Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-15; City Council; 18026; Enhanced Retail Opportunities Study12 AB# 18,026 TITLE: ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES STUDY DEPT. PLN fl MTG. 3/15/05 ,& GPA 04-07iZCA 04-07lLCPA 04-06 I CITYMGR DEPTmHD' SW CITY ATTY. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2004-374, 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. ITEM EXPLANATION: This item was continued from the November 16, 2004 City Council meeting. For a complete description and background of this item, see the attached Agenda Bill #17,898, dated November 16, 2004 (Exhibit 4). At the November 16, 2004 City Council meeting, a letter, dated November 16, 2004, from Carlsbad resident Joy Lane, requested that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zone Code in order to establish a conditional use permit (CUP) requirement for large format retail uses that are part of a shopping center (see Exhibit 3 for copy of letter from Joy Lane and Exhibit 4 for description of proposed amendments). Council requested that staff return with information on options available to establish a CUP requirement for large format retail uses that are part of a shopping center (where they are currently permitted). A summary of such options is provided in Exhibit 2. ENVIRONMENTAL: Directing staff to conduct additional studies is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15306. FISCAL IMPACT: 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: 1. 2. 3. 4. Agenda Bill # 17,898. City Council Resolution No. 2004-374 Summary of Options to Establish Conditional Use Permit Requirement for Large Format Retail Uses Copy of letter from Joy Lane addressed to City Council members, dated November 16,2004 Department Contact: Jennifer Coon, (760) 602-4637, jcoon@ci.carlsbad.ca.us I 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 \ A RES0 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-374 JTlON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT' 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 DMENT (LCPA 04-06) TO ALLOW LARGE FORMAT L USES, WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL ERMIT, IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE NATIONS AND ZONES. , does hereby resolve as follows: Code, the City Council of Amendment (ZCA 04-07), designations and zones. approval of said scope of work and cost. of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk d EXHIBIT 2 ’ SUMMARY OF OPTIONS TO ESTABLISH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE FORMAT RETAIL USES Adopt the proposed General Plan and Zone Code amendments (GPA 04-07/ ZCA 04- 07/LCPA 04-06), which propose to establish a CUP requirement for all large format retail uses, as well as expand the opportunities for locating such uses within the industrial and commercial areas. A. Current Policies and Requlations The City’s policies and regulations currently permit the development of large format retail uses within the Local Shopping Center (L) and Regional Commercial (R) land use designations. Such uses are required to be part of a shopping center within either of those designations. A conditional use permit (CUP) is currently not required to develop a large format retail use. Development of such a use within a shopping center is typically subject to a site development plan (SDP) approval, which is the discretionary review required for a shopping center as a whole. The difference between a CUP and SDP is in what the permit is intended to regulate. A SDP is intended to regulate the physical development of a site in terms of setbacks, landscaping, fencing, circulation, building bulk and height, etc. A CUP is intended to regulate a specific use. Typically the City requires a CUP for uses that may have characteristics that could negatively impact surrounding uses. For example, “open air theaters” require a CUP because the use typically involves outdoor entertainment that could have noise impacts on surrounding uses. The CUP gives the City more discretionary authority to regulate the development and operation of a use to ensure that it does not negatively impact the community. B. Options to establish a CUP reauirement for Larqe Format Retail To establish a CUP requirement for large format retail uses the Zoning Ordinance would need to be amended and a definition of “large format retail” would need to be established. As part of the related proposed General Plan and Zone Code amendments (GPA 04-07/ ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04- 06), a definition for “large format retail” is proposed, and is 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 to exceed 750,000 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. Table A, below, lists options for the City Council’s consideration to establish a CUP requirement for large format retail uses. If the City Council wants to establish a CUP requirement for large format retail uses, but not expand or modify where they are permitted currently, then staff would recommend option “3”, below. 3 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS TO ESTABLISH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE FORMAT RETAIL USES Page 2 of 2 OP1 - 2 3 TABLE A, cont’d INS TO ESTABLISH A CUP REQUIREMENT FOR LARGE FORMAT RETAIL USES Amend the City policies and regulations to require a CUP for large format retail uses that are part of a local or regional shopping center (areas where such uses are permitted today). This option would not change where such uses are currently permitted, and would not change the requirement that they be part of a shopping center. Amend the City’s policies and regulations to require a CUP for large format retail uses that are located within a local shopping center, but not if part of a regional shopping center. This option would not change where such uses are currently permitted, and would not change the requirement that they be part of a shopping center. A CUP may not be necessary for large format retail uses when they are part of a regional shopping center. Regional shopping centers are developed on land designated “Regional Commercial”, which is intended for commercial uses that provide goods in full depth and variety, and draw customers from outside the city. Therefore, sites designated “regional commercial” are located in areas that are visible and easily accessible from interchange points between highways and freeways (ex: Plaza Camino Real and Carlsbad Company Stores). Therefore, the “Regional Commercial” designation is intended for large retail development, and typically regional commercial development consists of more than one large retail store. Plaza Camino Real, for example, is a shopping mall with multiple large retail stores that would be defined as “large format retail”. In fact, some of the stores at the mall either have or are planned to have more than 150,000 square feet. That is why the proposed definition (per GPA 04-07/ ZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06) of “large format retail” excludes stores that are part of a regional center from the maximum floor area limitation. Since the “Regional Commercial” designation is intended for such uses, it may not be necessary to require a CUP for large format retail on those sites. The local shopping center sites are located closer to residential areas because they are intended to provide local goods and services to the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, impacts from a large format retail use (e.g., traffic, visual and operational impacts from the large scale of the use, etc) to residents near a local shopping center may be more significant, and warrant a CUP, than if the use were located on a regional commercial site. 3 EXHIBIT 3 301 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. YBig 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. Zoning 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 corn mu nities. The Council should take immediate urqent 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 qive the Council enhanced authoritv to requlate and minimize potential impacts from larae retail stores that are now permitted, and proposed, in residential neiahborhoods. 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 2 6 homes and property values. 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 7 17,898 MTG. 11-16-04 DEW. PL"#l TITLE: DEPT. HD. bl;y ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES STUDY GPA 04-07ECA 0447lLCPA 04-06 CITY ATTY. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. , APPROVING the initiation of a study@) 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. Staff's 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, af€er 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 traffic, 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 recornmendation 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: Directing staff to conduct additional studies is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15306. 8 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17,898 FISCAL IMPACT: 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: 2004-374 1. City Council Resolution No. 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, jcoonbci.carlsbad.ca.us 9 EXHIBIT 2 The City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: July 7,2004 Project Planner: Jennifer Coon Project Engineer: NIA SUBJECT: GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07KCPA 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 0.f 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 compatibility. 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 sitelproject 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. /O GPA 04-07IZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES July 7,2004 Page 2 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 pan of a shopping center). An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is also proposed to add a definition of “large format retail,” and add “large fomat retail” as a conditionally pemitted 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 specifidmaster 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 comdor 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 04-07LCPA 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 Shominf! Center IL) 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 andor 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. GPA 04-07jZCA 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 fomiat 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 (i.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. GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES July 7,2004 Page 5 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 adjacent to industrial development, including manufacturing, warehousing, storage, research and developnient, 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 To allow large format retail uses in the industrial land use designation, staff is recommending 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 carefblly studied to ensure the use will not result in a negative impact to the surrounding community and land uses. B. Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment The proposed 1. 2. 3. amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consists of the following: 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. Definition for “lame format retail” 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 ’* means a retail establishment located within a building or portion of a building that has. 75,000 square feet orgreater of gross floor area, but noi to exceed 150,000 square feet of gross floor area. Such retail establishtirents include, but are not limited to, value department stores, home improvement centers and warehouse/club membership 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: Table A GPA 04-07IZCA 04-07LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES July 7,2004 Type of Retail Use General Merchandise Store SuDer Store Table A, continued Retail Store Size Ranges Typical Floor Area Range 80,000 - 180,000 square feet 150.000 - 250.000 sauare feet 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 2 10,000 square 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 Demitted use In addition to adding a definition for “large format retail,” staff is recommending that the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial), C-2 (General Commercid), 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 04-07ILCPA 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 specfled in this chapter, ntay be allowed with the approval of a conditional use perniit: psovicie tliev 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 chaDter 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 (ie., 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 GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES July 7,2004 Page 9 retailer that includes a full size grocery store). The recent attention focused on '*bi'g 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 urbdsuburban 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 fiom 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. GPA 04-07IZCA 04-07/LCPA 04-06 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES July 7,2004 C. Other Issues 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 detennine 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 trafic impacts in the peak and off peak hours will need to be assessed on a site/project specific basis. Actual intersection and road segment trafic 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. Design 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. l9 GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07ILCPA 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 do GPA 04-07/ZCA 04-07LCPA 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 Cornmission 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. 5661 (ZCA) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5662 (LCPA) Strike-out and underline version of proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance text amendments 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) 1C:bd:rnh a/ Attachment 5 July 7,2004 GPA 04-07 - ENHANCED RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT STRIKE-OUTKJNDERLINE VERSION e 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 7 , home improvement centers, warehouse/club stores -, Cs4cee) , chain apparel stores !+hAdh), a variety of large-volume specialty-goods stores (eg. €kw+Gys 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-servingn tenantls) is a large format retail usels) lie., 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, subiect to the aDprova1 of a conditional use permit. Also, when a larpe 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 shopDing center on the Droiect 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 andor 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. Permitted uses and building intensities should be compatible with surrounding land uses. 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, hrniture 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. Nw-Other 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 large format retail use(s) (Le., retail establishment with a floor area between 75,000 and 150,000 sauare feet) may be permitted as part of, or as a stand-alone use in place of, a repional shoppinp center, as described above, subiect to the approval of a conditional use permit. Regional commercial land uses ee&m-draw customers from outside the City and generate interregional traffic. For this reason, such 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. 0 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 oDtion to planned industrial land uses, large format retail uses (Le., retail establishment with a floor area between 75,000 and 150.000 sauare feet) mav 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 e Land Use Element Section 111, Commercial, Implementing Policies and Action Programs number C.6 is proposed to be amended as follows: C.6 When “community” tenants (see Table 3, earlier), which include large 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 desim and architectural stvle of the center, “communitv” tenants, or other anchor or secondarv tenants shall not feature corporate architecture or lopos. If part of tenant simage, corporate lopos may be permitted, subiect to the Citv’s sign ordinance. 0 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 by allowing larpe format retail uses on lands designated 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 throuvh 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 nepative 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 desim, 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 2 1.04.201 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 21.04.201 Repeak4 Laree format retail. “Large format retail” means a retail establishment located within a building or portion of a buildinp that has 75,000 sauare feet or preater of gross floor area, but not to exceed 150,000 sauare feet of gross floor area. Such retail establishments include, but are not limited to, value department stores, home improvement centers and warehouse/club membershb stores. 0 Section 21.26.01 5 (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 21.42 and 21.50, 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 carwashes, 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, 635 (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) Larpe format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(171. 0 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: 21.28.01 5 Uses and structures permitted by conditional use permit. Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.42 and 2 1.50, 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 fionts, (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 carwashes, 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 canvash 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 shaIl 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. J7)’ Large format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(171. 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 21.50 and 21.83 of this title. (1) Child day care centers are permitted by conditional use permit, subject to the 12) Larpe format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(17). 0 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 21.44 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) ( 10) (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) (14) Fruit packing houses; (1 5) Furniture manufacture; ( 16) Garment manufacturers; (17) J18) Large format retail, (Provided thev are first reviewed and granted a conditional use Permit as provided in Chapter 21.50, and subject to the urovisions of Section 21.42.01 O(17). Fruit and vegetable canning, preserving and freezing; Food products manufacture, storage and process of, except lard, pickles. sauerkraut, sausage or vinegar; Ice and cold storage plants; (183 Lumber yards; (4920J Machine shops; (28lJ Manufacture of prefabricated buildings; (242) Mills, planing (provided they are first reviewed and granted a conditional use (223 Plastics, fabrication fiom; (2344 Poultry and rabbit slaughter (provided they are first reviewed and granted a (243 Rubber, fabrication of products made fiom finished rubber; (256) Sheet metal shops; (263 Shoe manufacturing; (2383 Soap manufacture, cold mix only; (28% Stone monument works; (2930) Textile manufacture; (381) Tire rebuilding, recapping and retreading; (342) 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; (3343 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; (356J 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 2 1.50); conditional use permit as provided in Chapter 21.50); approval of a conditional use permit. 0 (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 public:: Y In addition to the primarv intended use of this zone, other uses, as suecified in this chapter, rnav be allowed with the approval of a conditional use 4 a8 permit; provided thev 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) (63 (38) 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; Larpe format retail, subiect to Section 21.42.010(17). Retail uses Jother 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; 0 Section 21.42.010 (Conditional Uses, permitted uses) is amended to add the following: /17) (A) Commercial and industrial zones, with the exception of the C-T (commercial- LarPe format retail, subiect to the following: Ji) jii) (iii) tourist) zone: A conditional use permit for a larpe format retail use shall be subiect to Citv 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 fundine to the Citv to hire a consultant to prepare an economic and fiscal impact reDort. The report shall identify and assess the economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed proiect. Issues evaluated in the report should include, but are not limited to: market area feasibilitv in relation to communitv needs for commercial services: and proiected costs and benefits to the communitv, 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 “Ln (Local Shoppine Center) land use designation, the economic and fiscal imDact report shall determine that the ~opulation that would be served bv a local shopping center on the proiect site will still have access to sufficient neiphborhood goods and services [as described in Table 3 of the General Plan Land Use Element). Jiv) 5 a9 .* I 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 ofien 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 20” century. Stand-alone Sears stores and their competitors aggressively sought market share hm traditional “mom and pop” retailers, eventually eliminating them hm 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 heway ,construction and the home mortgage deduction, caused investment to flee fiom 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 diffmtiates 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 p+en.rrprl 7rrlir 3M1 30 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 IC-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 commdty-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 consumen instead save up their purchasing needs to combine food purchase trips with other trips. Finally, regarding blighting influences, supmarkets 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 pexiphery, big box developers seldom consider such sites despite population densities, preferring instead to rely on consumers’ willingness to drive long distances on fhways. In the mid-199OYs, 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 stories 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 2 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 hm a big box, but the overall sale amounts remain relatively fixed. With tax revenues tied to sales, the local jurisdictiofi’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 hm 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 hm this segment will decline. This argues in favor of strategies to encourage big box projects in denser her-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 bounw, then the taxes paid by the city’s residents will flow to the suburban jurisdiction. This may be the &tended 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 ranlced 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 hm 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 loss because the costs of goods remain the same while net public revenues to provide public services are diverted. State law now prohibits a community from 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 fkm 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 longdeveloped 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 (Camel 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 from San Diego residents (Chula Vista, Poway, Santee, and two sites in the County). 3 Attactunent 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 rcceive. Since retailers are 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 33 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 Boarnet, 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 Boarnet, 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: Los Angeles County Economic Development,Corporation, 2004) Richard A. Parker, PhD. 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 RetaiYSuperstore Ordinance” &os Angeles: City of Los Angeles, Community Development Dept., Industria1 and Commericial Development Div., 2003) Prepared by the Community and Economic Development Department on 5/04/04: RG 34 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 ME SUBJECT LINE. .............................................. Below, please find the information that was submitted: To the Planning Department and Commission: Please do NOT wnslder 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 Encinltas. 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@eatthlink.net Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1). 207.69.137.135 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\bhode.000~a1%20Settings\Temp\GW }OOOO 1 .. . . 05/25/2004 35- Planning Commission Minutes July 7,2004 DRAFT ExvlBIT age 9 4. OPA 04-07ECA 0447ILCPA 0446 - 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 fonat 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 fonat 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. 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 warehouselclub 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 Pian 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 equire an economic and fiscal impact report. An applicant would be required to provide the City with fu ding; the City would then hire a third party to conduct the economic and fiscal impact report. The report ould be intended to look at such things as market area feasibility and the costs and benefits of the prop ed use. Ms. Coon concluded her presentation and stated she would be available to answer anyquestio s. Chairperso Whitton acknowledged for the record that the Commission received 16 letters and 4 telephone Ils from citizens which are in opposition of the large retail stores. Chairperson Whitton indicated th re are 10 speakers that would like to speak on this item. Chairperso j 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. Commissioner 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 pushlng 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. Commissioner 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 Mol, 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 39 - . - - ._ . ... .. . 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 Clty 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 sewe 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 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 Westfield 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 arty 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 furlher 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 Planning Commisslon 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 Cornmissloners 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 Cornmission 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 tum Into a traffic analysis. RECESS Chairperson Whitton called for a ten minute recess at 855 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 Resolutlon 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 Commissfoner 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. 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 specifii 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 of July 7, 2004 was adjourned at Q:17 p.m. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. 44 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