HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-16; City Council; 17898; Enhanced retail opportunities studyAB# 17,898
MTG. 1 1-1 6-04
DEPT. PLNfI
TITLE: DEPT. HD.
ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES STUDY
GPA 04-07lZCA 04-07lLCPA 04-06 CITY ATTY.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. , APPROVING the initiation of a
study(s) to determine the potential benefits and detriments to the City in relation to proposed General
Plan Amendment (GPA 04-07), Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 04-07), and Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 04-06) to allow large format retail uses within commercial and industrial land use
designations and zones, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
2004-374
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 7, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two Commissioners absent) to recommend to
the City Council that additional studies be conducted to determine the “potential benefits and
detriments” to the City from providing additional opportunities for large format retail uses within
commercial and industrial areas.
Staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission was to adopt resolutions recommending
adoption of the project Negative Declaration, and approval of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. The proposed
amendments consist of amending the policies and provisions of the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to allow large format retail uses within all commercial and industrial land use designations
and zones (excluding the T-R land use designation and C-T Zone). The proposal is described and
analyzed in more detail in the Report to the Planning Commission, dated July 7, 2004 (Attachment
2).
At the July 7‘h Planning Commission hearing, after discussing the project and hearing public
testimony (6 people spoke in opposition, 1 person spoke in favor, 1 person requested a
modification), the Planning Commission determined that they could not make a recommendation to
approve or deny the project without additional studies being conducted to determine the potential
costs and benefits. Primary areas of concern were focused on traftic, community character, and
impacts to existing businesses. The Commission’s discussion is reflected in the meeting minutes
(Attachment 3).
If the City Council votes to direct staff to initiate a study(s), as recommended by the Planning
Commission, the City would likely need to hire consultants to conduct studies for such issues as
traffic impacts, and economic and fiscal impacts. Staff is not certain what the cost of such studies
would be; therefore, staff would return at a later date for City Council approval of a scope of work
and projected cost.
As an alternative to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to conduct additional studies, the
Council could vote to not adopt the resolution directing staff to initiate a study, and, instead, direct
staff to bring the proposed amendments back for City Council consideration at a public hearing.
ENVl RON M ENTAL:
Directing staff to conduct additional studies is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA
Section 15306.
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
FISCAL IMPACT:
17,898
Directing staff to conduct additional studies will involve the cost of additional staff time and the cost
to hire consultants to prepare technical impact studies.
EXHIBITS:
I. City Council Resolution No. 2004-374
2.
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 7, 2004, with attachments
Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 7, 2004.
Department Contact: Jennifer Coon, (760) 602-4637, jcoon@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-374
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
INITIATE A STUDY(S) OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND
DETRIMENTS TO THE CITY IN RELATION TO PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 04-07), ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT (ZCA 04-07), AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT (LCPA 04-06) TO ALLOW LARGE FORMAT
RETAIL USES, WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS AND ZONES.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
Pursuant to Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad hereby declares its intention to:
Initiate a study(s) of the potential benefits and detriments to the City in
relation to proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 04-07), Zone Code
Amendment (ZCA 04-07), and Local Coastal Program Amendment
(LCPA 04-06) to allow large format retail uses, with the approval of a
conditional use permit, within commercial and industrial land use
designations and zones.
The Planning Director is directed to initiate said study(s) by developing a scope
of work and estimating the cost to conduct such study(s), and returning for City Council
approval of said scope of work and cost.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the day of 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
EXHIBIT 2
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 7, 2004
Application complete date: March 17, 2003
Project Planner: Jennifer Coon
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUN-
ITIES - Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration, and
approve a General Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Program Amendment to allow large format retail uses within the commercial and
industrial land use designations and zones (excluding the T-R land use
designation and C-T zone), subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5659
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5660, 5661 and 5662 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
General Plan Amendment GPA 04-07, Zone Code Amendment ZCA 04-07 and Local Coastal
Program Amendment LCPA 04-06, based on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The proposed amendments will allow large format retail uses (e.g. Lowes, Home Depot, Target,
etc.) within the Local Shopping Center (L), Regional Commercial (R) and Planned Industrial
(PI) land use designations and implementing zones, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP).
One of the concerns expressed by several Carlsbad citizens is the potential economic impact a
large format retail use might have on the community. To address this concern, staff is
recommending that an economic and fiscal impact report be required with any CUP application
for a large format retail use.
Other concerns identified include potential traffic impacts and community compatibiIity.
Because there is no development proposed by this project, staff is unable to determine specific
traffic or other community impacts. Specific impacts would be dependant upon a specific site
location and proposed use. Therefore, staff is recommending analysis of traffic impacts and
other potential impacts be studied on a site/project specific basis. The recommendation to
require a CUP will provide the City with the authority to deny a project if it is found to be
incompatible or would result in a negative impact.
With regard to the proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment, the Zoning Ordinance is
the implementing ordinance for the LCP; therefore, a LCP amendment is necessary. However,
no portion of the LCP land use plan document is being amended.
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
Page - 2
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Description
The proposed amendments consist of amending the text of the General Plan Land Use Element
to allow large format retail uses, subject to a CUP, that are not part of a shopping center within
the L and R land use designations, as well as within the PI land use designation. In addition, a
CUP will be required for large format retail uses that are part of a shopping center within the L
and R land use designations (current policies allow such uses without a CUP when part of a
shopping center).
An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to add a definition of “large format
retail,” and add “large format retail” as a conditionally permitted use in all commercial and
industrial zones, with the exception of the Commercial-Tourist (C-T) zone. Attachment 9 to this
report is a map that indicates the location of properties within the city, designated and/or zoned
commercial and industrial (excluding land designated T-R or zoned C-T). As indicated on the
map, some of the commercial and industrial properties are subject to a specific or master plan.
In those cases, the specific/master plan may need to be amended to allow large format retail uses
within the plan area. Staff recommends that an amendment, if necessary, to a specific/master
plan be processed when a CUP application is submitted for a large format retail use on a site that
is subject to a specific/master plan.
Background
On January 2 1, 2004, the City Council conducted a workshop to consider alternatives to provide
more opportunities for Large Format Retail (LFR) uses within the city. The Council’s discussion
and comments during the workshop indicated that a majority of the Council was interested in
considering ways to provide more opportunities for LFR uses, and there were some Council
members who expressed a willingness to consider allowing such uses on a broad range of sites
(such as along the Palomar Airport Road corridor east of El Camino Real) vs. one particular site.
On March 16, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-087 directing staff to prepare
an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to “establish provisions that would
allow large format retail uses in commercial and industrial land use designations and zones, with
the approval of a conditional use permit.” The proposed amendments are in’ response to
Council’s direction.
One of the reasons expressed by Council to consider providing more opportunities for LFR uses
in the city is due to the fact that the city is underserved by commercial services, and many
citizens are required to drive to surrounding jurisdictions to shop for home improvement goods,
office supplies, electronics, etc. In the past 10 years the City has experienced a significant
amount of residential growth toward the center of the city. However, there is very little
commercial development, especially in the center of the city, to serve that residential population.
Providing more opportunities for commercial development will help to ensure a balance of land
uses within the city.
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07ILCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
IV. ANALYSIS
This section contains an analysis of the following:
A. General Plan Amendment;
B.
C. Other issues;
D.
E. Citizen comments.
Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment;
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program consistency; and
An important fact to remember when reviewing this proposal is that large format retail uses are
currently allowed within the City of Carlsbad. They are currently permitted in the Local
Shopping Center (L) and Regional Commercial (R) land use designations and implementing
zones, provided they are developed as part of a shopping center. So, this proposal is not a
question of whether or not they should be permitted. This proposal is only to expand the
opportunities (within the commercial and industrial designations) for such uses to locate in the
city.
A. General Plan Amendment
The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan consists of the following:
1. Amend the description of the Local Shopping Center (L) land use designation to:
a. Allow large format retail uses that are not part of a local shopping center;
b. Require a CUP for a large format retail use when part of, or when a stand-
alone use in place of, a local shopping center; and
Amend Land Use Element Section 111, Commercial, Implementing Policies and
Action Programs number C.6 to no longer require “community” anchor tenants,
which include large format retail uses, to be attached to other tenants in a local
shopping center; and
Amend the description of the Regional Commercial (R) land use designation to:
a. Allow large format retail uses that are not part of a regional shopping
center;
b. Require a CUP for a large format retail use when part of, or when a stand-
alone use in place of, a regional shopping center; and
Amend the description of the Planned Industrial (PI) land use designation to allow
large format retail uses; and
Amend Land Use Element Section 111, Industrial, Objectives and Implementing
Policies and Action Programs to allow large format retail uses in industrial areas.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Local Shopping Center (L) land use designation
The current policies in the Land Use Element for the L land use designation require that all local
shopping centers must contain anchor and secondary tenants that provide local daily goods and
services. The most common anchor tenant is a grocery store and/or drug store. Secondary
tenants may include restaurants, banks, personal grooming services, small retail, gas stations, etc.
“Community” serving tenants are also allowed to locate within a local shopping center, in
addition to, but not in place of, the uses required to provide neighborhood goods and services.
L
GPA 04-07IZCA 04-07ILCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
“Community” serving tenants may include large format retail uses; however, they are not
currently permitted as a stand-alone use in place of a shopping center.
Under current standards, a CUP is not. required for a large forniat retail use within the L
designation if it is architecturally integrated (shares walls with other tenants) into a local
shopping center. Staff recommends that large format retail uses that are not part of a local
shopping center be permitted with the approval of a CUP. Also, staff is recommending large
format retail uses that are part of a local shopping center also be subject to the approval of a
CUP.
The potential impacts &e., traffic, visual, operational, etc.) from a large format retail use are for
the most part due to the size of such uses. Therefore, the impacts from such a use, and the need
for a CUP, will be the same whether part of a shopping center or not. The CUP will provide the
City with more discretionary authority to regulate potential impacts from large format retail uses.
As mentioned above, current standards require “community tenants,” which include large format
retail uses, to share walls with other tenants (be attached). Staff is recommending this
requirement be eliminated in order to provide more design flexibility, and the ability to consider
a detached large format retail use. The design of a large format retail use will still be required to
be “fully integrated into the overall function and design of the center, including architecture,
internal circulation and landscaping.”
In addition to the recommendations stated above, staff is also recommending, when a large
format retail use is not part of a local shopping center in the L designation, that the following
determination be made as part of an economic and fiscal impact report:
0 The population that would have been served by a local shopping center on the
project site will still have access to sufficient neighborhood goods and services.
The requirement to make this determination is being recommended to address the following
concern:
When the L designation was established, it replaced the Neighborhood Commercial (N) and
Community Commercial (C) land use designations on most N and C designated sites, which
were the designations used to provide local commercial services. An important consideration
when creating the L designation was the trade area of each commercial site. Careful
consideration was given to ensure that adequate local commercial services would be provided to
all areas of the City. Therefore, the sites that are currently designated L represent sites necessary
to provide local commercial services within the primary trade area of each particular site.
Staff is concerned that if a specialized, large format retail use (like a home improvement center)
is permitted in place of a local shopping center, there is the potential that adequate neighborhood
commercial goods and services may not be provided to a portion of the city (the trade area
surrounding the particular site). However, this may not be the result of all large format retail
uses. Some large format retail uses may provide the neighborhood goods and services required
to be provided by a local shopping center (Le., grocery, drug store, convenience goods, etc.).
The difference would be the goods and services would be provided from one business
establishment rather than several. 7
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
Therefore, rather than prohibiting a large format retail use that is not part of a local shopping
center in the L designation, staff is recommending the flexibility to consider such a use, subject
to a CUP, and contingent upon an economic and fiscal impact report finding that adequate
neighborhood goods and services will be provided. More discussion of the requirement for an
economic and fiscal impact study is contained in the Zone Code Amendment analysis section,
below.
Another proposed minor text amendment to the description of the L land use designation is to
remove the existing references to specific retail store names. The L land use designation
contains a description of “community” serving tenants, which includes examples of such uses by
naming specific stores (e.g. Target, Home Depot, Ross, Staples, etc.). However, the City
Attorney has advised staff that, pursuant to case law, the City can’t specify tenants, only the
types of uses permitted. Therefore, the existing references to specific tenant names are
recommended to be removed.
Regional Commercial (R) land use designation
The current policies in the Land Use Element for the R land use designation describe a regional
shopping center as having two or more major anchor tenants and secondary tenants that
supplement and complement the anchor tenants. Current standards permit a large format retail
use (as an anchor tenant), without a CUP in the R designation, provided it is part of a regional
shopping center. Uses within a regional shopping center are not required to be attached. Staff
recommends that large format retail uses that are not part of a regional shopping center be
permitted with the approval of a CUP. Also, for the reasons discussed above for the L land use
designation, staff recommends large format retail uses that are part of a regional shopping center
also be subject to the approval of a CUP.
Planned Industrial (PI) land use designation
The current description in the Land Use Element for the PI land use designation is as follows:
Planned Industrial land uses include those areas currently used for, proposed as, or
acljacent to industrial development, including manufacturing, warehousing, storage,
research and development, and utility use. Agricultural and outdoor recreation uses on
lots of one acre or more are considered to be a proper interim use for industrially
designated areas.
Allowing large format retail uses in the industrial zones would provide additional opportunities
for retail uses, which is the primary objective of this proposal. The areas located near the central
portion of the city (Palomar Airport Road corridor) are areas that are underserved by commercial
services. However, this area is designated primarily for industrial land uses, which offers very
limited, if any, opportunities to provide commercial services to this area. A way to address this
issue would be to allow large format retail uses in the industrial land use designation and zones.
Large format retail uses would provide the community commercial services that the city is
currently lacking. The CUP will provide the city with the authority to determine whether or not
a proposed large format retail use would be appropriate on a site in the industrial land use
designation and zones, based on location and surrounding land uses.
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
Type of Retail Use
To allow large format retail uses in the industrial land use designation, staff is reconimending
that the PI land use designation description be amended to allow large format retail uses as an
option to industrial land uses. Also, staff recommends that the industrial land use objectives and
policies be amended to add an objective and policy to allow large format retail uses, provided the
location and design of the project are carefully studied to ensure the use will not result in a
negative impact to the surrounding community and land uses.
Typical Floor Area Range
B. Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment
Drug Store
Office Supply Store
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consists of the following:
10,000 - 18,000 square feet
20,000 - 45,000 square feet
1.
2.
3.
Add a definition for “large format retail;” and
Amend the C-1, C-2, C-M, M and PM zone chapters to list large format retail as a
conditionally permitted use; and
Amend the Conditional Uses chapter to add large format retail as a conditionally
permitted use in commercial and industrial zones (excluding the C-T zone), and
specify requirements for approval of a CUP for a large format retail use.
Home Furnishing Store
Supermarket
Home Improvement Store
Membership Store
Definition for “large format retail”
30,000 - 45,000 square feet
45,000 - 75,000 square feet
45,000 - 150,000 square feet
70,000 - 160,000 square feet
To clarify what types of retail businesses would be considered “large format,” staff recommends
adding a definition to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed definition is as follows:
“Large format retail I’ means a retail establishment located within a building or portion
of a building that has 75,000 square feet or greater of gross Poor area, but not to exceed
150,000 squure feet of gross jloor area. Such retail establishinents include, but are not
limited to, value department stores, home improvement centers and war-ehouse/club
in em bersh ip stores.
The size criteria is the primary defining factor for a large format retail use. Staff is
recommending 75,000 square feet as the point at which a retail establishment would be
considered “large format.” This recommendation is consistent with the State of California
definition for “big box retailer,” which is a retail store of greater than 75,000 square feet. In
addition, staff wanted to establish a floor area threshold that would not include neighborhood
grocery stores, and some of the smaller retail uses, like office supply and furniture stores. The
City of San Diego recently conducted a survey of store sizes for various categories of retail uses.
The results of the survey are indicated in Table A, as follows:
9
GPA 04-07IZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7, 2004
Page 7
TvPe of Retail Use TvDical Floor Area Range
General Merchandise Store
S uDer Store
In addition to the information in Table A, above, the floor area of the Carlsbad Costco is
approximately 134,000 square feet, and the floor areas of Home Depot and Home Expo in
Encinitas are approximately 102,000 and 105,000 square feet, respectively. Representatives of
Target have indicated that the typical floor area of a Target Greatlands is approximately 145,000
square feet. Wal-Mart representatives have indicated that the floor area of a typical Wal-Mart
store is 100,000 to 145,000 square feet, and their super-centers are generally between 185,000
square feet and 210,000 square feet.
80,000 - 180,000 square feet
150.000 - 250.000 sauare feet
Staff is recommending that the City establish a maximum floor area limitation of 150,000 square
feet. This would be sufficient to allow for the typical size large format retail store, yet provide
the City with some control over the bulk and mass of the building.
Amend commercial and industrial zone chapters to add large format retail as a
conditionallv permitted use
In addition to adding a definition for “large format retail,” staff is recommending that the C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (General Commercial), C-M (Heavy Commercial - Limited
Industrial), M (Industrial) and PM (Planned Industrial) zone chapters be amended to add large
format retail as a conditionally permitted use. Each zone chapter will indicate that the use is
permitted with the approval of a CUP, and reference the Conditional Uses chapter for additional
requirements. The C-1 and C-2 zones are currently used to implement the L (Local Shopping
Center) land use designation. The C-2 zone is also used to implement the R (Regional
Commercial) land use designation. The C-M, M and PM zones are used to implement the PI.
(Planned Industrial) land use designation.
The “intent and purpose” section of the PM zone is also proposed to be amended. Currently the
PM zone includes a statement that indicates the zone is primarily intended for uses that do not
cater directly to the general public. Some commercial uses are allowed in the zone, subject to a
CUP, provided they are ancillary to and cater to the primary uses allowed in the zone. The
purpose of this restriction is to limit the amount of traffic within the industrial areas, ahd to
preserve an industrial business-park type environment. However, this may not be as much of a
concern along major roadways, where community and regional traffic is intended to occur.
As indicated, above, staff is recommending that the industrial land use policies in the General
Plan be amended to add a policy allowing large format retail, subject to a CUP, and provided
“the location and design of the project are carefully studied to ensure the use will not result in a
negative impact to the surrounding community and land uses. Subjects of careful consideration
shall include, but not be limited to, traffic and circulation, architecture and site design, potential
habitat impacts, and potential economic and fiscal impacts.”
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
Page 8
With the proposed General Plan policy to allow large format retail in industrial areas, provided
careful consideration is given to site location, traffic and circulation, it is possible to ensure that a
large format retail use will not negatively impact the industrial areas.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the “intent and purpose” section of the PM zone be
amended to add the following statement:
In addition to the primary intended use of this zone, other uses, as specijed in this
chapter, ntajj be allowed with the approval of a conditiorial use pei-niit; provide the,: use
consistent with the policies for industrial land uses specijed in the General Plan.
Other commercial uses will still be required to be “ancillary” to the industrial uses.
Amend the Conditional Uses chapter to add large format retail as a conditionallv permitted
use in commercial and industrial zones (excludinp the C-T zone)
The Conditional Uses chapter is proposed to be amended to add “large format retail” to the list of
conditional uses for all commercial and industrial zones (excluding the C-T zone). The C-T
(Commercial-Tourist) zone and T-R land use designation are recommended to be excluded from
the areas where a large format retail use would be permitted because the designations are
intended to provide areas for visitor-serving uses (i.e., hotels, restaurants, recreation areas); and it
is unlikely that the Coastal Commission would support any proposal to allow a use in those areas
that was not visitor-serving.
Under the listing for “large format retail” in the Conditional Uses chapter, staff is recommending
that additional approval requirements be listed. The additional requirements include specifying
the City Council as the decision-making authority for the CUP; specifying a size limitation of
150,000 square feet; and requiring the preparation of an economic and fiscal impact report.
Typically, the Planning Commission is the decision-making authority on a CUP. However, in
certain circumstance or for certain uses, the City Council has final decision-making authority.
When the Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-087 on March 16, 2004, directing staff to
prepare this amendment, they included in their motion that they would like to have final
decision-making authority on a large format retail use.
The recommendation for an economic and fiscal impact report is in response to concerns.
regarding potential economic impacts from a large format retail business on the community.
Without a specified location or the specifics of a proposed use (Le., what type of business -
home improvement, general merchandise, electronics, etc.), it is difficult to assess the potential
economic and fiscal impacts. The impacts of any proposed use (economic, traffic,
environmental, etc.) are dependant upon the location and nature of the use. The economic and
fiscal impacts of a large format retail use will depend greatly on what type of use is proposed,
where the use is proposed to be located and types of surrounding uses within the trade area.
Several economic and fiscal impact studies on “big box” retailers and supercenters were
provided to staff by the City of San Diego. The studies were reviewed by the City of San Diego
as part of a pending proposal to amend their ordinances to adopt regulations for large retail
development. The primary target of concern in most of the studies is the supercenter (a big box J/
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
retailer that includes a full size grocery store). The recent attention focused on “big box”
retailers, especially supercenters, has triggered many jurisdictions nationwide to propose
ordinances attempting to restrict or prohibit such uses.
The information contained in the economic and fiscal impact studies reviewed by staff, indicate
that the impacts from large format retailers vary depending on the community and the nature of
the community’s commercial business base. For example, existing businesses in a rural
community would be more likely to be impacted by the development of a large format retailer
than would those in an urbardsuburban community.
The City of Carlsbad has very limited opportunities for commercial services, and many residents
travel to neighboring cities to shop at large format retail establishments (e.g. Home Depot,
Target, Wal-Mart, etc. in Encinitas, Oceanside, Vista and San Marcos). Businesses in Carlsbad
are not immune from the impacts of large format retailers. The city boundary does not stop
citizens from driving outside the city to Home Depot, Target or other large retailers. The
development of a large format retail use within the City of Carlsbad would provide at least two
benefits: 1) convenience to residents by providing commercial services in a closer proximity;
and 2) the City will retain some of the tax revenues that are currently being lost to surrounding
cities.
As noted, above, the information contained in the various economic and fiscal impact reports
vary depending on the community or type of use being studied; and therefore, cannot be
generically applied to Carlsbad. Therefore, staff is recommending that a fiscal and economic
impact report be prepared when a CUP application is submitted for a large format retail use. The
report will identify and assess the economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed project on a
site/project specific basis. Staff is also recommending that the City be responsible for hiring a
consultant to prepare the report, and the applicant would be required to provide funding to the
City to cover the cost. This will ensure the report is objective and nonbiased.
Copies of the economic and fiscal impact studies mentioned above are available for Planning
Commission, City Council and public review, and can be obtained from the Planning
Department upon request. Staff has attached the economic and fiscal impact reports
(Attachments 6 and 7) prepared by the City of San Diego related to their pending ordinance to
establish regulations for large retail development.
The analysis prepared by the City of San Diego provides a good summary of the economic and
fiscal impact issues related to large format retail. However, the potential economic and fiscal
impacts in the City of San Diego differ from Carlsbad because San Diego has a strong existing
commercial base. For example, the potential fiscal benefits from a large retail establishment
developing in the City of San Diego may not be as significant as in the City of Carlsbad.
Because San Diego has a strong commercial base, where businesses rarely compete with
businesses outside the city, the spending power within the city will not significantly change
when a large retail business locates in San Diego. The spending patterns will shift from one
business in the city to another, but the amount of spending is not likely to increase. A large
format retail use locating in Carlsbad, however, will likely shift spending patterns from
businesses outside of Carlsbad to a use within the city. Therefore, the potential fiscal benefits to
the City of Carlsbad from a large format retail use are likely to be greater than in the City of San
Diego. /a
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
C. Other Issues
Traffic
As indicated, above, staff is not able to assess the extent of traffic and circulation impacts from a
large format retail use without project specific development information (location, type of
proposed use, building size, etc.) Therefore, staff is recommending that a site specific traffic
impact analysis be completed at the time of a project proposal. The City will have the discretion,
at that time, to determine the appropriateness of the site for the proposed use.
In general, the potential traffic impacts within the commercial designations will not be changed
by this proposal. Large format retail uses can currently locate within the commercial
designations (as part of a shopping center); therefore, the trip generation from commercial sites
would not be expected to significantly change from what is anticipated today.
Within the industrial areas, a large format retail use would typically generate more traffic than an
industrial use. However, the peak trip generation times are generally different for the two land
uses, and therefore, the traffic impacts in the peak and off peak hours will need to be assessed on
a site/project specific basis.
Actual intersection and road segment traffic impacts will depend on the location, proposed use
(size and type of business) and current traffic conditions and volumes on adjacent roadways. As
indicated, above, with a CUP, the city will have the authority to deny a project if it is determined
that it would result in a negative impact on the level of service, traffic operations, or safety of the
circulation system.
Another area of concern pertaining to large format retail uses is the large “box-like” design
typically associated with such a use. The City of Carlsbad has a high standard for the
architectural design of all development within the city. Although the City does not currently
have specified architectural design standards for commercial uses, the City requires a Site
Development Plan (SDP) approval, and the city exercises its discretionary authority to ensure a
high standard of design and compatibility with surrounding uses.
A proposal for a large format retail use will be subject to the same scrutiny applied to other
commercial projects in the city. In addition, due to current ordinances and regulations in other
jurisdictions aimed at reducing the bulk and mass of large format retail uses, many large format
retailers have begun to design their buildings to be less “box-like.” In fact, while the typical
large format retail use is primarily a single-story building, which tends to create a large “box-
like” footprint; current trends in large format retail design include two-story structures with
smaller foot prints.
Staff does not recommend establishing specific architectural design standards specifically for
large format retail uses. If the City wishes to establish architectural standards, staff would
recommend establishing them for all commercial uses, which would require a significant amount
of additional study and research, and should be done as a separate project.
/3
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07lLCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
D. General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program Consistency
The proposed amendments modify policies and regulations in the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed amendments will not result in any inconsistencies with the other
policies of the General Plan, or other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal
Program not being amended by this proposal. The proposed amendments will ensure that the
provision for large format retail uses will be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
and Local Coastal Program, as amended.
In addition, the proposed amendments are consistent with, and assist in implementing, the
following General Plan Land Use Element goals:
Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.2: “A City which provides for an orderly balance of
both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations throughout
the community and ensures that all such uses, type amount, design and arrangement serve
to protect and enhance the environment, character and image of the City.”
Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.3: “A City which provides for land uses which through
their arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic viability of the
community.”
With regard to consistency with the Local Coastal Program, as mentioned earlier in this report,
the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program (LCP). The
LCP amendment is necessary to ensure consistency between the LCP and Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendment will not result in any conflict with the provisions of the LCP.
E. Citizen comments
Staff has been contacted by several citizens who expressed opposition to the proposed
amendments. Primarily, these citizens are concerned with the potential for Wal-Mart to locate
within the city.
It is important to remember that the proposed amendments do not apply to Wal-Mart, in
particular. The proposal applies to any retailer with a floor area of 75,000 square feet or more.
Also, it is important to remember that large format retail uses of all types are currently permitted
within the city, provided the use is developed as part of a shopping center. The proposal would
provide more opportunities to establish large format retail uses within the city.
Prior to the preparation of this report, staff received written correspondence (Attachment 8) from
one citizen expressing opposition to the proposed amendment. Written correspondence received
after the preparation of this report, and prior to the Planning Commission hearing date, will be
distributed separately to the Planning Commission.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The initial study (EIA Part 11) prepared for this project did not identify any potentially significant
impacts on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is being
GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
July 7,2004
Page 12
recommended for adoption as part of the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment,
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt the recommended Negative Declaration was posted in the
newspaper, on the City’s website, and was mailed to the California Coastal Commission and
State Clearinghouse for circulation. No comments were received in response to the NO1 prior to
the preparation of this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5659 (Negative Declaration)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5660 (GPA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 566 1 (ZCA)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5662 (LCPA)
Strike-out and underline version of proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance text
am endm en t s
Analysis of Fiscal and Economic Impacts, prepared by the City of San Diego, attached to
the staff report for the City of San Diego Planning Commission Agenda of April 8,2004,
which pertained to a pending draft ordinance regulating large retail development.
Fiscal Impacts of Large Retail Establishments, prepared by the City of San Diego,
attached to the Memorandum for City of San Diego Planning Commission Workshop
Agenda of May 13,2004, which pertained to regulating large retail establishments.
Written correspondence from a citizen opposing the proposed amendments.
A map titled “Commercial and Industrial Land” showing the location of commercial and
industrial parcels within the city. (previously distributed)
JC:bd:mh
Attachment 5
July 7,2004
GPA 04-07 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT
STRIKE-OUTKJNDERLINE VERSION
0 Land Use Element Section II.C.3.a. is proposed to be amended as follows:
a. Local Shopping Center (L): The local shopping center designation allows shopping
centers that include elements of the traditional neighborhood center and, under some
circumstances, elements of the traditional community shopping center.
Each local shopping center must contain the anchor tenants and secondary tenants that
service the daily needs and convenience of local neighborhoods. These tenants include
. retail businesses, small offices, and a variety of services. The most common anchor
tenant is a supermarket, although a large drugstore or combination of supermarket and
drugstore may also serve. Secondary tenants can include small offices (for banks,
insurance, real estate and other services); personal grooming providers (like beauty
parlors, barbershops, and nail salons), Laundromats, cleaners, small retail stores, sit-down
and fast food restaurants, and gas stations, among others. Typical characteristics of sites
for these centers are given in Table 3: Guidelines for Shopping Centers.
While all sites with the designation Local Shopping Center must provide neighborhood
goods and services, when the appropriate findings can be made, they may be authorized
also to have anchor tenants that are more traditionally described as community-serving in
nature. These community commercial tenants typically offer either a larger range of
goods and services and/or a higher degree of specialization of goods and services. Often
the floor area is greater than is that of stores that offer neighborhood goods and services
and their trade area is larger in size and includes a larger population. These tenants may
include value department stores (2s. Twt, E , home improvement centers,
warehouse/club stores (2s. E-’., Cs&eej , chain apparel stores (vw
?4ask&+, a variety of large-volume specialty-goods stores (eg. Stapk:, Camp-US+
€km&Gwp office supply, computer and electronic stores) and multiplex cinemas.
When these types of anchor tenants are included in the shopping center, additional types
of secondary tenants may also be included, such as restaurants and specialty retail goods.
Some local shopping centers may also include quasi-public or public facilities, such as a
city library or U.S. post office
When a “community-serving” tenant(s) is a large format retail use(s) (i.e., retail
establishment with a floor area between 75,000 and 150,000 square feet), the use
may be permitted as part of, or as a stand-alone use in place of, a local shopping
center, as described above, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Also,
when a large format retail use is not part of a local shopping center, an economic
and fiscal impact study shall determine that the population that would have been
served bv a local shopping center on the project site will still have access to
sufficient neighborhood goods and services (as described in Table 3, earlier); and 2)
a conditional use permit is approved.
1
Local shopping center uses are generally located within a convenient walking and/or
bicycling distance from intended customers and should be linked with surrounding
neighborhoods by pedestrian and/or bicycle access. Landscaped buffers should be
provided around the project site between neighborhood commercial uses and other uses
to ensure compatibility. All buildings should. be low-rise and should include
architectural/design features to be compatible with the neighborhood. Perniitted uses and
building intensities should be compatible with surrounding land uses.
0 Land Use Element Section II.C.3.b is proposed to be amended as follows:
b. Regional Commercial (R): Regional commercial centers provide shopping goods,
general merchandise, automobile sales, apparel, furniture and home furnishings in full
depth and variety. Two or more department stores are typically the major anchors of a
regional shopping center, while other stores supplement and complement the various
department store lines.
Mother forms of regional centers may include such developments as outlet centers
with an aggregation of factory outlet stores where there are no specific anchor tenants
although such centers are regional and enjoy a strong tourist trade.
A lawe format retail use(s) (Le., retail establishment with a floor area between
75,000 and 150,000 square feet) may be permitted as part of, or as a stand-alone use
in place of, a regional shopping center, as described above, subject to the approval
of a conditional use permit.
Regional commercial land uses -draw customers from outside the City and
generate interregional traffic. For this reason, such ee&m-= are customarily located
on a site that is easily visible as well as accessible from interchange points between
highways and freeways. Local shopping centers may be adjunct to regional centers to
also serve the daily convenience needs of customers utilizing the larger shopping center.
A group of convenience stores, service facilities, business and professional offices are
also often associated with a regional center. Some of these may be incorporated in the
center itself, or arranged at the periphery in the immediate area.
Land Use Element Section II.C.4 is proposed to be amended as follows:
4. Planned Industrial (PI)
Planned Industrial land uses include those areas currently used for, proposed as, or adjacent to
industrial development, including manufacturing, warehousing, storage, research and
development, and utility use. As an option to planned industrial land uses, large format
retail uses (Le., retail establishment with a floor area between 75,000 and 150,000 square
feet) may also locate within this land use classification with the approval of a conditional
use permit. Agriculture and outdoor recreation uses on lots of one acre or more are considered
to be a proper interim use for industrially designated areas.
2
0 Land Use Element Section 111, Commercial, Lmplementing Policies and Action Pro, uranis
number C.6 is proposed to be amended as follows:
C.6 When “community” tenants (see Table 3, earlier), which include larpe format retail
uses, are included in a local shopping center, they must be fully integrated into the
overall function and design of the center, including the architecture, internal circulation
and landscaping. The inclusion of such tenants should complement, not supplant the
principal function of the center, which is to provide local goods and services. Unless
compatible with the overall design and architectural stvle of the center,
“communitv” tenants, or other anchor or secondarv tenants shall not feature
corporate architecture or logos. If part of tenant signage, corporate lopos mav be
permitted, subject to the City’s sign ordinance.
e Land Use Element Section 111, Industrial, Objectives is amended to add the following:
- B.7 To enhance the opportunities to provide commercial services within the citv bv
allowing larpe format retail uses on lands desimated for industrial use.
* Land Use Element Section 111, Industrial, Implementing Policies and Action Programs is
amended to add the following:
- C.16 As an option to industrial land uses, when determined appropriate through the
approval of a conditional use permit, allow large format retail uses (Le., retail
establishments with a floor area between 75,000 to 150,000 square feet); provided,
the location and design of the project are carefully studied to ensure the use will not
result in a negative impact to the surrounding communitv and land uses. Subiects
of careful consideration shall include, but not be limited to, traffic and circulation,
architecture and site design, potential habitat impacts, and potential economic and
fiscal impacts.
3
ZCA 04-07 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
STRIKE-OUT/UNDERLINE VERSION
0 Section 21.04.201 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
2 1.04.201 €&peak4 Large format retail.
“Large format retail” means a retail establishment located within a building or
portion of a building that has 75,000 square feet or greater of gross floor area, but not to
exceed 150,000 square feet of gross floor area. Such retail establishments include, but are
not limited to, value department stores, home improvement centers and warehouse/club
membership stores.
0 Section 21.26.015 (C-1 Zone, Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit) is
amended to add “large format retail” as a conditionally permitted use as follows:
21.26.015 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit.
are permitted by conditional use permit:
planning commission making the following findings:
Subject to the provisions of Chapters 2 1.42 and 2 1 SO, the following uses and structures
(1) On-premises sale of liquor, within a bona fide public eating place, subject to the
(A) There are specifically designated parking spaces that are sufficient for the use,
(B) Traffic flow on public streets or in parking areas will not cause congestion or be
detrimental to other nearby neighborhood commercial uses,
(C) That all measures have been taken to insure compatibility with the use to the
surrounding neighborhood;
(2) Residential uses located above the ground floor of a multi-storied building when
one or more of the uses permitted by Section 21.26.010 is located on the ground floor of such
building;
Packaged liquor stores (off-sale) subject to the following conditions:
That the planning commission makes the same findings as required by this section
for on-premises sales of liquor from bona fide eating establishments,
An opening shall be provided through which an unobstructed view of the interior
of the premises can be obtained from the street upon which the business fronts,
Such establishment shall not be located within five hundred feet of any other
licensed liquor dispensing establishment not meeting the definition of a bona fide eating
establishment;
(3)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(4) Hotels and motels;
(5)
(A)
(B)
(C)
Automobile laundries or canvashes, subject to the following conditions:
The site shall be designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and waiting
All structures shall be architecturally designed to ensure compatibility with
A noise analysis addressing noise impacts on surrounding development may be
cars on surrounding development and from public streets,
surrounding development,
required,
(D) A traffic study which analyzes the impact of the proposed carwash on adjacent
and nearby intersections may be required. The limits of this study shall be established by the
planning director,
(E) Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided on-site to accommodate the
proposed use,
(F) Waiting areas for cars shall be screened by a combination of landscaping, fencing
and berming,
(G) All signs shall comply with the approved sign program, or if none, the city’s sign
ordinance,
(H) Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems shall be
provided.
(6) Large format retail, subject to Section 21.42.010(17).
Section 21.28.015 (C-2 Zone, Uses and structures permitted by Conditional use permit) is
amended to add “large format retail” as a conditionally permitted use as follows:
21.28.015 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit.
Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 and 21.50, the following uses and structures
are permitted by conditional use permit:
(1) Residential uses located above the ground floor of a multistoried building when
one or more of the uses permitted by Section 21.28.010 is located on the ground floor of such
building;
Residential Care Facilities. These facilities may be on any floor as approved by
the conditional use permit; (2)
(3) Professional care facilities;
(4) Bars, cocktail lounges and other licensed (on-sale) liquor dispensing operations
not meeting the definition of a bona fide eating establishment, subject to the following
conditions:
(A) An opening shall be provided through which an unobstructed view of the interior
of the premises can be obtained from the street upon which business fronts,
(B) Parking shall be provided at the rate of not less than one space per fifty square
feet of gross floor area,
(C) Surrounding grounds, including parking areas, shall be maintained in a neat and
orderly condition at all times,
(D) Any structure housing such operation shall meet all applicable code provisions
prior to occupancy,
(E) Licensee or agent shall not permit open containers of alcoholic liquor to be taken
from the premises,
(F) No licensed liquor dispensing operation shall be located within five hundred feet
of any other licensed liquor dispensing operation not meeting the definition of a bona fide eating
establishment;
(5) Hotels and motels;
(6)
(A)
Automobile laundries or canvashes, subject to the following conditions:
The site shall be designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and waiting
cars on surrounding development and from public streets,
2
(B) All structures shall be architecturally designed to ensure compatibility with
surrounding development,
(C) A noise analysis addressing noise impacts on surrounding development may be
required,
(D) A traffic study which analyzes the impact of the proposed carwash on adjacent
and nearby intersections may be required. The limits of this study shall be established by the
planning director,
(E) proposed use,
(F) and berming,
(GI ordinance,
(HI provided.
Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided on-site to accommodate the
Waiting areas for cars shall be screened by a combination of landscaping, fencing
All signs shall comply with the approved sign program, or if none, the city’s sign
Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems shall be
(7) ’ Large format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(17).
0 Section 21.30.01 1 (C-M Zone, Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit)
is amended to add “large format retail” as a conditionally permitted use as follows:
21.30.01 1 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit.
provisions of Chapter 21 SO and 21.83 of this title.
(1) Child day care centers are permitted by conditional use permit, subject to the
(2) Lame format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(17).
Section 21.32.010 (M Zone, Permitted uses) is amended to add “large format retail” as a
conditionally permitted use as follows:
21.32.010 Permitted uses.
In an M zone only the following uses are permitted as are hereinafter provided and
allowed, subject to the provisions of Chapter 2 1.44 governing off-street parking requirements:
(1) Any use permitted in the C-M zone, except child day care centers, except that a
dwelling conforming to the yard requirements of the R-3 zone shall be permitted on the same lot
on which a factory is located, and which dwelling is used exclusively by a caretaker or
superintendent of such factory and his family;
(2) Automobile painting. All painting, sanding and baking shall be conducted wholly
within a building;
(3) Bakeries;
(4) (5) Bottling plants;
(6) Breweries;
(7) Creameries;
(8) Dairy products manufacture;
(9)
(1 0)
(1 1)
Body and fender works, including painting;
Draying, freighting or trucking yards or terminals;
Electric or neon sign manufacture;
Feed and fuel yards;
3
(1 2) (13) Food products manufacture, storage and process of, except lard, pickles,
(14) Fruit packing houses;
(1 5) Furniture manufacture;
( 16) Garment manufacturers;
(1 7) Jl8) Large format retail, (provided thev are first reviewed and wanted a
conditional use permit as provided in Chapter 21.50, and subiect to the provisions of
Section 21.42.01 O(17).
Fruit and vegetable canning, preserving and freezing;
sauerkraut, sausage or vinegar;
Ice and cold storage plants;
(189) Lumber yards; (@a) Machine shops;
(20lJ Manufacture of prefabricated buildings;
(2+2) Mills, planing (provided they are first reviewed and granted a conditional use
(223) Plastics, fabrication from;
(234) Poultry and rabbit slaughter (provided they are first reviewed and granted a
(242) Rubber, fabrication of products made from finished rubber;
(2%) Sheet metal shops;
(261) Shoe manufacturing;
(278) Soap manufacture, cold mix only;
(289) Stone monument works;
(2930) Textile manufacture;
(381) Tire rebuilding, recapping and retreading;
(3+2) Truck steam cleaning equipment;
(323) Any industrial use not specifically permitted herein must be reviewed as provided
in Chapter 21.50 for a conditional use permit in order to locate industry in its proper and
available location in the region and prevent conflict with the high degree of residential
development existing in and around the city;
(334) Any use that is found to be objectionable or incompatible with the character of the city and its environs due to noise, dust, odors or other undesirable characteristics may be
prohibited;
(345) Satellite television antennae subject to the provisions of Section 21.53.130 of this
code;
(355) On-shore oil and gas facilities subject to the provisions of Section 21.42.010(15);
(363 Specified hazardous waste facilities (as defined in Chapter 21.04). Subject to
Section 21.34.010(1) (PM Zone, Intent and purpose) is amended as follows:
permit as provided in Chapter 21.50);
conditional use permit as provided in Chapter 2 1 SO);
approval of a conditional use permit.
(1) Allow the location of business and light industries engaged primarily in research
and/or testing, compatible light manufacturing, business and professional offices when engaged
in activities associated with corporate offices or in activities whose primary purpose is not to
cater directly to the general publict+& cbIt$
1 In addition to the primary intended use of this zone, other
uses, as specified in this chapter, may be allowed with the approval of a conditional use
4 da
permit; provided they are consistent with the policies for industrial land uses specified in
the General Plan.
Section 21.34.030 (P-M Zone, Conditional uses) is amended to add “large format retail”
as a conditionally permitted use as follows:
21.34.030 Conditional uses.
permit:
The following uses are permitted in the P-M zone upon the granting of a conditional use
(1) (2) Hotels and motels;
(3) Automobile service stations;
(4) (5) Health and athletic clubs;
J6)
(H)
(78)
Eating and drinking establishments (with the exception of drive-thru restaurants);
Child day care centers, subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.83 of this title;
Large format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(17).
Retail uses {other than large format retail) limited to the sales of goods and
Specified hazardous waste facilities (as defined in Chapter 21.04).
services required for the convenience of the occupants of this zone;
Section 21.42.010 (Conditional Uses, permitted uses) is amended to add the following:
117)
(A)
Commercial and industrial zones, with the exception of the C-T (commercial-
Large format retail, subject to the following:
(i)
{ii)
Jiii)
tourist) zone:
A conditional use permit for a large format retail use shall be subiect
to City Council approval.
A large format retail establishment shall not exceed 150,000 square
feet of gross floor area.
After submittal of a conditional use permit application, the applicant
shall provide funding to the City to hire a consultant to prepare an economic and fiscal
impact report. The report shall identify and assess the economic and fiscal impacts of the
proposed project. Issues evaluated in the report should include, but are not limited to:
market area feasibility in relation to community needs for commercial services: and
projected costs and benefits to the community, such as required improvements to public
services and infrastructure, and potential tax revenues. The results of the study shall be
considered in the approval of the conditional use permit.
When a large format retail use is not part of a local shopping center
on sites with a “L” (Local Shopping Center) land use designation, the economic and fiscal
impact report shall determine that the population that would be served by a local shopping
center on the project site will still have access to sufficient neighborhood poods and services
{as described in Table 3 of the General Plan Land Use Element).
{iv)
5
a3
Attachment 6
Analysis of Fiscal and Economic Impacts
Big box development projects without question impose economic changes on a community.
Those changes must be measured against the underlying assumption of a free market economy,
that competition is fundamentally good for the consumer. Competition is assumed to drive
prices down and to stimulate improvements and diversity in product design, performance, and
availability. Big box competition in the retail sales sector clearly has been a successful
competition strategy, as evidenced by Wal-Mart becoming the number one “Fortune 500”
company in 2002, supplanting industrial firms for the first time. Consumers often support land
use decisions allowing big box projects, despite their size, traffic demands, and other concerns,
because big boxes economies of scale have driven consumer prices for many goods to historic
lows (as measured in constant dollars), and consumers like low prices. The question, thus, is
whether the economic benefit of big box development - lower cost and increased availability - is
outweighed by the economic costs imposed on the community.
Big boxes are not a new phenomenon. Economies of scale were the primary feature in the
growth of department stores in the early 20h century. Stand-alone Sears stores and their
competitors aggressively sought market share fiom traditional “mom and pop” retailers,
eventually eliminating them fiom the market. Name brand hardware stores and, later, the Home
Depots and their ilk eliminated independent hardware stores fiom the market. And
“supermarkets” have all but eliminated the comer grocery store.
Big box projects are essentially the next step in a half century trend toward suburbanization and
shopping centers. Shopping centers, with their automobile-serving design, competed
aggressively with more compactly designed urban businesses and, along with fieeway
construction and the home mortgage deduction, caused investment to flee from the inner-city. In
San Diego’s case, and in many cities, this disinvestment led to large public expenditures to
redevelop downtown and other older commercial areas. In hindsight, shopping centers perhaps
should have been strictly regulated because of their contribution to disinvestment and the
consequent public costs of redevelopment.
It has been argued that big box projects destroy small businesses, eliminate the wealth creation
opportunities that small businesses provide, and drive down wage rates. It is certainly true that
Wal-Mart’s growth in rural areas closed down businesses in small-town main streets, taking the
private wealth tied up in the small businesses that lost in that competition. The growth of big
boxes in rural communities, however, was simply a belated battle in the war for market share that
shopping centers in urban and suburban America had previously fought. In urban and suburban
areas, shopping centers have long since eliminated the small purveyors of basic retail goods and
commodities. But the competition fought back: While small businesses no longer compete in
basic retail sales, they now compete - aggressively and successfully - in niche markets, providing
boutique goods and serving neighborhood and other limited clientele needs overlooked by mass
market retailers. Regarding wage rates, few “mom and pop shops” of a former era or the current
niche market businesses have a much better record than their big box counterparts in providing
full time jobs with wages at a livable rate or with health and retirement benefits. What
differentiates current big box development from shopping center predecessors is the combination
of sheer size, market reach, and design. Big boxes now compete primarily with each other and
with shopping centers. While the competition is played out at a corporate level, the economic
1
impacts are felt locally. For example, Wal-Mart’s success contributed to K-Mart’s bankruptcy,
forcing hundreds of K-Mart outlets to close while the company restructured. The local economic
impacts included thousands of job losses for K-Mart employees, service dislocations and their
ripple effects, and, if the empty K-Mart box did not find another user, a blighting influence for
the surrounding businesses or neighborhood. Some big box retailers are beginning to sell
groceries, competing aggressively with supermarkets (the big box “category killers” of two
generations ago). Supermarkets operate at a narrow profit margin, and big box retailers can
exploit that with their greater economies of scale and lower distribution costs. A single big box
project could effectively force several community-serving supermarkets to close, while a big box
chain’s concerted campaign could force a supermarket chain out of business. Supermarkets have
largely stabilized their employee costs through union representation or middle-income wage rates
coupled with health and retirement benefits. Thus, a supermarket’s closure would result in lost
full-time jobs at middle-income wage rates with benefits. There is already a society-wide erosion
of middle-income jobs, and in periods of high unemployment, a supermarket’s job losses would
be difficult to replace elsewhere and would have numerous social impacts. With regard to
service losses, most Californians have automobiles, and for them the lower costs coupled with
the convenience of access to many other goods may outweigh the higher costs of driving further
to a big box for groceries. However, neighborhood residents who do not have access to
transportation (who in most cases have low incomes) will likely be forced to shop at higher-cost
niche markets. A solution for them is public transportation connecting residents to big boxes, but
this simply transfers the cost impact to government. It is unclear whether the longer trips to big
boxes result in increased air pollution impacts, or whether consumers instead save up their
purchasing needs to combine food purchase trips with other trips. Finally, regarding blighting
influences, supermarkets are the most common anchor tenant at neighborhood-serving shopping
centers, so when they leave for whatever reason, they leave behind the slow and painful closure
of all the surrounding businesses. The anchor site is often the wrong size for an alternative user,
and the shopping center becomes a blighting influence for an entire community. San Diego has
experienced this trend in several neighborhoods.
While big box development can have a strongly negative impact on a community, it can be a
valuable component to revitalizing an older community. Just as Horton Plaza anchored San
Diego’s downtown revitalization, a big box project in a strategic location can anchor community
revitalization efforts. It can make dormant sites attractive to shoppers, thereby encouraging other
business investment, providing new and desired services in the community, and contributing to
property tax increases. However, because the costs of building in the inner-city are inherently
much higher than at “Greenfield” sites on a city’s periphery, big box developers seldom consider
such sites despite population densities, prefemng instead to rely on consumers’ willingness to
drive long distances on ii-eeways. In the mid-1 99O’s, New York City learned that it was leaking
substantial retail sales (and tax revenues) to suburban big box sites. The city revised its
regulations to encourage big boxes to move into metropolitan areas. The strategy was successful,
with new retail projects returning sales to the city. In many cases, the big boxes were designed
with multiple stones consistent with community design characteristics and some even re-used
existing older buildings. Thus, San Diego might consider regulations to encourage big box
development at selected inner-city sites.
While the economic impacts of big box retail development can be complex and variable, the
fiscal impacts are straightforward. Big box projects do not offer new and previously unavailable
I
goods. Rather, they compete with other businesses for a larger share of a fixed amount of sales.
Individual items may be at a lower cost, so consumers may purchase more items fiom a big box,
but the overall sale amounts remain relatively fixed. With tax revenues tied to sales, the local
jurisdiction’s tax returns remain the same.
There are two exceptions to this. As noted above, big box developers prefer to build at low cost
“Greenfield” sites which are likely located at a city’s periphery. To the extent that this location
choice precludes lower income purchasers fiom driving long distances, then this market segment
may remain unserved on discretionary purchases. In the event that the big box competes
successfully with businesses offering sales for this segment, forcing them out of business, then
tax revenues fiom this segment will decline. This argues in favor of strategies to encourage big
box projects in denser inner-city areas.
The second exception, as happened in New York City, if the big box is located at a periphery site
across a jurisdiction’s corporate boundary, then the taxes paid by the city’s residents will flow to
the suburban jurisdiction. This may be the unintended result of developers preferring
“Greenfield” sites, but in many cases cities compete with one another for big box retailers to
increase their sales tax revenues, changing land use regulations and providing financial
incentives to attract big boxes. In a 1999 study by Public Policy Institute of California, 72
percent of California cities ranked generating new sales tax revenue as the most important factor
motivating their decisions about developing vacant land. Some large retailers use this
“fiscalization of land use” to play one community against another, asking local officials for
subsidies to relocate within the same market area, transferring sales tax revenues fiom a
“sending” community to a “receiving” community. The receiving community gets new revenue
but spends some of it on the retailer; the subsidy to the retailer lowers its costs; and the sending
community suffers the revenue loss. The public as a whole loses because the costs of goods
remain the same while net public revenues to provide public services are diverted. State law now
prohibits a community fiom giving financial assistance to a big box retailer or auto dealer to
relocate in the same market area unless the receiving agency shares the resulting sales tax
revenues (after subtracting the value of the assistance) with the sending community for the first
10 years (Government Code Sec. 53084; Health & Safety Code Sec. 33426.7).
In San Diego’s case, an effort to compete for tax revenue fiom outlying jurisdictions is not likely
to be successful. Planning Department staff reviewed maps of periphery areas and determined
only two sites can accommodate a big box project, and of those one is a long-developed shopping
center that already includes a big box retailer (College Grove), and the other is beyond the market
range of attracting sales from outside the city limits (Cannel Mountain Ranch). On the other
hand, at least five sites just outside San Diego’s limits could support big box projects and
compete for sales taxes fiom San Diego residents (Chula Vista, Poway, Santee, and two sites in
the County).
3
Attachment 7
Fiscal Impacts of Large Retail Establishments
Retail Site Selection
Retail uses are established in a community based almost entirely on demographics - the specific
characteristics of a region’s population regarding income, age, density, etc. and the presence of
existing competitors in the targeted “trade area.” Since the retail outlet is the last stage of the
economic process before consumption occurs, it is extremely difficult for the retailer to move out
of (or not locate in) the trade area, much less the region as a whole. Despite the rise of internet
sales where goods are purchased on-line and delivered to the consumer’s doorstep, most retail
sales still occur in retail stores. In fact the recent trends suggest that “large format” or “big box’’
retailers are able to effectively compete with smaller and non-traditional retailers based on price,
selection, and overall value. These type retailers are increasingly constructing ever-larger
“super-markets” and “super-centers” precisely into order to compete with smaller less value-
oriented retailers. For the most part, San Diego retailers do not compete with retailers outside
the City, and almost never compete with retailers outside the region.
The Relationship of Tax Revenue to the Size of the Retailer
Larger retail establishments are able to provide some savings to the consumer through lower
prices resulting from increased efficiency. A significant portion of these savings is likely to be
spent at the same or other retailers such that taxable sales remain the same or may even drop
slightly. The disposable income of a City’s population is the primary determining factor in the
amount of sales tax a City will receive. Since retailers &e not a part of the economic base from
which this disposable income is derived, they have little impact on taxable sales or tax revenues
allocated to local cities. There is one important exception to this rule. The actual positioning of
a retailer near a City limit line, and the reach of that retailer into the trade area which extends
into another jurisdiction can influence sales tax receipts. While cities might like to “import” tax
revenue from a neighboring jurisdiction by “positioning” a large format (aka “big box”) retailer,
or a series of such retailers along the inside of its city limits, the reality is that the demographics,
and the existence of competing retailers will have a much greater impact on the location
decisions of these retailers than accommodative land use policies. Retail locations are likely to
be geographically dispersed throughout residential areas without regard to political boundaries.
As such, cities can do very little if anything that will significantly affect sales tax revenues from
retailers. Smaller cities will have relatively more leverage, and larger cities relatively less.
San Diego’s Situation
City staff evaluated existing land uses on both sides of the City Limits and concluded that large
retail establishments were more likely to be sited by retailers in surrounding cities than within
the City of San Diego. Consideration was given to the following factors: (1) presence of vacant
land, (2) presence of obsolete structures (3) land use zoning and planning designations, and (4)
the existence of adopted Redevelopment Project Areas and the historical use of these by local
jurisdictions to “assemble” land for large retailers. While it is difficult to predict the potential
locations of future super-centers or even large retail establishments generally, it is clear that the
City of San Diego has relatively less ability to positively influence sales tax revenues by
encouraging such retail establishments in locations which would “shift” tax revenues to San
Diego. In conclusion, it appears that the City of San Diego has nothing to gain financially form
the establishment of super-centers in San Diego County and potentially could be exposed to
negative fiscal impacts from this type of retailer.
Key Findings of Studies of Large Retail Establishments
City staff has reviewed five studies which quantitatively evaluated the fiscal impacts of large
retail establishments and none predict a potential fiscal benefit from such retailers generally.
Conclusions range from “the net impacts on local sales tax revenues are far from certain”
(Boarnet and Crane 1999) to “it is arguable that there is an even greater net cost [to the City of
San Diego] in this case from the super-centers” (Rea and Parker, 2000) This latter study
prepared on behalf of the San Diego Taxpayers Association departed from other similar studies
by examining and quantifying actual service costs associated with super-centers and in addition
provided extrapolated costs resulting from increased reliance of retail employees on publicly
subsidized health care programs. All of the studies noted, but were unable to quantify, costs
associated with infrastructure and redevelopment expenditures undertaken by local governments
to either attract large retailers or mitigate the urban blight caused by the closure of smaller
retailers.
References
Marlon Boamet, Ph.D. and Randall Crane, Ph.D., “The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern
California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances” (Irvine: Orange County Business Council,
1999)
Marlon Boamet, Ph.D., Randall Crane, Ph.D., Daniel Chatman, and Michael Manville,
“Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and
Impacts,” (San Francisco: Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004)
Gregory Freeman, “Walmart Supercenters: What’s in Store for Southern California,” (Los
Angeles: LAX Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, 2004)
Richard A. Parker, Ph.D. and Louis M. Rea, Ph.D. “The Potential Economic and Fiscal Impact
of Supercenters in San Diego: A Critical Analysis,” (San Diego: San Diego County Taxpayers
Association, 2000)
Bob Rodino and Estela Lopez, “Final Report on Research for Big Box Retail/Superstore
Ordinance” (Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, Community Development Dept., Industrial and
Commericial Development Div., 2003)
Prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department on 5/04/04: RG
a8
Attachment 8
Planning Internet Email - CITY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US
From: <jlnels@earthlink.net>
To: <Planning@smtp.ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date: 05/25/2004 6:52 AM
Subject: CrrY OF CARLSBAD I CONTACT US
\\ A visitor to the City of Carlsbad Web site has completed and posted the "Contact Us'' form to department,
Planning.
..............................................
FOR SECURITY REASONS, DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE. ..............................................
Below, please find the information that was submitted:
To the Planning Department and Commission:
Please do NOT consider big box retail (or wholesale) stores in Carlsbad. There are already enough of these
stores within easy reach of Carlsbad residents. There are 3 Wal-Marts in Oceanside. There is a Home Depot in
Oceanside and Encinitas. There is a Lowe's in the Vista area. To say that these stores will help alleviate traffic
problems in Carlsbad is a false issue. They will only add to the traffic we now have. To put a Lowe's in the
location of the present wholesale florists' building would be a disaster for Avenida Encinas. The restaurants
along that street generate enough traffic now. Surely we can find other, better tax ratables for the City of
Carlsbad to continue the services to the residents of the city.
Thank you for considering this vital issue.
Gwen Nelson
1360 Las Flores Dr. Carlsbad,
jlnels@earthlink.net
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
207 -69.137.135
a9 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\bhode.OOO~ocal%2OSettings\Temp\GW}00001.... 05/25/2004
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004
4. GPA 04-07RCA 04-071LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES -
Request for a recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration, and approve a General
Plan Amendment, Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to
allow large format retail uses within the commercial and industrial land use designations
and zones (excluding the T-R land use designation and C-T zone), subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 4 and stated Associate Planner Jennifer Coon would make the staff
presentation.
Chairperson Whitton opened the Public Hearing on Item 4.
Associate Planner Jennifer Coon explained how the Enhanced Retail Opportunities project is a proposal
to amend the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Local Coastal Program to allow large format
retail uses within the Commercial and Industrial land use designations and zones, subject to the approval
of a Conditional Use Permit. Ms Coon stated that the C-T (Commercial Tourist) zone and the TR (Travel Recreation land use designation) are proposed to be excluded from the amendment due to the fact that
those areas are exclusively dedicated to visitor serving uses and the Coastal Commission would not likely
support adding large format retail uses to that designation.
Ms. Coon explained the background of the proposed project. On January 21, 2004, the City Council
conducted a workshop to consider alternatives to provide more opportunities for large format retail uses
within the city and on March 16, 2004, the Council adopted a resolution directing staff to prepare
amendments to allow large format retail uses in the Commercial and Industrial areas with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to expand the opportunities for commercial services
in the city. Within the past 10 years the city has experienced a significant amount of residential growth.
However, there are very few opportunities for commercial development, especially in the center of the
city, to serve the existing and future residential population. Ms. Coon stated that many of the residents
are required to drive to surrounding cities to shop for home improvement goods, office supplies, and
electronics.
Ms. Coon stated that the City’s existing codes do allow for large format retail uses in commercial
designations, however, they are required to be part of a shopping center and do not require a Conditional
Use Permit. The proposed amendments would allow large format retail as a stand-alone use within the
commercial as well as industrial areas. It would require a Conditional Use Permit for all large format retail
uses whether part of a shopping center or as a stand-alone use.
The proposed amendments to the General Plan include amending policies for the Local Shopping Center,
Regional Commercial, and Planned Industrial land use designations. The Local Shopping Center policies
are proposed to be amended to allow large format retail uses that are not part of a shopping center.
Currently they would be allowed if they are within a shopping center. A requirement for a Conditional Use
Permit would be added for any large format retail use within that designation. In addition, when a large
format retail use is proposed as a stand-alone use and not part of a shopping center, staff is
recommending that an economic and fiscal impact study find that the population that would have been
served by a local shopping center on the site will still have access to sufficient neighborhood goods and
services. Ms. Coon explained that this study is being recommended due to the fact that the City’s current
sites that are designated for local shopping centers represent the minimum number of sites needed to provide the basic local commercial services to the community. If a large retail format use was built in
place of a local shopping center the City would need to ensure that those neighborhood goods and
services are still being provided to that portion of the Community.
Ms. Coon stated that similar amendments are being proposed to the Regional Commercial Policies to
allow large format retail uses when not part of a shopping center and to require a Conditional Use Permit
for any large format retail use.
30
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 10
In addition, Staff is recommending adding language to the Planned Industrial Policies to allow large
format retail uses as an option to industrial uses, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The objective is to
provide additional opportunities for retail uses within the industrial areas.
Ms. Coon explained that in reference to the Zone Code Amendment, Staff is recommending adding a new
definition for large format retail. The definition would read as follows: “Large Format Retail means a retail establishment located within a building or portion of a building that has 75,000 square feet or greater of
gross floor area, but not exceed 150,000 square feet of gross floor area (the maximum floor area does
not apply to establishments that are part of a regional shopping center). Such retail establishments
include, but are not limited to, value department stores, home improvement centers and warehouse/club
membership stores.” Ms. Coon indicated that staff had been made aware of the fact that there are
several department stores at the Plaza Camino Real Mall that currently exceed the 150,000 square feet
and it was also indicated that current plans to remodel the mall include department stores that would
exceed that limit. Ms. Coon stated it was not Staffs intent to conflict with existing uses at the mall or
future planned uses at the mall. Therefore, Staff is recommending to add a modification to the definition
that would exclude uses that are part of a regional shopping center from the maximum floor area
limitation.
Staff is also proposing to amend all of the Commercial and Industrial zone chapters, excluding the C-T
zone, to add large format retail as conditionally permitted use. In the PM zone Staff is recommending to
amend the “intent and purpose” section of that zone. Currently the intent is stated as a zone that does
not cater directly to the general public. The PM zone does allow for commercial uses subject to a
Conditional Use Permits, provided they cater to the industrial uses. Staff is proposing to add a statement
that would allow uses in addition to primary intended uses with a Conditional Use Permit, provided the
use is consistent with General Plan policies.
Ms. Coon indicated the Conditional Uses Chapter is also proposed to be amended to add large format
retail to the list of conditional uses for all commercial and industrial zones (excluding C-T). The section
would also specify that a Conditional Use Permit would be subject to City Council approval. The section
would also require an economic and fiscal impact report. An applicant would be required to provide the
City with funding; the City would then hire a third party to conduct the economic and fiscal impact report.
The report would be intended to look at such things as market area feasibility and the costs and benefits
of the proposed use. Ms. Coon concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer
any questions.
Chairperson Whitton acknowledged for the record that the Commission received 16 letters and 4
telephone calls from citizens which are in opposition of the large retail stores. Chairperson Whitton
indicated there are 10 speakers that would like to speak on this item.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there were any further questions of staff.
Ms, Mobaldi pointed out that even though this is a City initiated General Plan Amendment; it requires four
votes of the Planning Commission for a recommendation of approval.
Cornmissioner Baker asked Ms. Coon to explain the change in reference to Plaza Camino Real and
asked if a store with greater than 150,000 square foot gross floor area were attached to a new shopping
center, for example the Mag property. Ms. Coon explained that the Mag property is designated as a local
shopping center site and would not be considered a regional shopping center. Ms. Baker asked if there is
any area of the City there could be a store larger than 150,000 square feet besides the existing mall. Ms.
Coon indicated the only sites designated for regional commercial would be the mall, Carlsbad Company
Stores, Costco, and Car Country. Commissioner Baker asked if the change in definition only applies to
Plaza Camino Real. Ms. Coon indicated that someone could process a zone change on a site to change
the designation, but currently the mall is the primary site the change in definition would apply to.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is any way for the City to discriminate as to the types of businesses
coming into the City. For example, the Lennar’s letter requesting the City to not approve any new sites
for General Merchandise Stores, Warehouse/Club or Super Stores that include the sale of groceries
along the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real corridor. Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi stated
that the City does not specify which tenants can inhabit a certain property. We are formulating land use
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 11
regulations and determining whether a store of a certain type and a certain size can go in these
designated locations. If any store fits within that criteria, they are allowed to apply for a CUP and as
conditioned could then locate there. Commissioner Baker inquired if in the future when considering a
CUP and the applicant meets all the criteria, could the City say no because the City does not like that
type of business. Attorney Mobaldi stated that the City could not say no solely based on not liking the
particular business. She further stated that a way to limit the volume and type of goods is to limit the
amount of non-taxable items that are sold in those types of business and include that provision in an
ordinance.
Commissioner Montgomery stated if this project is approved tonight, and as these sites come forward in
the future, he would like to see how the businesses might impact the local business. For example, he would not like to see a local retail center that offers groceries to a particular hub of a community have to
be abandoned due to lost revenue. Ms. Coon responded that the City is limited in land use decisions to
land use matters and a lot of pending legislation claims jurisdictions are unable to make land use
decisions that would regulate business competition. If the Commission’s decision is based on the fact that a new business would compete with other business and have a negative impact based on that
competition, she doesn’t think a decision could be based on that. Commissioner Montgomery asked if the decision could be based on the loss of a venue of services that are needed land use-wise in a
community. Ms. Coon stated if the Commission could legitimately make that finding, it would be a land
use issue. Attorney Mobaldi clarified that the City is not regulating business competition or making a
decision to allow one tenant versus another because they will not compete with existing businesses, but
we are looking at concerns such as, are the neighborhood’s needs being served. We are going to look at
whether or not, for instance, if there is already a grocery store in the area that can adequately serve the
residents before we are going to allow other uses which might take the place of that grocery store and
therefore not have the service available for residents.
Commissioner Dominguez inquired if the City would be able to identify those areas that could comfortably
accommodate big box retail and not have unexpected or non-studied impact on traffic, the fiscal impacts,
and all the other residual kinds of problems that could or may or may not occur as a result of that
placement. Ms. Coon stated that staff could do a site-specific analysis. She stated when staff took the
resolution of intention to the Council in March, that was one of the options which was offered. City
Council chose not to go with that option anticipating that analysis would be done on a project site-specific
basis and the developer would do that analysis. She further stated that certainly the City could go that
direction and have the analysis done up-front, however the Council directed staff to go in that direction.
Commissioner Montgomery stated that he is aware that some of the large format retail establishments
which occupy that particular category are recently providing other services in a smaller format, such as
75,000 or 80,000 square foot site, or something that might be able to integrate within a local shopping
center. He stated that that seemed to be a better fit with what is left in the City. He asked if that was
something the City could encourage as opposed to the very large format. Ms. Coon stated that she was
not aware of any recent proposals of the typical large format store opting to go with something below
75,000 square feet. The State defines large format retail as something 75,000 square feet and above.
She stated that the large format retailers are starting to design the stores with a smaller footprint, using
two story designs and designing them in a manner in such a way to incorporate elements of the
community so that they fit better into the community’s design to break-up the mass and the bulk so that
they don’t appear as a big concrete box. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he had heard that the
stores are downsizing using the 75,000 square feet, not pushing the 150,000 square feet. He asked if
there could be an encouragement on that scale rather than on the large scale so that may be better
embraced in the local retail format. Ms. Coon responded that the City could encourage that. In terms of
incorporating into a shopping center, on most of the site the City has, the retailer would probably have to
go with a store size which is smaller than their typical store because of the limited acreage the City has.
Commissioner Heineman asked the planner opinion if there are places for big box retailers to go. Ms.
Coon stated that the reality is that of the sites which are large enough and ideal along major roadways, the City does not have that many sites where a large retail use would probably be attracted to. They
typically want a site that is between 12 and 15 acres, and given the sites designated for commercial or
industrial use that are located near roadways that have the potential of accommodating the traffic, if at all,
there may be only a handful of sites that fit that criteria.
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 12
Chairperson Whitton asked in terms of sites that could accommodate, is the City considering any sites
west of 1-5. Ms. Coon stated that there are some areas that are designated industrial and commercial
that would be included in this ordinance.
Commissioner Baker inquired as to what ability the City would have in regulating the design of the stores. Ms. Coon stated that the Conditional Use Permit gives the City a great deal of discretion to scrutinize the
design of the project and the operation of the project. The City currently does not have architectural design guidelines for commercial development but that does not prevent the City from achieving high
quality design in the commercial development that we do have today and what we are currently
reviewing. The City makes sure that development is consistent with the community, that it is compatible
and that it achieves a high degree of design. The CUP will give the City additional discretion to ensure
that. Cornmissioner Baker asked if it would be wise and prudent of the City to make some statement that
they would be subject to the discretion of the Planning Commission, or City Council or the Design
Guidelines so that a potential applicant was aware that they would not be able to put just a concrete box
in town. Ms. Coon stated that something could be added to the ordinance that would state architectural
design would be evaluated through the CUP.
Chairperson Whitton stated there was about 8 people in the audience who wished to speak on the item.
Robin Friedheim, 1398 Scoter Place, Carlsbad
Paul Stailey, 3548 Corte Yolanda, Carlsbad
Catherine Miller, 5299 El Arbol, Carlsbad
Rick Froese, 4545 La Jolla Village Dr, San Diego, Westfield Corporation
Gary Gilbert, 2325 Pi0 Pic0 Drive, Carlsbad
Gloria Cook, no address given
Bill Baer, 3130 Monroe Drive, Carlsbad
All of the speakers listed above stated their opposition to the proposal and cited such reasons as there are several Wal-Marts, Office Depots, Targets and other big box stores within a few miles, they are all
ugly, and all of them generate a huge amount of traffic and congestion. They believe the argument that new big box stores will make it easier for residents to shop is ridiculous. The stores would generate more
congestion and traffic problems. Some stated that big box stores tend to drive out smaller neighborhood
stores and grocery stores as some of the Commissioners have already mentioned. The stores pay
substandard wages and several of them have recently been caught employing illegals. The stores
contribute to already formidable traffic. A few noted that recently there have been some high profile and
expensive fights between citizens of various cities, such as San Marcos and Inglewood, and some of the
big box stores, particularly Wal-Mart. The speakers suggested if the gates were opened here, the same
thing would happen to Carlsbad. The City currently has a good policy on the books to prevent stand-
alone boxes that invade neighborhoods and contribute to larger problems. Some of speakers voiced their
concerns over the sites on Avenida Encinas and the two located right next to single-family residences.
The owners of Plaza Camino Real, Westfield Corporation, stated they are against the CUP requirement
for large format retailers, larger than 150,000 square foot, located in regional shopping center governed
by a precise plan and feel it should be eliminated. Most of the speakers felt this proposal is strictly about
tax revenue and not about making shopping easier on the community. Some speakers felt this proposal
was spot zoning.
Jamie Morel, 5934 Priestly Drive, representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, read a letter
supporting the proposal. The Chamber feels given the impending state funding cuts to local government
we must foster all alternative routes for tax revenues. It would create jobs and economic vitality. With the
proposed requirements, the large format retail establishments can be designed to blend in easily with the
community.
Chairperson Whitton asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak on the item.
Seeing none, he closed Public Testimony on the item. Chairperson Whitton asked staff to respond to any
questions that were raised by the speakers.
Ms. Coon stated the economic study that one of the speakers referred to regarding the City of San Diego
could not be applied to the City of Carlsbad proposal because the two cities are significantly different in terms of their commercial base. The conclusion of the study was due to the fact that the City of San
33
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 13
Diego has a very strong commercial base and by adding another commercial use in the City wouldn’t
necessarily generate more spending but instead shift the spending from one store to another. She further
stated that people wouldn’t be likely to come from outside of the City to shop at the store. If a store were
located on the edge of the City, it would most likely draw more customers from outside the City. The case
in Carlsbad is quite a bit different because the City does not have a strong commercial base and any
additional commercial development would likely draw people who currently drive outside the City to shop
and it will draw people would most likely spend their tax dollars elsewhere; therefore, the City would retain
those tax dollars. Ms. Coon also stated that amending the industrial zone to include commercial uses
could be interpreted as spot zoning. However, the industrial zone does currently allow commercial
development and the development of non-industrial uses. When the City identified certain uses it felt
would be appropriate for the industrial zone, they may not be industrial in nature but would serve the
needs and benefit the community to have them it that zone. City Council has directed staff to add large
format retail to the industrial zone because they thought it would be a benefit to the community to do so.
Ms. Coon further stated that on the issues relating to the possible negative social effects of some large
retail establishments, Staff has been directed by legal counsel that those are outside the realm of the
City’s ability to regulate land use, and would likely not be something regulated or considered in the land
use decisions. Attorney Mobaldi reinforced that the City is not regulating employee wages, employee
benefits, illegal employees or those kinds of issues.
Commissioner Baker inquired about the issue raised by the Westfield Corporation regarding the
requirement of a CUP for stores over 150,000 square feet on projects governed by a Precise Plan. Ms.
Coon responded that a statement, such as “uses that are subject to a precise plan within the regional
commercial designation could be exempt from the CUP,” could be added to the ordinance.
Commissioner Baker asked if a precise plan acts as a CUP in many ways. Ms. Coon stated it did.
Commissioner Baker mentioned that the issue of spot zoning could perhaps be addressed in a general
way. For example, the Floral Trade Center, as mentioned previously, is already zoned as a commercial
site. Ms. Coon stated that the Floral Trade Center has an industrial land use designation. She further
stated that the proposed amendment would allow the use in that designation. Attorney Mobaldi clarified
that spot zoning is typically a concept that has to do with zoning a particular property to prohibit a use that
is allowed on the surrounding properties. This proposal’s recommendation relates to all the commercial
designations and the industrial zone designations. It is uniformly applied, and it is not singling out a
particular parcel and either prohibiting or allowing a particular use.
Chairperson Whitton asked who would be funding the economic study. Ms. Coon stated that the way the
ordinance is written, an applicant would be required to provide the City with funding. The City would then
contract with a third party to conduct the study so it would not be done by an applicant‘s representative or
consultant, and it would not be done at the City’s cost.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that during the deliberations with City Council, there was a lot of
discussion about the benefits of expanding these retail uses in some of these areas. He asked if the City
Council ever commissioned any empirically based studies to identify any general benefits, fiscal or
otherwise, as a result of the substantial changes in the General Plan. Ms. Coon responded that City
Council did not direct Staff to conduct any studies. The Finance Department did give the Council data on
the tax revenue the City gets from the existing Costco and to give an example of the type of revenue that
would be generated by that type of use. Commissioner Dominguez stated that he submitted a letter from
Tuesday’s North County Times for general reference where the City Manager was quoted as saying that
even the income stream would be insignificant in light of the raids of the tax revenues by the state these days, which Commissioner Dominguez feels puts a damper on this proposal. Ms. Coon responded that
when Council adopted the Resolution of Intention, they indicated tax revenues may be one benefit of
allowing these types of uses in more locations, but their primary purpose in directing staff to do this
amendment was to provide a better balance of commercial services to the community and to have
commercial services in more convenient locations for residents.
Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Coon to talk about the size of retail square feet that would be considered
at the maximum level and what in practicality that means. She said that the City is not going to allow
anything over 150,000 square feet with the exception of Plaza Camino Real Mall and what that sort of
means in practical on the grounds kinds of terms, like what is the size of the current Costco, what is the
size of the typical Target superstore, Wal-Mart, that sort of thing. Ms. Coon stated that Costco is
34
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 14
approximately 130,000 square feet. The Home Depot and Home Depot Expo in Encinitas are both
around 100,000 to 105,000 square feet. The typical Target is around 140,000 square feet.
Chairperson Whitton asked the Assistant City Attorney if the Commission should discuss restricting land
use west of 1-5 so that it not allow big boxes in that particular area. Ms. Mobaldi stated the Chairperson
could move an amendment to recommend that this be allowed only in zones east of 1-5 and not west of I-
5. Commissioner Baker stated she would like a philosophical discussion first.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Montgomery stated he agreed with the request by Wesffield in that he would allow the
Precise Plan to govern that center and not overlay it with a CUP. He feels that on one hand, some land
uses don’t generate the tax revenue that outweigh the municipal cost to the city and that is a fact in
determining where these locations go in the future. There could be a significant tax revenue that’s
coming in but it’s possible with a location in a certain area, that costs to the city could actually outweigh
that revenue stream; that‘s besides what impacts there could be to the community, the character,
business climate, desired existing locations of shopping and retail areas that are important to meet the
needs of certain areas of the City. On the other hand, he feels that if we assume that by banning a use
like this that it automatically eliminates it and eliminates the problems that are associated with it, it could
be a fallacy. It‘s possible that though there are some things that have happened with the City’s neighbors
that have prevented large format retail uses around the City, that doesn’t mean that it won’t continue to
happen and in a way there could be a build-up on the periphery of our city, large format retail uses
outside our boundaries, yet causing the exact same problems that are associated with them, yet the City
has no way to govern around it. He feels the solution is to plan them, to place them, to design them, and
specifically to size them according to the needs of our community, and that sizing might be what was mentioned before, these smaller aspects of these centers, yet they still meet the needs of the community
and they’re placed in appropriate areas.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that he could certainly support the idea of banning any big box retail
west of 1-5. He has some very deep concerns about some of the studies that have been brought to their
attention, about big box retail throughout the country. It‘s not only in California, but it‘s all over the
country. The City has, he states, been living in a fool’s paradise because we haven’t had to contend with
this. He feels like the mayor in that once you open the box, you just don’t know what you’re going to get.
He stated that he just cannot support these recommendations as they are being presented. He would like
to see some empirical data that would identify those areas for these types of uses as a base starting point
so that we can properly evaluate the traffic, fiscal and any other types of impacts. He also stated that he
read somewhere that the average big box retailer generates something like 845,000 gallons of runoff into
stormdrains per average store. He feels the City is just getting into the management of runoff under the
new EPA rules. He further stated so many studies have also shown neglible fiscal impacts and
beneficial impacts. He feels that in effect, what the City is doing is creating, in some sense, areas where
the City will have spot zoning, and the City does not know what they are buying into until after the fact at
which point it will be very difficult to defend.
Commissioner Heineman agreed with Commissioner Dominguez in many respects. He stated he is very much aware, and the City Council has been very careful to make sure that we are aware, that the
Planning Commission does not set policy. The Planning Commission is in the position of enforcing policy
which is set by the City Council. The Council several years ago decided that big box stores should go in
other communities. He stated he has no quarrel with that or if the Council decides to change the policy.
He further stated that what concerns him is to see a policy change that might change the ambiance of
Carlsbad without assuredly increasing revenue. He feels that the City of Carlsbad is surrounded by big
box stores which are easily accessed and there seems to be little incentive to open one on the City’s borders. He feels the City has waited too long and a policy change would accomplish little to change the
nature of our City. He stated if that‘s the Council’s policy decision, he feels there is no way of avoiding it. It‘s not what changes are made in the laws but what the results are. He does not support the proposal.
Commissioner Baker feels that tax revenue is only a small argument in favor of why the City should have
enhanced retail in the community. She feels that a better argument might be that it would be a better
balance of land use and provides more variety of shopping opportunities for people who live in this community. She further said that when the city was first planned, shopping opportunities where put a
35
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 15
long ways from where people live, which has now affected traffic. She feels that changing that policy now
is not in the best interest in saving the ambiance of this community. She stated she would like to see the
item continued until more studies are done. She stated that she feels that changing one policy could potentially bring a whole host of problems that have not even been thought of.
Chairperson Whitton stated that he would like to have a motion and then more discussion. The
Commissioners all agreed that no one can make the motion. Commissioner Montgomery stated that he is concerned that if the Commission is blind to the fact that these large retail uses can continue to grow
around the city’s periphery, that the problems will only exert on Carlsbad. He further stated he would rather continue the item for more planning.
Attorney Mobaldi commented that what she is hearing from the Commission is that more studies are
needed. She further stated that if the Commission votes on the item tonight, and there are not four
affirmative votes, the item will then go forward to Council without a recommendation for approval. Council
will read the minutes, they will see what the Commission’s concerns were and then presumably, if they so
desire, they will then order a fiscal impact study. She stated that right now the study is not funded, staff is
not really necessarily capable of doing more than what they have done to date without having that kind of
direction from Council because that‘s going to take a significant amount of money and probably time.
She commented that one way of handling the proposal, would be to have it come back after the study is
completed, and the Commission could vote on whatever the result of the study is at that time.
Chairperson Whitton stated he cannot support taking action on the proposal for the land use because he
feels he has insufficient information in which to make an informed judgment. He would like to see some
empirical data on what the economics of this going are to be, showing the net projection rather than the
gross dollars coming in, to include such impacts on roads in terms of maintenance, impacts on law
enforcement agencies and other service groups.
Attorney Mobaldi clarified that the Code provides that it goes forward with a recommendation of approval
only if there are four affirmative votes. Without the four votes recommending approval, it will go forward in
any event, but there will not be a resolution attached. There will only be the minutes from this meeting
and no recommendation for approval. Council will be able to look at it and do what they want. The
Commission is not actually denying it and if the Commission were, it only means the Commission is
denying it in it’s current form. It doesn’t necessarily prejudice staff from coming back, if they get further
direction, and recommending a General Plan Amendment or Zone Code Amendment after they have had
additional time to get direction.
Commissioner Dominguez asked Attorney Mobaldi if the Commission could formulate a motion directing
staff return with a resolution to deny the recommendation. Mrs. Mobaldi stated that would not be
appropriate in this situation, but suggested making a minute motion since this is an agenda item and ask
council to direct staff to complete an additional study or take care of the concerns raised tonight and that
would reflect what went on at the meeting. Commissioner Dominguez stated that with the full realization
that the Commission is acting in an advisory capacity in this case and the Council will get it one way or
another, he feels the Commission should give Council as to their concerns such as the ban of anything
west of 1-5, there is not enough empirical data, or that the specific site option should be reconsidered by
the Council which makes much more sense instead of a single swath kind of approval that can be argued
upon later on. Ms. Mobaldi stated that what she is hearing the Commission basically in consensus say is
that there really needs to be more information before a decision is made either one way or another.
Rather than talking about any of those concerns and giving direction at this point on those concerns,
without having that information, it would be better to make a minute motion that staff get more information
so that will go up to Council and they can do with it what they want, they have the record and they can be
very clear on what your concerns are. Chairperson Whitton asked if the Commission can specifically say
in the minute motion that they would suggest it not be included west of 1-5. Attorney Mobaldi stated that
could be done but since the Commission does not have the information they are requesting, she
recommends that the Commission hold off and do not make any modifications until they get the
information they want because they don’t know at this point whether they are ultimately going to be
recommending that they allow large format retail east or west of 1-5. Assistant Planning Director Don Neu
stated that it sounds like the information the Commission is asking for is something that would have to be
created using certain sites such as traffic and runoff, which would be dependent on the size of sites. He
stated that some of the discussion or ideas are the option the Council had, which was not to create an
overall framework for considering these but rather go back and look at particular sites which would fit the
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 16
criteria locationally and impact-wise and then study those. Commissioner Heineman stated that narrows
the focus too much. He doesn't think the focus is on individual locations but rather on other things like
economic results. Chairperson Whitton feels that an example would need to be selected in order to build
a case in terms of data purposes instead of generalizing. Mr. Neu stated that staff would need to generalize, if given that direction, a particular user or type of user, and the size of the user, to create a fiscal analysis which would also turn into a traffic analysis.
RECESS
Chairperson Whitton called for a ten minute recess at 8:55 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER:
Chairperson Whitton called the meeting back to order at 9:07 p.m. with all Commissioners present.
MOTION
ACTION : Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that before the Planning
Commission can adopt PC Resolution No. 5659 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION
of a Negative Declaration, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No.
5660, 5661 and 5662 Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment
GPA 04-07, Zone Code Amendment ZCA 04-07 and Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 04-06, that a citywide potential benefit and detriment study be
completed.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Montgomery stated he felt this is the right decision and believes that the City cannot put
blinders on and assume these impacts won't impact the City because they will from the cities around us.
He feels that good planning needs to be in order and he wants to emphasize the sizing of these facilities
is key depending on their location if they are ever to be brought forward.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that there seemed to be some confusion by the members of the
audience on why the matter could not be outright denied. He stated he explained that there was no one
to make the motion because there was no support for the motion, and the procedure only allowed for a
minute motion or a continuance motion.
Chairperson Whitton suggested that the motion be modified such that a specific site is identified to be
used as a model for the conduct of the study and for the gathering of data the Commission is looking for
rather than a generalization statement. Specifically, he would like to pick a site in the City where a
possible store of this nature could go, then select what size store model will be used in terms of square
footage and develop the study based on that because that is the only way to get the information such as
traffic impacts, suggested income and expenses to the City.
Commissioner Heineman feels that should left up the City Council. Ms. Mobaldi stated that if the Chair
would like to amend the motion that way and if someone would second that, then the Commission could
vote on that amendment to the minute motion. Commissioner Heineman feels that would be too
restrictive. Chairperson Whitton asked what the basis of the data would then be.
Commission Dominguez stated that because Council did not provide the Commission the range of
options that was provided to them by staff, he feels leaves a substantial vacuum so that if the Commission gets too specific, it may limit the amount of information the Commission gets instead of
increasing it. He suggested leaving the motion as it is and that the Commission ask for as much
information as possible because they feel this would be a watershed decision that will affect the city
substantially in its entirety. Chairperson Whitton feels this is one of the most important decisions the City
will have made in this arena in a number of years and the impact will be fast and immediate. He stated
he would like empirical data from other cities as well, not just from the newspapers.
33
Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2004 Page 17
Commissioner Montgomery stated that maybe the Commission suggest to the Council that is one
possible way a study can be done.
Commissioner Baker commented that she feels that because this a philosophical issue she doesn't want
to pin down the study. She feels this a lifestyle issue and wants to know what are the possible ramifications of such a decision rather than a specific site decision.
Attorney Mobaldi clarified that the Commission is voting to have a study to further analyze the potential
benefits and detriments of large format retail, and the rest is included in the minutes and the Council can
read the minutes and see the more specific concerns.
VOTE: 5-0
AYES:
NOES: None
Whitton, Baker, Dominguez, Heineman and Montgomery
Chairperson Whitton closed the Public Hearing and thanked staff for their presentations.
Attorney Mobaldi stated that the item would go forward to City Council without a recommendation for
approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Dominguez asked if it would be possible to gather any recent information on big box retail
litigation. Attorney Mobaldi stated she is aware that Los Angeles has a large format retail ordinance
pending with a provision which requires a fiscal impact study. Litigation is threatened saying it's an
unlawful attempt to regulate business matters. . The County of Alameda is currently in litigation with Wal- Mart who challenged the environmental review of their ordinance which limits non-taxable goods to 10%
of the inventory in the store. The County is now redoing the environmental review which does not resolve
the merits of the ordinance.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of the Planning Commission o
9:17 p.m.
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
Bridget Desmarais
Minutes Clerk
July 2004 was adjourned at
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
3s
301 1 Garboso Street
Carlsbad CA 92009
November 16,2004
Hon. Claude A. “Bud” Lewis, Mayor
Hon. Ramona Finnila, Council Member
Hon. Matt Hall, Council Member
Hon. Ann J. Kulchin, Council Member
Hon. Mark Packard, Council Member
cc: Hon. Norine Sigafoose, Council Member-Elect
Re: Agenda, November 16,2004, Public Hearing
Item 12. AB #17,898 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES STUDY
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
1. IMMEDIATE URGENT ACTION:
1. General Plan Land Use Element amendment:
REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LARGE FORMAT
RETAIL USE WHEN PART OF A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER.
rBig box” stores are already allowed, and proposed, in Local Shopping
Centers surrounded by residences. Presently, these stores do not
require a Conditional Use Permit.]
2. Zoninq Ordinance Amendment:
Add the definition of “LARGE FORMAT RETAIL” for establishments
between 75,000 and 150,000 square feet of gross floor area, including
department stores, home improvement centers and warehouse/club
membership stores.
II. STUDY AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize study of potential benefits and detriments of future siting of
stand-alone large format retail uses within commercial and industrial
zones.
1
DISCUSSION
The Council is asked to authorize the study of enhanced retail
opportunities. Although the main focus is potential stand-alone “big boxes” in
industrial and commercial zones, the staff request also included a
recommendation for a conditional use permit and zoning definition for large retail
establishments that would be part of a local shopping center - a PRESENT USE
that is already allowed in Carlsbad in many areas, including residential
comm u ni ties.
The Council should take immediate uraent action on the
recommendation for Conditional Use Permits for large stores. The Council
should also adopt the accompanying zoning amendment to define a large store
as one with 75,000-1 50,000 square feet.
Immediate action on these two proposals would give the Council
enhanced authoritv to regulate and minimize potential impacts from large retail
stores that are now permitted, and proposed, in residential neighborhoods.
For example, “La Costa Town Square” is a Local Shopping Center
proposed for construction on 81 acres located at the northeast corner of Rancho
Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue - a residential neighborhood with long-
established and newly built homes. The commercial proposal includes, among
other facilities, a 1 00,000-square foot-retail establishment. Immediate action on
the staff proposals would allow the City to require a Conditional Use Permit for
that type of facility in order to provide added protection to the surrounding homes
and property values.
2
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Thank you, also, for the
Council’s continuing concern for Carlsbad’s citizens and for your courteous staff
and outstanding website.
Respectfully submitted,
Joy Lane
Dr. & Mrs. Frederic A. Lane
Carlsbad (La Costa) residents
cc: Associate Planner Jennifer Coons
Associate Planner Van Lynch
Assistant City Attorney Jane Mobaldi
3
From: Debra Doerfler To: Jennifer Coon
Date:
Subject: Re: Enhanced retail opportunities
1 1 /I 8/2004 10:06: 18 AM
Okay, thank you.
>>> Jennifer Coon 11/18/2004 9:55:35 AM >>>
Hi Debra. The Council asked for additional information, so a new agenda bill will be prepared, but we will
use the same resolution.
jennifer
>>> Debra Doerfler 11/18/2004 9:26:05 AM >>>
The Council took no action on this item and indicated that it would be returned for consideration after the
new Council is seated. Do you know, will the same AB packet be presented, or will a new one w/
associated new resolution be created?
Thank you,
Debra
Enhanced Retail OpportunitiesStudyEnhanced Retail OpportunitiesStudy
RequestRequest•Direct staff to initiate studies to determine the potential benefits and detriments if the City’s codes were amended to allow more opportunities for large format retail.
Planning CommissionRecommendationPlanning CommissionRecommendation•July 7, 2004 –Planning Commission public hearing on GPA 04-07, ZCA 04-07 & LCPA 04-06:–Amend City policies and regulations:•Allow large format retail uses within the commercialand industrialland use designations and zones, subject a CUP.
Existing CodeExisting Code•Large format retail uses are currently allowed within commercial designations:–When part of a shopping center–No CUP required
Proposed AmendmentsProposed Amendments•Expand opportunities for large format retail to locate:–Within industrial zones, as well as commercial–As a stand-alone use–A CUP would be required for all LFR uses–Require a fiscal and economic impact study
Planning CommissionHearingPlanning CommissionHearing•Planning Commission:–Determined they were unable to recommend approval or denial of amendments–Voted to recommend to the City Council that additional studies be done to:•Determine the benefits and detriments to the City if the proposed amendments were approved.
RecommendationRecommendation•Pursuant to Planning Commission’s recommendation:–Staff requests that the City Council:•Adopt Resolution No. 2004-374:–Directing staff to initiate the recommended studies by:»Preparing a scope of work and cost estimate»Return for Council approval of the scope of work & cost