
approve — 44% disapprove, 18% neutral), and those who have lived in Lodi for
more than 20 years are slightly more disapproving than those who have lived in
Lodi fewer years. Conversely, respondents living in Lodi for 10 years or less are
more supportive (53% approve — 35% disapprove, 12% are neutral), as are those
who are younger than 65 (50% approve — 40% disapprove, 11% neutral). The
13.6% of respondents that answered "I'm neutral about if' are more similar to those
who disapprove versus approve, in that they are older and have lived in Lodi
longer. However, the fact that they share some demographic similarity with those
who disapprove of 'big -box' retailers entering Lodi does not imply that they would
go in that direction if pressed for a for -or -against opinion.
Conclusion: To the extent that the City would like to understand further resident
opinion about this issue, DataCycles could efficiently re -survey the participants who
answered the original question while providing additional information.
Information that might assist in making a more informed opinion:
1. The proposed location of the specific project and other locations if multiple sites
are available for consideration.
2. Summary of the environmental impact (including traffic) of the proposed retail
site.
3. Summary of the economic impact of the proposed new retail site (estimated net
job gain or loss, estimated annual additional tax revenue, potential impact on other
Lodi businesses, risk factors, etc.)
ITEM I-5
All of the attached communications
pertain to the issue of "Big -Box" size
emits and were received subsequent to Council Members' mail
delivery on Tuesday, April 6.
(Excerpt from City Clerk's procedure for handling Council Communication —
related to the definition of `Blue Sheets".)
"Blue Sheets"
Communication to the City Council pertaining to an item on the current agenda
that was received after the last ma# delivery to Council Members, is copied on
blue paper with the corresponding agenda item number identified at the top right
corner. This communication is placed on the Council dais alongside the agenda
for review by Council Members prior to the item discussion. Blue sheets are also
distributed to the City Manager, City Attorney, other affected departments, the
press table, and are included in the "blue sheet" binder on the public information
table in the Carnegie Forum on the day of the meeting.
Page 1 of 2
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:10 PM
To: 'Sue and Olen McCombs; ityclrk@lodi.gov; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John
Beckman; Larry Hansen
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam; Richard Prima; Jerry
Adams
Subject RE: BIG BOX STORE
Dear Sue McCombs:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, 3) Community
Development, 4) Public Works, and 5) Police Department.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Sue and Olen McCombs [mailto:olen-sue@softeom.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:04 AM
To: itycirk@lodi.gov; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Subject: BIG BOX STORE
I am for the Wal Mart Superstore. I have been to a Wal Mart
Superstore and they are roomy and easier to shop than the current,
crowded location where aisles are crowded and parking hard to find
at busy times. I have also been to a Super Target which is a great
store. I am also against arbitrary size limits which I feel would
create this same issue in the future. Why not limit the size of other
types of businesses if we are gong to call for size limits. They also
pave over farmland.
I have already sent the following comments to John Beckman
regarding the opposition, so I am repeating them for this memo.
1. The loss of trees, open space and farmland:
285 acres will be annexed for houses and are covering "farmland".
Wal Mart is only a small area compared to the new annexation
2. Traffic congestion:
1700 homes will add more to congestion than a new Wal Mart. The
additional traffic will not create a major complication from Wal
Mart.
Obviously we hope all roads will be improved to compensate both
the annexation and Wal Mart.
4/7/2004
3. Displacement of locally owned businesses:
No more than Food 4 Less and Safeway have already done.
How about the new grocery on Cherokee Lane featuring Mexican
foods. Isn't it going to put some mom & pop stores out of
business? I don't hear complaints about that.
4. Erosion of Lodi's unique small-town atmosphere;
Adding to a commercial corner will not ruin the residential or
downtown areas.
After the annexation we will be 62,000 plus population. Either we
have the stores available in Lodi or we shop in Stockton just as we
have had to do with Lowe's and Home Depot and as many will do
when the Stockton Wal Mart Super Store is built.
5. Disruption of the city's policy to support the downtown as retail
and cultural area:
Does the current Wal Mart sell the same things that downtown sells?
The new Wal Mart will not have a theater or MooMoos or any new
competition for downtown.
6. Increase in crime:
Are they saying that a new Wal Mart will cause more crime than the
new 1700 homes?
7. Tendency for city services to cost more than income generated by
tax revenue.
Explain to me how this would happen!
If every request for a large store had to come before the voters, we
would have this same situation. There are always people against
everything these days and that would be no exception.
Sue McCombs
4/7/2004
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 200411:09 AM
To: 'Lisa Lewis'; Larry Hansen
Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve
Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Walmart superstore
Dear Lisa Lewis:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Lisa Lewis [mailto:firefamily@softcom-net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 11:06 AM
To: Larry Hansen
Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject: Walmart superstore
I am unable to attend the city council meeting tonight, to
discuss the Walmart supercenter, However, I do want to take
a quick moment to voice my favor for the store! Please do not
deny the people of Lodi the right to choose where we shop!
Thank you,
Lisa Lewis
4/7/2004
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jackie Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 20041:09 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Support of WalMart
Susan Hitchcock, Mayor Hansen, and all Council Members:
I understand Council will be discussing the WalMart issue during the Council meeting tonight. While I cannot get to the
meeting tonight due to a recent surgery, I wanted to let Council know my feelings as a resident and citizen of Lodi,
I'm all for the proposed WalMart and I support the current WalMart. There are too many shops in this town that close
early, open late, or do not open at all on Sundays. We have a better quality of life when we have the freedom to choose
when and where we want to shop. WalMart offers a great variety of items at very good prices, offering everyone an
opportunity to enjoy a better quality of life. WalMart provides great tax benefits to Lodi too. We can't afford to turn away a
group that hires people in our community, provides tax support to our community, and gives to charities and supports our
community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Connie Errington
Jacqueline L. Taylor, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
PO Box 3(K)6 - 221 W. Pine Street
Lodi. CSA 95240 (709) 333-6703
Ms. Angie Dados-Metas
1101 Junewood Drive
Lodi, Ca. 95242
(209)369-9260
April 7, 2004
To All Members of
Lodi City Council
Lodi City Manager
Lodi City Attorney
121 W. Pine Street
Lodi, Ca. 95240
To all parties;
book:
RECEIVED
APR — 7 2004
aty cierk
City of 1_odi
The photo copy enclosed on the reverse is for your benefit. The Wal-Mart statements of truth are from the
Utle:
Thieves in High Places
w.aw-.
rm 1E 106"er
Publisher:
Penguin croup
Copyright-.
2003
Reference Pages: 190 & 191
Sub -Section: Dead Pheasants
Aside from this, have you taken under consideration the existing established businesses such as;
Raleys, Safeway, Food For Less, Albertsons, Food Mar! & Ace Hardware_ Have you not learned from the closures
of, Henderson Brothers Hardware when you allowed Orchard Hardware & Supply to cone in, or the many Mom &
Pop shops of our eemmllnity that had to elope after you allowed the existing Wal -Mutt to one in. Are you that
greedy or ignorant, that you can not or wish to not be concerned with the welfare of your constituents? Are you
that far in debt from your poor judgment that you can not see this will create additional hardship to the citizens of
this community. Pull your head out of the clouds. You are on the council to provide good sound judgment for the
betterment of the community, not to inflate your personal ego's and pocket books.
In closing, we do not or want a "Super Wal-Mart"!
ael
CC HR
CM IS
CA 'LIB
CD _PR
=EUD �PD
_FINPW
FDQQM
_...,
190 THIEVES IN HIGH PLACES
• The few women who have become store managers are paid an average
of $16,400 a year less than the men. In Wally World, women quickly
hit the glass ceiling and are then asked to Windex it. Cases abound of
women who have had to train the men promoted above them.
Then there's an especially irksome practice that has really stirred up
the rank and file. It's called "off the clock, which might sound like a TV
game show, but it's a way for Wal-Mart to get overtime work out of its
employees and --BONG! HERE COMES THE GAME—not pay them.
Wal-Mart: How to Play Beat the Devil
Now we're having fun. When workers—I'm sorry, "associates"—fin-
their shifts, it's common for managers to tell them to go ahead and
ck out, but assign them to do this or that before going home, taking
extra hour or two a day or more.
"I would work ten or fifteen hours a week off the clock," liberty
Morales told a reporter for Bill Moyers's Now show on PBS. She's a
mother of three and worked for Wal-Mart in Texas. Instead of going
home to her kids, she'd sometimes have to spend an extra few hours
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:24 AM
To: 'David W'; John Beckman; Larry Hansen; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Limits
Dear David Watson:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and
each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded
your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City
Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: David W[mailto:charleneshubbygyahoo,com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:17 AM
To: John Beckman; Larry Hansen; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard
Subject: Limits
Please allow us the chance to vote on size limits. A moratorium until November is not too
much to ask to allow ther voters a chance to decide. Otherwise, the big -boxes can just
hurry through and become vested before anything we do takes affect.
I am not certain if I want size limits, but I know I
want the chance to think about whether or not WalMart
fits on this side of town. Please give us the
opportunity to make a real decision.
Sincerely, David Watson
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
1
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Susan Blackston
Sent; Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:05 AM
To: 'W Maxwell'
Cc: City Council; Dixon Flynn; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: City Council Re: Big Box Stores
Dear Mr. Maxwell:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City ClerKs Office and each member of the City
Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for
informational purposes:
1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: W Maxwell [mailto:bmaxwe113@corncast.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 9:10 AM
To: Susan Blackston
Subject: To: City Council Re: Big Box Stores
Dear City Council:
On the subject of big box stores and their impact on Lodi, I refer you to today's Stockton Record, pages
A2 and BB. htto://www.recordnet.com
As a downtown Lodi property owner, I ask that you impose a moratorium on further commercial
development on the edges of the city, and that you restrict the size of future or remodeled retail outlets
to under 50,000 square feet.
William Maxwell
Maxwell Properties
4/7/2004
Page 1 of 2
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:17 PM
To: 'miller; Susan Hitchcock; Keith Land; Emily Howard; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Cc: Jean Miller; Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Concerned Citizen on Limiting Retail store size
Dear Jean M. Odell Miller:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: miller [maiito:jjrcm@inreach.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:13 PM
To: Susan Hitchcock; Keith Land; Emily Howard; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Cc: Jean Miller
Subject: RE: Concerned Citizen on Limiting Retail store size
As a concerned citizen I want you to hear my voice in regards to this item of
size limits on your agenda for your meeting on Wednesday.
I am for the Walmart Super Center. It will be good for the economics of the
city. The more Retail the city can attract the more sales tax revenue is
generated. In the current situation that the City faces due to the contamination
law suit which should have never even happened the city of Lodi should welcome
more sales tax revenue. I know as a home owner that for many reasons rates
are being raised and we the tax payers are paying for a mistake that happened
years ago which should have not even been taken on by the city.
Walmart has been since it arrived in Lodi shunned by some. Many said that
downtown would suffer. Well it appears that business in downtown is growing,
and with the right types of business. No one really said a word when Target
came to town. A supercenter will not only employee more workers but will assist
the lower income Lodians whom have to shop and watch there pennies, plus it
makes it easy for families, a one stop shopping opportunity. I welcome a
SuperCenter, the only contingent with Walmart is that they must be responsible
for filling the vacant Walmart in Sunwest Center immediately once the Super
Center is complete. This is only fair since it is such a large space, again another
4/5/2004
Page 2 of 2
new business would bring in sales tax revenue which will help the city. With all of
the Governor's cuts coming and even the idea that we as Lodians would vote yes
on a quarter cent Sales tax increase is a big risk. We are already paying more
for everything.
I know the Store Manger of Walmart personally and professionally. Our local
Walmart does a tremendous in supporting so many broad community fund-
raisers with volunteers and donations. I am proud to have Walmart as part of
this community and we should bring in the supercenter!
Best Regards„
Jean M. Odell Miller
1424 Claret Ct.
Lodi, CR 95242
Jean Miller
209-367-1792
Eff,11-1111 !
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:41 AM
To: 'Ann'; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land
Cc: Hixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Slackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Not in favor of Walmart Superstore .........
Dear Ann Hughes:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Ann [mailto:ahughes39f@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:29 PM
To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land
Subject: Not in favor of Walmart Superstore .........
am one of the Lodi citizens that is not in favor of a Walmart Supercenter. 1 would like city council to
consider the petition that Small City Preservation Committee is wanting to place on the November
ballot. It would allow voters to decide on size limits. I am asking for a moratorium on big box
expansions in the community until after a November vote. Thank you for listening.
Ann Hughes
821 So. Central Avenue
Lodi, CA. 95240
4/7/2004
Page 1 of 2
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:39 AM
To: 'Charles M Simpson'; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: BIG BOX - NO, but thanks for asking
Dear Chuck Simpson:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Charles M Simpson [mailto:chasml23@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:12 AM
To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land
Subject: BIG BOX - NO, but thanks for asking
Mayor Hansen & council members:
At BEST Wal Mart does a poor job in the present Lodi store. Itis rarely neat & tidy (Lodi IS)
and though the store manager says there are times when he could open more check stands
(implying he has them and people to man them) he can't.. HOW WILL HE MAN EVEN
MORE CHECK STANDS at the new store? The few times I have been in Wal Mart, they had
unmanned check stands with long lines at the OPEN ONES. The store has been junky on
more than one occasion. Do they deserve the opportunity to make a bigger mess and have
MORE check stands open? WILI. WE REALLY HAVE MORE TAXABLE
DOLLARS????
I think NOT, we will just be moving dollars from others sources, plus with their LOWER
prices (demanded from their sources) there would be less tax dollars, in Lodi's pockets.
Do we creed to draw people away from the NEW grocery store being built by K MART?
Give THEM a chance.
I hope OUR CITY COUNCIL will NOT be a part of the undoing of our city. America is due
to have a McDonalds on one corner and a Wal Mart on the other in the future if we do not do
our part. HOW SAD...
Thanks for listening,
Chuck Simpson
Pharmacist, Safeway
4/7/2004
Hutchins Street Square Board Member
4/7/2004
Page 2 of 2
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:37 AM
To: 'Herbert Griess; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE:
Dear Herbert and Nancy Griess:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and
each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded
your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City
Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----original Message -----
From: Herbert Griess [mailto:HfnWGandNGgwebtv.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:12 PM
To: Karry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject:
This is to let you know that we are strongly in favor of a Wal-Mart Supercenter here in
Lodi.
Thank you.
Herbert and Nancy Griess
1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:36 AM
To: 'james smith'; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: We need the Supercenter!
Dear Norma J. Smith:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and
each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded
your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City
Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
_____original Message -----
From: james smith [mailto:nsj62@inreach.com]
Sent:: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:54 PM
To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject: We need the Supercenter'.
WE NEED THE SUPERCENTER!!
As a resident and taxpayer of Lodi, I have been quite upset at the
mindset against the 'Supercenter" being constructed here in Lodi. We
should be ashamed of ourselves when the added taxes which will be
generated by this modern facility are needed so badly. Maybe more
people are forgetting the mess that Lodi is in because of the mistakes
made in the ground clean-up for downtown Lodi and we had better widen
our vision and encourage the larger stores to be encouraged to come
here. We need the taxes that will be generated by larger stores. As for the downtown
business district, I would like to make a few
comments. It seems that this development was brought about to the best
interest of the same people who are against Wal -Mart's desire to
increase their service to their consumers. As I read in the newspaper,
even some of the merchants who struggle downtown, admit to the lack of
parking for customers because lets face the facts, people do not want to
find it necessary to park in the parking garage and then have to walk
great distances to shop. I think the complaint now is that the people
who work downtown take up the street parking and then shuffle spaces
throughout the day.
I wish I could come to the Council Meeting but due to the lack of
seating capacity, i could not stand for the hours required.
I have lived where Supercenter Wal-Mart existed nicely with every other
kind of store. People who want to shop at large stores will do so. If
the trend continues here, Stockton will continue to benefit from our
taxes as the roads become busier with the outflux of shoppers to
probably the new stores being constructed at 8 Mile and I-5.
Sincerely,
Norma J. Smith
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:32 AM
To: 'Lynne Stone'; Larry Hansen
Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve
Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Walmart Supercenter
Dear Lynne Stone:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Lynne Stone [mailto:lston@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:28 AM
To: Larry Hansen
Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject: Walmart Supercenter
This is a positive vote for the store. I will appreciate the low prices on my fixed income and my
daughter will appreciate taking her three children in and out of her vehicle only once. We value our
small town stores and will continue to support them as possible but at this point in our lives have other
conncerns. Don't drive us to Stockton or Kohls, please. Lynne Stone
4/7/2004
Page 1 of 1
_Jennifer Perrin
From: Susan Blackston
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:55 AM
To: 'Dave'
Cc: City Council; Dixon Flynn; Steve Schwabauer; Rad Bartlam
Subject. RE: Wal-Mart Super Stores
Dear Mr. Sherman:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City ClerKs Office and each member of the City
Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for
informational purposes:
1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
Is/ Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Dave [mailto:daves@softcom.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:42 PM
To: Susan Blackston; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Subject: Wal-Mart Super Stores
Dear City Council,
I was born in Lodi and until now have not written or complained about anything. I urge you
to keep superstores out of our city. Yes, it will bring more low paid jobs to our community,
on the other hand it will cause other business's that pay better wages to close their doors.
One person loses their home and the next person barely makes a living where is the balance in
that? Kettleman Lane is already a mess, I try to avoid all the stores near Lower Sac during
rush hour and the holidays. I'll be taking my shopping completely out of Lodi if it becomes
anymore congested (which it will). I enjoy shopping at Safeway, Food for Less and SMart.
My greatest fear is that they will close those stores as they have done in other cities, then we
won't have any choices.
Respectfuly,
Dave Sherman
708 Reisling Ct.
Lodi, Ca. 95240
4/7/2004
Message
Jennifer Perrin
From: Susan Blackston
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:40 PM
To: 'Ralph Nevill'
Cc: City Council; Dixon Flynn; Rad Bartlam; Steve Schwabauer
Subject: RE: No to Wal-Mart Supercenter
Dear Mr. Nevill:
Page 1 of 1
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerks Office and each member of the City
Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for
informational purposes:
1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Ralph Nevill [mailto:mevill@acrtinc.comj
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:19 PM
To: Susan Blackston; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Subject: No to Wal-Mart Supercenter
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
In my travels as a salesman, l have seen lots of Wal-Mart Supercenters andl believe that Lodi is ill
suited for such a center. A Supercenter kitty -korner to the present Wal-Mart location will require
massive upgrades to the roads at that part of town and will make traffic on Hway 12 even more
congested - can a 4 -lane from 15 be far off if the Supercenter goes thru??
With the Supercenter can ugly sprawl that is Stockton be that far off??
Ralph Nevill, Ph.D., Certified Arborist
Regional Manager - Natural Resource Sciences
Ph; 877-227-8070, fm 209-367-4194
Ralph Nevill, Ph.D., Certified Arborist
Regional Manager - Natural Resource Sciences
ph: 877-227-8978; fx 209-367-4194
4/6/2004
Page 1 of 2
Jennifer Perrin
From: Susan Blackston
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 4:14 PM
To; 'Karen Stephens'
Cc: City Council; Dixon Flynn; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Proposed Wal Mart Supercenter
Dear Ms. Stephens:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City ClerWs Office and each member of the City
Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for
informational purposes:
1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
Isl Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Karen Stephens[mailto:kamstephens@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:19 PM
To: Susan Blackston; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Subject: Proposed Wal Mart Supercenter
Members of the Council:
I am writing to register my deep concerns about the proposed Wal Mart Supercenter.
Unlike some of those in opposition, I am not opposed to all "big box" retailers in Lodi. I was
thrilled when we got Wal Mart and Target. I was happy to see Lowe's get approval. I
would welcome other large retail establishments such as Barnes and Noble or Gottschalks, so
I would not support the 100,000 sq. ft. limitation. My concerns relate to the fate of Sunwest
Plaza should the Supercenter be built.
My father-in-law lived in southern Oklahoma and we visited each summer. They, too, were
thrilled to get a beautiful new Wal Mart stone and adjacent strip mall with a nice grocery,
smaller stores, restaurants, etc. Just a few short years later, however, Wal Mart built a
Supercenter across the street, leaving their previous site vacant. The next summer, the initial
site and almost entire strip mall was empty. Year after year, the strip mall remained vacant
and an eyesore. Is this what we want to happen to Sunwest Plaza?????? I think not.
Mr. Hansen, free enterprise is fine, but wise cities restrict such enterprise with zoning laws
and proper planning so development benefits their city rather than harms it. To me, it is
common sense to prevent a Supercenter when we already have a Wal Mart and the
Supercenter would clearly cause blight and pose a threat to existing development. Just as an
aside, I don't even see where the city would benefit additionally tax -wise, since all they are
doing is adding groceries and they are non-taxable anyway.
Sincerely,
4/6/2004
Karen Stephens
2217 St. Anton Drive
369-5789
Karen Stephens
ClC.4•I► ilill
Page 2 of 2
Lary Hansen
John Beckman
Emily Howard
Keith Land
Susan Hitchcock
333-6800 x9280
333-6800 x9281
333-6800 x2913
333-6800 x2938
333-6800 x2969
hansen@lodi.gov
beckman@lodi.gov
howard@lodi.gov
landalodi.gov
hitchcock(&,,lodi;
Thank you for your support!
�,j
1 0 01 AU hIM
�3 `, SID
d 9-ddV U
(33A13038
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 1:05 PM
To: 'coopere0pacbell.net; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan
Hitchcock
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: WAL-MART SUPER STORE
Dear Edith Cooper:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's Office and
each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded
your message to the following departments for information, referral, or handling: 1) City
Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: ELZA AL COOPER [mailto:coopere@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:19 AM
To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject: WAL-MART SUPER STORE
i am a native of Lodi. During my school years the population grew to be about 12,000.
That was a small city. If the people hadn't bought so many houses here, it would still be
a small town. Today there are 50 to 60,000 people living in this city. So why do we keep
hearing 'keep the small city'?
I believe if Wal-Mart meets all the present requirements by the City of Lodi, they should
be issued the permit to build their store. The City Council shouldn't control any
business from coming to town if it meets the requirements. You are not here to
necessarily "protect" other business. Competition is the name of the game.
Why should the money be spent on an election when the issue can be settled now. The
voters who elected you to the City Council expected you were willing to make decisions,
and not unnecessarily spend money that's urgently needed elsewhere.
Sincerely,
EDITH COOPER
747 Brandywine Drive
Lodi, CA 95240
PHone: 368-4427
1
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 200411:24 AM
To: 'Glenda Rose; Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Cc: Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: no retail store size limits
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rose:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: Glenda Rose [mailto:KATLOVR@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:22 AM
To: Larry Hansen; John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject: no retail store size limits
We hope there will be NO size limitations on future retail stores. That's not a free world policy. It's
more like the old Socialist Soviet Union rule setters.
This is the USA!
Thanks
The Roses
4/6/2004
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Jennifer Perrin
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:15 AM
To: 'Fay Baswell'; Larry Hansen
Ce: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock; Dixon Flynn; Janet Keeter; Steve
Schwabauer; Susan Blackston; Rad Bartlam
Subject: RE: Wal-Mart
Dear Mr. & Mrs. James C. Baswell:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerk's
Office and each member of the City Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail,
we have forwarded your message to the following departments for information,
referral, or handling: 1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3)
Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
/s/ Jennifer M. Perrin, Deputy City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: l=ay Baswell [maiito:froggie@inreach.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:49 AM
To: Larry Hansen
Cc: John Beckman; Emily Howard; Keith Land; Susan Hitchcock
Subject: Wal-Mart
We are in favor of the new Super Wal-Mart.
Mr. & Mrs. James C. Baswell
25 Riverbend Dr.
Lodi, Ca. 95242
4/6/2004
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Perrin
From: Susan Blackston
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:32 AM
To: 'famoster'
Cc: City Council; Dixon Flynn; Rad Bartlam; Steve Schwabauer
Subject: RE: Wal Mart
Dear Mr. Oster:
This reply is to confirm that your message was received by the City Clerks Office and each member of the City
Council. In addition, by copy of this e-mail, we have forwarded your message to the following departments for
informational purposes:
1) City Manager, 2) Interim City Attorney, and 3) Community Development.
Thank you for expressing your views.
Is/ Susan J. Blackston, City Clerk
-----Original Message -----
From: famoster [maiito:famoster@softcom.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:52 AM
To: Susan Blackston; Susan Hitchcock; Emily Howard; Keith Land; John Beckman; Larry Hansen
Subject: Wal Mart
Sirs: As a Retired person, my wife and I shop where we can find the best price. We do
not shop at small retail stores as there prices are more than we can afford. It appears
that since the council does not want to vote on Wal Marts new store, that maybe we do
not need a City Council at all. All hard decisions seem to go to the voters. It is time the
that City Council do what they were elected to do, and not bow down to a few owners of
stores that cannot handle competition.
Roger Oster
4/6/2004