The legality of San Juan Bautista’s urgency ordinance
prohibiting big-box retail stores and franchises within the city
limits could be tested in the courts.
The legality of San Juan Bautista’s urgency ordinance prohibiting big-box retail stores and franchises within the city limits could be tested in the courts.
The controversial moratorium aimed at the Windmill Alameda Plaza forced the postponement of a Subway’s permit application to open a sandwich store at the plaza until city officials determined how they would regulate franchises and large-scale businesses.
Peter Spurzem, an attorney representing Windmill Plaza owners Jim Gibson and Dan Mello along with Subway applicants Matthew and Yvette Papenhausen, questioned the legality of the ordinance.
“I have come to the conclusion the way it is written, it is illegal,” he said.
Spurzem said he was continuing to research the wording of the ordinance to assess its legality.
“The wording of this particular ordinance has never been tested at the appellate level,” he said.
San Juan City Manager Larry Cain said, “It’s only illegal if proven in a court of law.”
City Council has established that it will look at regulating formula-type businesses in the same manner as Pacific Grove, which set a similar ordinance in July 1995.
“It’s very similar to San Juan’s,” he said.
Meanwhile, a 10-month extension is in effect to provide Council enough time to adopt any amendments to its general plan, zoning ordinances and development standards so that new retail and commercial development are consistent with the city’s historic character.
“We are not changing the nature of San Juan quality at all,” Spurzem said. “We offered a good compromise that would benefit the residents of San Juan Bautista. I don’t think this ordinance will be a benefit.”
Another issue is applying the same regulations applicable to businesses in the historic district to the defined commercial zone outside the district.
“Windmill Plaza is subjected to very strict signage and architectural regulations,” Spurzem said.
The overall period for a temporary extension could last up to two years. “They do it in extensions,” Spurzem said. “They can vote to extend it one more time.”
Spurzem doubted whether his clients would wait 10 months to make up their minds regarding the ordinance issue.
“I expect them to decide fairly soon what they want to do,” he said. “My impression is they feel they should move forward with this.”
While Spurzem is evaluating the city’s urgency ordinance, the plaza owners and restaurant applicants are contemplating whether to file a lawsuit.
“From a business point of view it boils down to how long they want to hang in there,” Spurzem said. “My understanding is they intend to stick with it. They have spent a lot of time and money. Quite frankly, I hope we can work with the city.”
