The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/04/2001, PH2 - CONSIDERATON OF A RETAIL SIZE LIMITATION ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; TA 29-01 Council j Acenaa RepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planne SUBJECT: CONSIDERATON OF A RETAIL SIZE LIMITATION ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; TA 29-01 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Introduce ordinance amending the City's Zoning Regulations to set a maximum building size limit for large-scale retail establishments by zoning district as follows: 45,000 square feet in the C-T and C-N zones and 60,000 square feet in the C-C, C-R and C-S zones (Attachment 1, Exhibit"A"). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce ordinance .amending the City's Zoning Regulations to set a maximum building size for large-scale retail establishments, except that the size limit for the C-N zone should be increased from 45,000 to 55,000 square feet (Attachment 4). DISCUSSION Situation On January 16, 2001, the City Council directed the Community Development Department to study and present a draft ordinance that would limit the overall size of retail establishments in the City. The Council's primary concerns were with the large size of "big box" retailers, the lack of architectural character and their overall impact on the community. Staff has researched retail size cap limitations and prepared several ordinances for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. This report summarizes staff's research and the Planning Commission recommendation on a retail size limit ordinance. A copy of the Planning Commission resolution is included as Attachment 1, the Planning Commission minutes as Attachment 2 and the Commission agenda report as Attachment 3. Planning Commission Action Recommended Ordinance The Planning Commission considered this item on April 25, May 23 and July 11, 2001. Over the course of these hearings, the Commission considered three ordinances aimed at establishing a size cap for large-scale retail establishments. Ordinance"A"would limit retail establishments to 138,000 square feet and require retail buildings over 45,000 square feet to be subject to the City's pending design TA29-01(Retail Size Ordinafi .) Page 2 . guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Ordinance "B" would limit retail establishments to a maximum size of 110,000 square feet and require buildings over 45,000 square feet be subject to design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Ordinance "C" would limit large retail establishments to 45,000 square feet in the Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) and Tourist-Commercial (C-T) zones, and 60,000 square feet in the Central-Commercial (C-C), Retail-Commercial (C-R) and Service- Commercial (C-S) zone with the possibility of going up to 1.10,000 square feet in the C-C and C-R zones if certain criteria are met. Those criteria included: 1) the proposed retail use will serve the community as a whole and the nature of the use requires a larger size building in order to function; 2) the building in which the use is to be located is designed to respect the scale of development in the surrounding area; 3) the new building is designed to comply with the adopted design guidelines for large-scale retail projects and 4) the project sponsor submits a performance bond to guarantee that a viable establishment will be maintained for three years, or the sponsoring corporation pays to demolish the structure. At the July I Ph meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 (Commissioners Caruso and Loh voting no and Commissioner Aiken was absent) to recommend Council adoption of Ordinance "C" with exemptions for existing large-scale retail buildings (i.e. Copelands, Gottschalks, Home Depot and Sears) and project proposals with complete planning applications prior to the effective date of the ordinance. The Commission found the ordinance to be consistent with General Plan policies on retaining the City's small town character and protecting the environment. Commission discussion focused on: General Plan consistency; the ordinance's relationship to the non-residential growth management policy; existing City Code including use permit regulation and property development standards (i.e., maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area ratio, parking, landscaping, and building height); the size of existing commercial buildings in the City and the possible creation of non- conforming structures; alternative design solutions (i.e., large-scale retail establishments in mixed-use developments or multi-level buildings); and the experience of other communities. Commissioners Caruso and Loh did not believe that limiting the size of a building was appropriate because they felt that site design and building treatment are the most important factors in addressing the external effects of these large-scale developments. Although Commissioner Aiken was absent, he submitted a letter opposing adoption of any ordinance. He too felt that good design guidelines and proper guidance from the ARC should provide all of the limitations necessary to generate good responsible projects that are appropriate for the community. Attachment 2 is a copy of the minutes from the April 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The minutes from the May 23`d and July I P meetings will be available as a red file item prior to the hearing. Staff Recommendation City staff recommended Ordinance "A" to the Planning Commission because it accommodates all of the existing and future commercial buildings over 60,000 square feet and does not cause any buildings to become non-conforming. Staff's recommendation to the Commission is fully discussed in the attached Planning Commission agenda reports (Attachment 3). The CAO is recommending that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation with the exception that the building .size limit in the C-N zone be increased from 45,000 to 55,000 a-3 TA29-01(Retail Size Ordinail,-) Page 3 square feet. According to recent development trends, most grocery stores exceed 50,000 square feet in size. For example, the new Ralph's store is 53,000 square feet and the Vons at Marigold is 52,000 square feet. The City Council will also be considering a 50,000+ square-foot Albertson at the comer of Broad and South Streets. If the retail size limit were set too low, it might not allow some existing grocery stores to expand and keep up with emerging trends. By increasing the maximum building size in the C-N zone, the proposed ordinance would not create non-conforming buildings and it would accept current and future industry standards for retail grocery stores. Ordinance Considerations Reuse and Disposal of Abandoned Buildings Concern has been expressed about the demise of big box stores in the future, and what would or could become of these stores if the retailers abandoned them. Churches, grocery stores, athletic facilities, and a municipal office building are examples of uses that have occupied vacant big box spaces in other communities. Conversion of big boxes to entertainment/theme uses is also popular. Some stores have been converted into such uses as climbing gyms, gymnastics spaces, and skating rinks. The conversion of the former Vons store (on Broad Street) to an unmanned switching facility is a local example. Based on the above-stated examples, it is certainly possible to convert these buildings into another use. However, there is no guarantee that another use will occupy the structure or how long a building might sit vacant and abandoned. The Planning Commission was concerned with the potential physical effects of abandoned buildings and felt that something should be done to address this potential situation.. Therefore, the Commission voted to recommend that Council consider a performance bond for demolition of the structures, if they are vacant for a period of three years. This demolition bond requirement would be one of the criteria used to allow larger retail buildings (up to 110,000 square feet) in the C-C and C-R zones. Architectural Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Development Projects While there was a difference of opinion on adopting a retail size cap ordinance, all of the Planning Commissioners felt that site design and building architecture were important elements in minimizing the physical impacts of large buildings. While an ordinance would limit overall building size, it does not guarantee an attractive building design. Whether a building is 25,000 or 138,000 square feet in size, its physical appearance ultimately comes down to site design, building architecture, landscaping and various other project details. City Code requires the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to approve all new commercial developments, including significant additions and remodels. The City is currently in the process of updating the ARC guidelines and developing design standards for large-scale development projects. Some design principles being considered by the ARC are: minimizing the scale and bulk of buildings with wall articulation and openings; varying roof lines to break up building mass; emphasizing pedestrian-oriented features in site design; grouping of buildings to create common outdoor use areas or focal points (i.e., fountains, benches); delineating pedestrian walkways with different paving materials; designing parking lots to be equally pedestrian and vehicular oriented; protecting view a-� TA29-01(Retail Size Ordinan,.-) Page 4 I orridors in site design and building placement; and screening buildings with landscape plantings. In addition,to these design principles, the Planning Commission wanted to see the new guidelines include the following concepts: use of multi-story buildings and parking for large-scale retail establishments; the use of mixed-use development (commercial and residential); de-emphasizing parking with alternative parking solutions, and placing buildings closer to the street. The Planning Commission action was forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission for consideration in the design standards. Existing Buildings, Non-Conforming Structures and Exceptions The Planning Commission recommended ordinance would cause several existing buildings to become non-conforming structures. The largest existing retail establishments in the City are: Gottschalks department store at 108,000 square feet, Copelands Sports at 102,440 square feet (includes both retail spaces), Sears at 75,000 square feet, Ralph's at 53,000 square feet, Vons at 52,000 square feet and Food-4-Less at 50,000 square feet. A 135,000-square foot Home Depot (presently under construction and recently annexed into the City) will be the largest retail establishment in the City. Costco has filed applications for environmental, architectural and use permit review with the City. If approved, the Costco store would be about 138,000 square feet. The proposed ordinance would cause the buildings housing these retail uses to become non-conforming, which could impact the long-term plans of these businesses. To minimize potential impacts on these retail establishments, the Planning Commission is recommending two exceptions to the ordinance. The first exemption is for large-scale retail establishments that lawfully exist on the effective date of the ordinance (i.e., Copelands, Gonschalks, Home Depot and Sears). While these large commercial buildings would become non-conforming, the proposed ordinance would allow the existing retail establishments to continue to operate and to be altered, repaired or reconstructed as long as they are not enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on the date the ordinance went into effect. It should be noted that this exemption differs from the City's current non-conforming regulations because it would allow a non-conforming structure that is damaged by fire or similar disaster.to be restored to the original building size rather than the new standard of 60,000 or 110,000 square feet. The second exemption is for project proposals with complete planning applications prior to the effective date of the ordinance. The Planning Commission was aware that Costco Warehouse Store had filed development applications with the City and those applications would most likely be deemed complete before the effective date of any ordinance. The Community Development Department deemed the Costco application complete on August 3, 2001. It should also be noted that there are no formal proposals on the remaining two parcels of the Froom Ranch annexation and that any future development on this property would be subject to the recommended ordinance. Additional Research Council member Ewan recently requested additional information on large-scale retail establishments. He asked staff to research three specific questions. What are the smallest sizes certain stores will do? What is the difference between the City's parking standards and "big box" store's desired parking? a - s TA29-O 1(Retail Size Ordinary,-) Page 5 What are the-standards for building entrances and can "big box" stores have multiple entrances? Staff is researching these questions and will provide the information as a red file item before the hearing. FISCAL IMPACTS Approval or denial of the ordinance will have no direct effect on the City's funds. However, it should be noted that adopting the recommended ordinance might have impacts on the City's ability to attract certain retailers that, in the past, have been of interest to the City, from locating in the community. Adopting a retail size cap ordinance may discourage large-scale retail establishments and limit an existing retail establishment's ability to expand in the future to keep up with economic trends. This could possibly result in a reduction of sales tax revenues in the future. ALTERNATIVES L The Council could adopt the draft Ordinance "A" (Attachment 1 of the Planning Commission staff report dated July 11, 2001). A retail cap size of 138,000 square feet acknowledges and accepts the size of existing retail developments in San Luis Obispo, but would draw the line at allowing larger retailers (such as a Super Wal-Mart-typically 240,000 square feet) from locating in the City. 2. The Council could adopt draft Ordinance `B" (Attachment 2 of the Planning Commission staff report dated July 11, 2001). A retail cap size of 110,000 square feet acknowledges the size of existing retail development, but does not accept the size of recently approved or future large-scale retailers such as Home Depot and Costco. Both of these establishments would become non- conforming under this alternative. 3. The Council may continue action, if additional information is needed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1-Planning Commission Resolution with recommended Ordinance Attachment 2-Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 3-Planning Commission Staff Report with alternative ordinances Attachment 4-Draft City Council Retail Size Cap Ordinance(CAO Recommendation) JShoals/CC/TA129-01(Ordinance) c, Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5315 -01 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS) TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES: TA 29-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25, 2001, May 23, 2001 and July 11, 2001 for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Zoning Regulations to establish a maximum building size for large-scale retail uses; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures; and WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the size of large-scale retail establishments presents unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police, fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores; and WHEREAS, it is the City's goal to reduce the physical effects of large-scale retail structures on the community; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. a - � Resolution No. 5315-01 AttaChment 1 Page 2 2. The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations). 5. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq. SECTION 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the attached ordinance (Exhibit "A") amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) to establish maximum building size for large-scale retail uses. On motion by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Boswell, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Osborne, Boswell, Cooper and Peterson NOES: Commissioners Caruso and Loh REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council consider a performance bond for demolition of large-scale retail structures, if they are vacant for a period of three years. Further, if the Council finds a demolition bond is required, that the requirement be included as one of the criteria used to allow larger retail buildings (over 60,000,square feet) in the Central-Commercial (C- C) and Retail-Commercial (C-R) zone districts. On motion by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Osborne, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Boswell and Peterson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken Resolution No. 5315-01 Attachment 1 Page 3 SECTION 4. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Architectural Review Commission include additional design concepts in the proposed guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Those concepts include: 1) multi-story buildings and parking, 2) mixed-use development, 3) de-emphasizing parking with alternatives parking solution, and 4) placing buildings closer to the street. On a motion by Commissioner Boswell, seconded by Commissioner Peterson, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Osborne, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Boswell and Peterson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11'h day of July 2001. Ron Id Whis nand, Secretary Planning Commission � - 9 r%«wtcnment 1 Draft LXHIBIT ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES,TA 29-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25,2001, May 23, 2001 and July 11, 2001 to consider amendments and recommended approval of amendments to Title 17 of the City Municipal Code(Zoning Regulations)to establish a maximum building size for large-scale commercial buildings;and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend relevant sections of the Central-Commercial(C-C),Retail-Commercial(C-R),Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N),Tourist-Commercial(C-T) and the Commercial-Service(C-S)zoning designations to limit the size of large retail stores(buildings)and to add performance standards;and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan;and WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance wil from the 1 U {�, •a H Y ii Attachment 1 City Council Ordinance N6,._..' (2001 series) ,��HIB IT Page 2 provisions of the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000,et seq.;and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994,sets forth goals,policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment;promote and enhance real property values;conserve the city's natural beauty;preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character;and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures;and WHEREAS,the size of large-scale retail buildings pres ue challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of li ite ublic safety resources i�. as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores;and r r P&,` WHEREAS,it is the City's goal to re ceche . ysie 1 impact. `f large-scale retail structures on the community. }} NOW THEREFORE, IT ATN.E ;byyt' ouncil of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environm to er nation. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoni egulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3),and reflects the independent j udgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of all the evidence makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics,ideal climate conditions,spectacular natural vistas,and dynamic natural features.The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development AlTachment 1 City Council Ordinance No. _ (2001 series) EXA' JIBIT A Page 3 of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community,it is the policy of the Council to protect,maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms,and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives,policies,and programs of the General Plan,and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health,safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of p d li ' son commercial building size are insignificant. 7.1 ZY SECTION 3. Sections Amen fo wuig sections..-f Chapter 17 of the Municipal ek 07 Code are hereby amended as foil s 1738.020 (Neighbor d- t�alrs$ereby amended by adding G to read as follows: G. Maximum Buildi Si or aI eStali'shment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gros flo s excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.40.020(Retail-Commerc I ereby amended by adding"G" and"H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection"H"and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allgwed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area, if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or insignificant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 63 �a Attachment 1 City Council Ordinance Nc (2001 series) ElstHIBIT A Page 4 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.42.020 (Central-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and "H" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or in significant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to.function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.44.020(Tourist-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.46.020(Service-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding "G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 65,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by Section 17.16.035. 5 "*� A n ` , 7 _ Attachment 1 City Council Ordinance No. (2001 series) �+ ,�IB IT A Page 5 17.22.010,Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended to read as follows: Table 9:Uses Allowed by R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Zone Retail Sales-convenience stores23a4 A A A A D D Retail sales-indoor sales of As A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware,floor and wall coverings,paint,glass stores)23,24 Retail sales-appliances,furniture. As A A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,busines& office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply 2%24 Retail sales-groceries.liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.)71�24 Retail sales-neighborhood grocery ; A A D (See also Sec. 17.08.095)23-24 Retail sales-gen'l merchandise .24 y (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also-Retail ,IRR J sales-warehouse stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross — floor area per establishment +"" A A A • 'amu -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross s PC A A floor area per establishment PC D -more than 60,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment Retail sales and rental—specialties As A A (shoe stores,clothing stores. book/record/videotape stores•toy stores,gift shops)23,2A Retail Sales-Warehouse stores 23,24 -45,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC PC PC Attachment 1 ' City.Council Ordinance No, _ (2001 series) ]EXHIBITPage 6 Notes: 23. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail size limits specified below: • 45,000 square feet of gross floor area in the C-N and C-T zoning districts; • 60,000 square feet of gross floor area in the C-S zoning district; and • 60,000 square feet of gross floor area in the C-C and C-R zoning districts, with the potential to go up to 110,000 square feet if certain performance standards are met. Those standards are specified in Sections 17.40.020 and 17.42.020. "Gross floor area,"means the total area enclosed within a building,including closets,stairways and utility and mechanical rooms,measured from the exterior walls(Section 17.04.220). 24. A large-scale retail commercial building is defined as the construction of a single structure for the express purpose of accommodating one retail tenant on one parcel. Commercial uses in different structures separated by a public right-of-way shall not be considered the same building. When a large-scale commercial use is located within a multi-tenant building, the retail tenant's space shall define the "building." SECTION 4. The following section of Chap 1 nicipa de are hereby added to read as follows: 17.16.035 Size limits on Large-Sc Ret ihT s alishrdents`l A. In the C-N and C-T zones, ret to 1T n,,shall-exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area. B. In the C-C, C-R an -Sno eW -est shment shall exceed 60,000 square feet of total gross floor area. In C-� z. es, a retail structure may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor ea, c plies with the criteria specified in sections 17.40.020H and 17.42.020H. C. Exceptions to Retail Building Size Limits 1. When an otherwise lawful retail establishment existed on the effective date of the size limits, such structure shall be considered a development non-conformity but may be continued, structurally altered,repaired or reconstructed so long as it is not increased,extended or enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on that date. To the extent practicable, the design guidelines for large-scale retail projects shall be applied to any alteration, reconstruction or repair that takes place after the effective date of the size limits. Attachment 1 City Council Ordinance N6. (2001 series) ' Page 7 1 EAI-IIB IT A 2. The size limits in this section shall not be applied to any development or portion of a development that is covered by an approved development permit or a development permit application deemed complete by the Community Development Director prior to the effective date of the size limitations. SECTION 5. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in the Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the_day of , 2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 200 1,on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: `J L Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: . Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney TA29-0 I(OrdinanceD) �U SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 25, 2001 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2001, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, Orval Osborne, and Chairman Stephen Peterson Absent: None Staff: Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate Planners John Shoals and Michael Codron, Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, and Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE.MINUTE: The Minutes of March 28, 2001, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1785 McCollum Street: PD, TR, and ER 189-00; Request for d development zoni xiv for residential development, approval tentative tract map for a nine-lot residential s � 'sion with development even new single-family homes, and environmental review; R- e; Patrick Alison Aurignac, applicants. Associate Planner Michael Codro sented tall report and recommended that the Planning Commission mmend approval of osed tentative map and planned developm overlay zone to the City Council and pro to he Architectural ew Commission on recommended changes to the proposed 07 -/7 Planning Commission Minute_ May 25; 2001 Attachment 2 Page 8 floor plans or facades, (2) lowering the intrusive setback asp of Lot 6, (3) enhancing t affordability of units through the use of design consi ations, and (4) incorporating design ndards to make the project something sp al. Commr. Aiken a sborne accepted Co . Boswell's amendment. Commr. Loh voiced concer splitting the review of this one project between two advisory bodies; this is an -1 P uest before the Commission. AYES: Co rs. Aiken, Osborne, Coop oswell, and Peterson NOES: mmrs. Caruso and Loh REFRAI • None T motion carried 5-2. 2. Citywide: TA 29-01; Amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to regulate the size of retail establishments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Due to the lateness of the hour. Commr. Aiken moved to continue this item to May 23, 2001. The motion was seconded by Commr. Cooper and approved 6-1, with Chairman Peterson dissenting. Staff requested that any informational needs be addressed to staff prior to the May 23`d hearing date. Commr. Boswell requested staff address (1) the relationship of the proposal to the General Plan, particularly relating to the vision and goals of the city, and (2) provide information that would discuss the potential for having the nonresidential growth cap triggered. Commr. Osborne requested staff to provide examples of big box retailers developing in two stories or in mixed-use developments and related parking issues. Commr. Cooper requested staff expound further on the rationale between the alternatives. Commr. Caruso requested staff address (1) other communities' approaches to the limitation of the square footage a warehouse store could dedicate to nontaxable items and (2) alternatives based upon incremental sizes and designs/scale. Commr. Aiken expressed a concern about incremental size increases of existing warehouse/big box stores. Chairman Peterson requested staff explore options to addressing existing nonconforming uses and the spatial components of warehouse stores in relation to its location. He felt the design standards should be more progressive. Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner(781-7170) 10 MEETING DATE: July 11,2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: TA 29-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance establishing maximum building size for retail commercial uses. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt revised draft Ordinance "A" with findings. BACKGROUND Situation In January 2001, the City Council directed the Community Development Department to study and present a draft ordinance that would limit the overall size of retail establishments in the City. The Council's primary concerns were with the size of large-scale retailers, the lack of architectural character and overall impact on the community. In response to the Council's direction, two draft ordinances were prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. After reviewing both draft ordinances, the Planning Commission requested additional information and directed staff to prepare a third ordinance with varying size limits based on spatial location and by zoning districts. Staff has prepared a third ordinance for the Commission's consideration. The Planning Commission's role as policy makers is to review the ordinances and make to a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission needs to determine an appropriate retail size cap, decide what the performance standards that should be imposed, and recommend an ordinance to the City Council. The Council will make the final decision on the retail size cap ordinance. Project Description The proposed project is an amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to establish a retail size cap for large-scale retail establishments. Three ordinances have been prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. Ordinance "A" would limit retail establishments to 138,000 square feet and to require retail buildings over 45,000 square feet be subject to the City's pending design guidelines for large-scale retail project. This ordinance originally proposed that buildings over 60,000 be subject to the special design guidelines, but it has been �v/ 9 t Retail Size Cap Ordinances TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 2 revised to require special design standards for buildings over 45,000 square feet to be consistent with the proposed design guidelines. Ordinance "B" would limit retail establishments to a maximum size of 110,000 square feet and require buildings over 45,000 square feet be subject to design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. Ordinance "C" would limit large retail establishments to 45,000 square feet in the C-N and C-T zones, and 60,000 square feet in the C- C, C-R and C-S zone with the possibility of going up to 110,000 square feet in the C-C and C-R zones if certain criteria are met. The proposed criterion are: 1) the propose retail use will serve the community as a whole and the nature of the use requires a larger size building in order to function; 2) the building, in which the use is to be located, is designed to respect the scale of development in the surrounding area; 3) the new building is designed to comply with theadopted design guidelines for large-scale retail projects; and 4) the sponsoring company submits a performance bond to assure the establishment will be there for three years, or pays the cost to demolish the structure and return the site to its pre-existing condition. EVALUATION General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element lists several goals and policies that are relevant to the retail size cap ordinance issue. Those goals address city form and character, siting of commercial development, economic development and business retention. The specific goals are listed in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated May 23, 2001. Depending on the selected building size restriction, any one of the proposed retail size cap ordinances could be considered consistent with the General Plan goals of preserving the City's small town character, maintaining a compact urban form, and preserving the City's economic status. The General Plan does not define "small town character" or "compact urban form," but the City has historically been developed with small to moderate size businesses. Building records show that most existing retail buildings are less than 50,000 square feet. Large retailers can vary greatly in size ranging from 50,000 square feet up to 250,000 square feet. According to planning resources, a Circuit City is about 50,000 square feet in size, a Costco store about 150,000 square feet, and a super Wal-Mart store about 250,000 square feet. A typical grocery store is between 45,000 and 55,000 square feet in size. While several Commission members indicated that large-scale retail uses are not consistent with the City's scale and character, no definitive building size was agreed upon. The Commission should decide on a building size that it believes is representative of the City's scale and character. Retail Size Cap/Existing Retail Stores One of the primary factors in deciding on an appropriate retail size cap is the size of existing retail buildings. Setting the cap too low could create non-conforming structures and be contrary a-a D Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 3 to the City's General Plan and Zoning Regulations. It could also severely limit an existing businesses ability to expand in the future. Thefollowing paragraphs address how each of the ordinance compares to existing retail developments in the City. A retail cap size of 138,000 square feet acknowledges and accepts the size of existing retail developments in San Luis Obispo, but would draw the line at allowing larger retailers (such as a Super Wal-Mart-typically 240,000 square feet) from locating in the City. A retail cap size of 110,000 square acknowledges the size of existing retail development, but does not accept the size of recently approved or future large-scale retailers such as Home Depot and Costco.. A retail cap size of 45,000 to 110,000 square feet accepts most of the existing retail developments, but does not accept the size of the Home Depot under construction or the proposed Costco (138,000 square feet). Implementation of Ordinance "C" would have three potential impacts. First, it would restrict the size of grocery stores in the C-N and C-T. Current trends show grocery stores between 50,000 and 60,000 square feet. The recently constructed Ralphs at Madonna Plaza is approximately 52,000 square feet. Second, it would cause several existing retail stores (Sears, Gottschalks and Copelands) to become non-conforming structures, which would severely limit their ability to expand in the future. The City would have to find that these existing retail stores meet the proposed criteria or exempt them from the ordinance. Finally, there is potential that the ordinance could limit future retail and job opportunities. The ordinances could discourage certain retailers that, in the past, have been of interest to the City, from locating in the community. Impacts to Large Retail Stores in Designated Commercial Locations Ordinance "C" was developed with the idea of varying retail sizes based on spatial relationships and zoning districts. Ordinances "A" and "B" apply the same cap size irrespective of the zoning district. Both ordinances rely on the existing General Plan to specify location and the Zoning Ordinance for use permit regulation. These issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. The General Plan (Land Use Element) identifies three general areas for regional retail development. Those include: the downtown area (Downtown), the area near the intersection of Madonna Road/U.S. 101 (Madonna/SLO Promenade), and the area at the Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 intersection (Froom Ranch). Downtown Area Downtown is developed with numerous small businesses in small-scale storefronts, which reflect the surrounding City's characteristics, building scale, architectural style, and historical development. Commercial buildings in the downtown area range in size from 2,000 to 80,000 square feet. The largest retail establishment is Copeland's Superstore at 102,000 square feet in two separate buildings. Large retail stores (over 60,000 square feet) and retail warehouse stores (over 45,000 square feet) are both conditionally allowed in the C-C zone, but the Downtown is C;) Retail Size Cap Ordinance` TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 4 already developed with commercial and office buildings that are not of sufficient size to accommodate a large retail store (a big box store is typically 150,000+ square feet on 15 acres). A large warehouse retailer would have to consolidate and remodel existing commercial spaces or modify its building format (size and layout) to locate downtown. Ordinances "A" and `B" would accept the existing retail uses in downtown, and would allow future large scale commercial in the Downtown. Ordinance "C" would accept most of the existing retail establishments in the Downtown, but could potentially exclude some future large retail uses, which could be in conflict with the City's economic goals. Madonna/SLO Promenade The Madonna/SLO Promenade commercial area is developed with the City's two largest regional shopping centers. Madonna Plaza is a 307,565-square foot center with a 53,000-square foot Ralph's Market and 75,000-square foot Sears. Madonna Plaza is currently being redeveloped to accommodate a 30,000-square foot Best Buy store and smaller commercial tenants. San Luis Promenade is an approximate 302,000-square foot commercial center consisting of several mid- size retailers, Gottschalks department store and a hotel. A large-scale retailer would have to consolidate and remodel existing commercial spaces or modify its building format (size and layout)to locate in these two commercial centers. Ordinances "A" and "B" would accommodate the existing commercial uses. With the exception of Sears and Gottschalks stores, Ordinance "C" would accept most of the existing retail establishments. To accommodate these two retail uses, the Council would need to determine that they meet the performance standards listed in the ordinance, or exempt them from the ordinance. If this does not occur, the existing Sears and Gottschalks would become non-conforming structures and be limited in future additions or expansions. Froom Ranch(LOVR/US 10 1) Recently annexed into the City, Froom Ranch consists of four commercial lots (a total of 53- acres) with a potential for between 400,000 to 500,000 square feet of commercial floor area. A 135,000-square foot Home Depot store was approved by the County Board of Supervisors and is under construction in the City. A 138,000-square foot Costco store has been proposed for one of the three remaining parcels. No specific plans have been submitted for the other two commercial sites. Of the three planned commercial areas, only Froom Ranch has vacant parcels of sufficient size to accommodate a large retail store. Ordinance "A" would accept the recently approved Home Depot and the proposed Costco, and allow the remaining two parcels to be developed with 138,000 square foot retail uses. Ordinance "B" would not accept the Home Depot or Costco, and would make them non-conforming structures. Ordinance "C" would not accept the existing or planned retail developments at Froom Ranch. This ordinance would allow up to 110,000 square-foot retail uses provided they a-aa Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 5 meet certain performance standards. All three ordinances would require any large retail establishment (over 45,000 square feet) to comply with the City's architectural review guidelines and the special "Big Box"design guidelines currently under consideration. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council adopt draft Ordinance "B" with findings. 2. The Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council adopt draft Ordinance "C" with findings. 3. The Commission could find the ordinances inconsistent with the General Plan, and recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Element to add more definitive language on the City's identity and character. 4. The Planning Commission may continue action, if additional information is needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments commented on the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance limiting the size of retail uses to 138,000 square feet with the provision that any building over 45,000 square feet require special design. Attachments 1. Draft Resolution "A" 2. Draft Resolution`B" 3. Draft Resolution "C" 4. Map of Primary Commercial Areas 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 23, 2001 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 25, 2001 JShoals/PC/TA29-01(PCReporG) Attachment 3 Draft Ordinance"A" ORDINANCENO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS (SECTION 17.22.010:TABLE 9)TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF RETAIL STORES TO 138,000 SQUARE FEET AND TO REQUIRE RETAIL STORES IN EXCESS OF 45,000 SQUARE FEET BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL{°BIG BOX" DESIGN STANDARDS,(TA 29-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25, 2001, May 23,2001 and July 11, 2001 to consider amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations to limit the size of retail stores to 138,000 square feet and design standards for buildings over 45,000 square feet;and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on to consider amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations to limit the size of retail stores to 138,000 square feet and design standards for buildings over 45,000 square feet;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.;and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures. WHEREAS, large retail stores square feet present unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police, fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores. �L/ Attachment 3 Ordinance No. 2001 Series Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant,interested parties,and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics, ideal climate conditions, spectacular natural vistas, and natural dynamic natural features. The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community, it is the policy of the council to protect, maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms, and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health, safety,and welfare. , 5. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed limits on commercial building size are insignificant. SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 17.22.010: Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations are hereby amended as follows: acs Ordinance No. 2001 Series Page 3 -� Attachment 3 17.22(Table 9- Uses Allowed by Zone) Table 9:Uses Allowed by R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Zone Retail sales-appliances,furniture, A8 A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply Retail sales- General merchandise X41 (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also"Retail sales-warehouse stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross A A A floor area per establishment -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC A A -more than 60,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC D Retail sales and rental— A A A Specialties IZ� (shoe stores,clothing stores, book/record/videotapestores,toy stores,gift shops) Retail Sales- 23,24 Warehouse stores 45,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet gross floor area per PC PC PC establishment C � OrdinanceNo. 2001 Series Page a Attachment 3 �, g13 23. dam,WE �, etamer rs eer ehoores a 'OfRrT}'."..yy.,. a v^• °:Tia ly � •x"ZL^T X ,YS i i. M'k'F7fio 24. Refaatl ores`v�!t fe'r han,45000� uare wee oaf groW,1loor area shall be S-1 F 'incluc�tn eneral pecialb' bo ergn' dar s: Restores�m . all,retatl s yes, �gg merchandtse,spectal' ire`fail and warehou se stores; SECTION 4. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the _ day of , 2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,2001, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney JShoals/POTA29-01(PCOrdinance) Draft Ordinance"B" Attachment 3 ORDINANCENO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,AMENDING ZONING REGULATIONS (SECTION 17.22.010:TABLE 9)TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF RETAIL STORES TO 110,000 SQUARE FEET AND TO REQUIRE RETAIL.STORES IN EXCESS OF 45,000 SQUARE FEET BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL"BIG BOX" DESIGN STANDARDS,(TA 29-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25, 2001, May 23, 2001 and July 11, 2001 to consider various code amendments and recommended that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Code;and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on to consider amendments to the City's Zoning Regulations to limit the size of retail stores to 110,000 square feet and design standards for buildings over 45,000 square feet;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000,et. Seq.;and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures. a�g Ordinance No. 2001 Series — _ Attachment 3 Page 2 WHEREAS, large retail stores square feet present unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police, fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores. WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence,including the testimony of the applicant,interested parties,and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3),and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findin s. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics, ideal climate conditions, spectacular natural vistas, and natural dynamic natural features. The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community, it is the policy of the council to protect, maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms,and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan; 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health, safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed limits on commercial building size are insignificant. SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 17.22.010: Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations are hereby amended as follows: a-;>9 Ordinance No. 2001 Series Page 3 - Attachment 3 17.22(Table 9 - Uses Allowed by Zone) Table 9:Uses Allowed by R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Zone Retail sales-appliances,furniture, A8 A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting goods,outdoor supply Retail sales- General merchandise� 4 (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also"Retail sales-warehouse stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross A A A floor area per establishment -15,001 to 60,000 square feet PC A A gross floor area per establishment -more than 60,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC D Retail sales and rental— A A A 2324 Specialties (shoe stores,clothing stores, book/record/videotapestores,toy stores,gift shops) Retail Sales- Warehouse stores A 5,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet gross floor area per PC PC PC establishment ^I ,r��;hMENT 2 Ordinance No. 2001 Series Page 4 — Attachment 3 ;311 al c dui a er d# eer� I€ ores 24. etar tore '.> to 5; 0 eetp � s obi art Abe bct,to edtal r ,�? tan a '1, res ears• r tarssrn u ene`ra1 mere ` noise sp ial Ere d warehouse s✓o' C' SECTION 4. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in The Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the _ day of , 2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 12001, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney J Shoals/PCrrA29-012(PCOrd finance) 1 Draft Ordinance "C" ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CENTRAL-COMMERCIAL(C-C),RETAIL- COMMERCIAL(C-R),NEIGHBORHOOD-COMMERCIAL(C-N), TOURIST-COMMERCIAL(C-T),SERVICE-COMMERCIAL(C-S),AND ADDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR LARGE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IN C-C,C-R AND C-S ZONES. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25, 2001, May 23, 2001 and July 11, 2001 to consider.amendments and recommended that the City Council adopt the amendments to the Code;and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider adoption of the Code amendments and recommended approval;and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend relevant sections of the Central-Commercial (C-C), Retail-Commercial (C-R), Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N), Tourist-Commercial (C-T) and the Commercial-Service (C-S) zoning designations to limit the size of large retail stores(buildings)and to add performance standards;and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo, and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the a-3�2 City Council Ordinance Iv �, � (2001 series) Page 2 - ATTACHMENT 3 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.;and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1999, sets forth goals, policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment; promote and enhance real property values; conserve the city's natural beauty; preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character; and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures;and WHEREAS, the size of large retail stores presents unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police, fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores;and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence,including the testimony of the applicant,interested parties,and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics, ideal climate conditions, spectacular natural vistas,and dynamic natural features.The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with a-� City Council Ordinance N.;. . (2001 series) ATTACHMEW 3 Page 3 large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development of commercial buildings that are more compatible with San Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community,it is the policy of the council to protect, maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms, and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives,policies, and programs of the General Plan, and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health,safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed limits on commercial building size are insignificant. SECTION 3. Sections Amended: The following sections of Chapter 17 (Zoning Regulations)of the City of San Luis Obispo are hereby amended as follows: 1738.020 (Neighborhood-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area. 17.40.020(Retail-Commerical)is hereby amended by adding"G" and "H" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area, if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. a-3LI City Council Ordinance Ni:- (2001 series) ATTACMEW 3 Page 4 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Big Box Design Guidelines. 4. Submittal of Performance Bond to guarantee that a viable establishment will be maintained at the specific location for three years, or the sponsoring corporation will pay the cost of demolishing the structure and returning the site to its pre-existing condition. 17.42 (Central-Commmercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and "H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area, if it meets. the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Big Box Design Guidelines. 4. Submittal of Performance Bond to guarantee that a viable establishment will be maintained at the specific location for three years, or the sponsoring corporation will pay the cost of demolishing the structure and returning the site to its pre-existing condition. 17.44.020(Tourist-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment (commercial building) shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area. 17.46.020(Service-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and "H" to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size: No retail establishment(commercial building) shall exceed 65,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area, if it meets the following standards: a-3s City Council Ordinance Nt,". (2001 series) _ A1TAOMEW 3 Page 5 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building, in which the use is to be located, is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Big Box Design Guidelines. 4. Submittal of Performance Bond to guarantee that a viable establishment will be maintained at the specific location for three years, or the sponsoring corporation will pay the cost of demolishing the structure and. returning the site to its pre-existing condition. SECTION 4. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in the Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the _day of ,2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of 1200 1,on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,City Attorney a� Attachment 3 p c G� Y O r. GENERAL COMMERCIAL AREAS 1 DOWNTOWN N2 MADONNA ROADIU.S. 101 A3 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADIU.S. 101 Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner(781-717 5 MEETING DATE: May 23, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag rr �v FILE NUMBER: TA 29-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance establishing maximum building size for retail commercial uses. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt draft Ordinance "A" with findings. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission initially considered this project on April 25, 2001. At that meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to continue this item to the May 23, 2001 meeting with a request for additional information on General Plan analysis; an assessment of the relationship between the non-residential growth cap and any "big box" ordinance; an expanded alternatives analysis; discussion of applying the building size cap as an overlay zone with different criteria for specific areas of the City; examples of some of the large retail design guidelines currently being reviewed by the ARC; an analysis of how uses made non-conforming by the regulations will be addressed; examples of large retail stores utilizing different floor plans and parking layouts (i.e., mixed-use developments, two-story buildings and/or multi-level parking structures). Staff has researched these items and is bringing additional information back for the Commission's consideration_ Project Description The draft ordinance is an amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to limit retail establishments to 138,000 square feet and to require retail buildings over 60,000 square feet be subject to special "big box" design standards. Attachment 1 is a copy of the draft ordinance. DISCUSSION 1. General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element lists several goals and policies that are relevant to the proposed retail size cap ordinance. The Land Use Element states: d X38. Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Page 2Attachment 3 "San Luis Obispo should be a well-balanced community. Environmental, social, and economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Luis Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. The social fabric of the communityfor both residents and visitors must also be a part of that balance. Therefore, complementary to the goals and objectives of this element, the City shall maintain and bi-annually review goals and objectives that promote the economic well being of the community. " The stated economic goals of the City are: Goal 11: Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals. Goal 13: Provide an adequate revenue base for local governmental and public schools. Goal 21: Provide a resilient economic base, able to tolerate changes in its parts without causing overall harm to the community. Goal 24:Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural, professional, medical, and social services; community organizations; retail trade. The Land Use Element sets forth several goals to guide City form. Those goals are as follows: Goal 28: Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it from other urban development. Goal 29: Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. Goal 30: Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land. Goal 31: Grow gradually oulward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. Goal33:Develop buildings and facilities which will contribute to our sense ofplace and architectural heritage. Goal 34: Develop buildings and places, which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. CW-39 Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 3 The General Plan contains several policies on commercial and industrial development. The stated policies are as follows: Policy LU 3.1: General Retail Policy LU 3.1.1: Purpose and Included Uses The City should have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of City and nearby County residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses (see LU Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.5). Policy LU 3.1.2:Locations for Regional Attractions The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. Policy LU 3.1.3:Madonna Road Area Retail Expansion No substantial additional land area should be added to the commercial centers at Madonna Road and Highway 101 until a detailed plan for the retail expansion has been approved by the City. The plan should describe the limits of commercial expansion, acceptable uses, phasing, and circulation improvements. Any permitted expansion should be aesthetically and functionally compatible with existing development in the area. Before approving an expansion plan, the City should consider an evaluation of how much it would transfer sales from existing retail areas in the City and whether the proposed uses could be developed in existing retail areas. Policy LU 3.1.5:Specialty Store Locations Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos Valley Road area; some may be in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor part of the centers and they primarily serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional markets. Policy L U 3.1.6: Building Intensity The ratio of building floor area to site area shall not exceed 3.0, except that downtown sites. which receive transfers of development credits for open space protection shall not exceed 4.0. The Zoning Regulations will establish maximum building height and lot coverage, and minimum setbacks from streets and other property lines, as well as procedures for exceptions to such standards in special circumstances. Architectural review will determine a project's realized building intensity, to reflect existing or desired architectural character in a neighborhood. When dwellings are provided in General Retail districts, they shall not exceed 36 units per acre. So long as the floor area ratio is Retail Size Cap Ordinance Attachment 3 TA29-01 (Citywide) Page 4 not exceeded, the maximum residential density may be developed in addition to nonresidential development on a site. Conclusion: The proposed retail size cap ordinance can be considered consistent with the stated economic goals of the City, which are to: 1) retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses; 2) provide an adequate revenue base for local governmental and public schools; 3) provide a resilient economic base able to tolerate changes; and 4) to serve as the county's hub for retail trade. The proposed retail size cap ordinance could also be considered consistent General Plan policies on commercial development.. Depending on the selected building size restriction, a retail size cap ordinance could be considered consistent with the General Plan goals of preserving the City's small town character and maintaining a compact urban form. The General Plan does not quantify "small town character" or "compact urban form," but the City has historically been developed with small to moderate size businesses (most existing retail buildings are under 50,000 square feet). Recent development trends show grocery stores at 50,000 square feet and general retail stores somewhat larger. If the Commission is having difficulty deciding what is an appropriate size limit, it could recommend a specific, concise definition of San Luis Obispo's characteristics to be added to the General Plan. This new definition would put the retail size ordinance in proper context. If the Commission does not believe that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the General Plan, it could also recommend that the Council amend the General Plan to add more definitive language. The General Plan deals with actual building size by establishing policies on commercial siting, business location and building intensity. The General Plan establishes a maximum building floor area to site area ratio of 4 to I for developments in the central and retail commercial zones; except for downtown sites that receive a density transfer. The General Plan sets a maximum floor area ratio of 1.5 to 1 in service commercial zones. City Zoning Regulations allow 100 percent maximum lot coverage in the C-C and C-R zones, and 75 percent maximum lot coverage in the C-S zone district. Lot coverage applies only to buildings and structures not surface parking lots and walkways. Although Zoning Regulations allow a high coverage, it is staff s experience that structures typically cover between 25 and 30% of the lot. For example, the recently approved Home Depot is a 135,000-square foot structure on approximately I I acres. The Planning Commission may want to discuss the existing floor area ratios and lot coverage requirements in relation to the ordinance, and if these development standards should be modified. 2. Growth Management Policy The proposed retail size cap ordinance and resulting development will affect the City's growth management policy, which states: a-�r Retail Size Cap Ordinance - Attachment 3 TA29-01 (Citywide) Page 5 "Each year, the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential .floor area over the preceding five years. The Council shall consider establishing limits for the rate of nonresidential development if the increase in nonresidential floor area for any five-year period exceeds five percent, except that the first 300,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area constructed after 1994 shall be excluded from calculating the increase. Any limits so established shall not apply to: (a) changed operations or employment levels, or relocation or ownership change, of any business existing within the Ciry at the time the limit is set; (b) additional nonresidential floor area within the downtown core; (c) public agencies; and (d) manufacturing, light industrial, or research businesses. " (LU Policy 1.11.4). According to the City's Annual General Plan Report (2000), the City has experienced an annual growth rate of 1.38% or an adjusted growth rate of 1.15% (after excluding the first 300,000 square feet) over the past five years. From 1995 to 2000, the net floor area for non-residential development increased from 181,676 to 816,043 square feet (136,007 square feet per year). In 2001, the City will need to consider setting limits on non-residential development because the General Plan threshold for doing so has been crossed. A non-residential growth limit would affect the areas designated for general retail uses and any new annexation areas. The greatest capacity for non-residential growth exists in the Airport and the Froom areas. If a one percent (1%) growth limit is adopted, it will affect those general retail uses targeted by the retail size cap ordinance. Assuming a similar growth rate over the next five years, the threshold for the affected non-residential uses would be about 675,000 square feet total or 135,000 square feet per year. At that rate, one large big box retail establishment could consume an entire years construction allotment. However, staff would recommend that the Commission address each issue separately (i.e., how should non-residential growth be limited? and how to ensure that non-residential growth is compatible with the community character?) 3. Large Retail Stores in Mixed-Use or Multi-Level Projects Staff researched this issue and was not very successful in finding many examples of where large retailers were within a mix-use development or multi-level facility. According to a recent article in the April/May 2001 New Urban News, Home Depot is apparently the first national big-box retailer to adapt its concept to mixed-use urban store. In Portland, Oregon, the chain plans to building a 166,000 square foot mixed-use project consisting of a 104,000-square foot Home Depot on the first floor and two levels of structured parking above, plus offices and 26 apartments. The lot is four acres, much less than the 15 acres needed for a typical Home Depot. In Hell's Kitchen, New York, Costco is building a 70,000-square foot two-level store that is about half the size of its regular warehouse stores. According to a Costco representative, the company is trying a new concept that will called "city store." o7? .2 v Retail Size Cap Ordinance' TA29-01 (Citywide) A teChment 3 Page 6 This latest development shows that some large retailers are willing to consider different type developments and formats. However, it should be noted that the only know examples of mixed- use developments are in large urban areas with tall buildings and greater density. At this time, there are not enough examples to determine if this concept would work in the City of San Luis Obispo or any other small city. 4. Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects At the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked for examples of some of the design guidelines for large-scale retail project that are currently being considered by the ARC. Following are excerpts from the draft design guides. The draft guidelines state: "The City of San Luis Obispo intends that all retail commercial development projects be pedestrian-oriented, and otherwise be designed to reflect the "human- scale, " and architectural styles and features common in the City's most attractive commercial areas. Large-scale commercial buildings should not appear as monolithic "big-box" structures surrounded by extensive parking lots. These guidelines intend to inform developers and designers of the City's expectations for quality and excellence in the design of these types of projects. " The proposed guidelines include the following concepts: A. Site planning that emphasizes pedestrian-oriented features, even though most customer trips to facilities may be by auto. B. Parking designed to be equally pedestrian and vehicular oriented. C. Pedestrian circulation that is clearly delineated and separate sidewalks and pedestrian walkways within all large-scale projects. D. Building Design that is site-specific, and incorporates design themes and features reflective of San Luis Obispo's architectural vernacular. Design that minimizes the scale and bulk of buildings with wall articulation, openings, and varying rooflines. E. Loading docks, trash collection areas, outdoors storage and similar facilities that are incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaping. F. Landscaping that complements the building provided adjacent to the building and clustered throughout the site. G. Outdoor lighting fixtures that are in character with the architectural style of the structure. H. Large-scale retail projects shall include a comprehensive program that integrates signage into the project design. While an ordinance would limit overall building size, it does not guarantee an attractive project design. Whether a building is 25,000 or 138,000 square feet in size, its physical appearance ultimately comes down to site design, building architecture, landscaping and various other Retail Size Cap Ordinance `--' TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 7 project details. Staff believes that the City's architectural review process and the pending design guidelines will ensure aesthetically pleasing projects. 5. Non-Conforming Uses The proposed ordinance was chosen because it does not cause any existing or planned retail building to become a non-conforming structure. While the lower limits would result in smaller retail buildings, they would also cause some existing buildings to become non-conforming structures. While the existing business would remain legal, the structure would be non- conforming and could not be expanded. The City's non-conforming structures regulations are intended to provide for the correction or removal of such structures as soon as practical. If the size limit were set at 110,000 square feet, the Home Depot building would become a non- conforming structure. If the size limit were set at 90,000 square feet, Gottschalks, Copelands, Home Depot buildings would be non-compliant with the regulations. If the size limit were set at 50,000 square feet, seven retail buildings would become non-conforming structures. The proposed ordinance sets the size limit at the largest retail establishment so that it does not cause any existing or future retail uses to become non-conforming. The Planning Commission should discuss if the benefits to having smaller retail buildings outweigh this negative impact. 6. Overlay Zones and Varying Standards in Specific Areas Planning Commissioner Peterson asked about the possibility of applying building size limits with an overlay zone based on a property's specific location. The general idea was to place a planned development (PD) or specific plan overlay on a particular area such as the downtown, or the area around the intersection of Madonna Road and U.S. 101, or the area near Los Osos Valley Road and U.S.101. The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites by allowing more variation in project design. Specific plans are the bridge between the General Plan and actual subdivisions or construction plans. The General Plan requires specific plans for certain major new development areas. The process for adopting such a plan is similar to adopting or amending a section of the General Plan. Adopted specific plans in the City include: the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the South Street Specific Plan, the Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan, and the Railroad District Plan. An overlay zone would target a specific area and focus the size limits on developments within that area. The Planning Commission should decide if this concept should be studied further. 7. Other Communities The question of big box retailing is being considered throughout America and the world. Each city seems to have its own bottom line that develops in dealing with regulation of such uses. a�� Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 8 Many cities have acted to limit the homogenizing effects of big chains through design guidelines, caps on the size of big box stores, restrictions on trademark architecture and special use permits for formula .fast-food restaurants and drive-through uses. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report dated April 25, 2001. Staff contacted to the City of Boulder, Colorado to find of if the city had a retail size ordinance in effect. Boulder does not have a retail size cap ordinance, but does have a non-residential growth management policy similar to the City of San Luis Obispo. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council adopt draft Ordinance "B" with findings. This alternative ordinance amends the Zoning Regulations to limit building size to 110,000 square feet and to require retail buildings over 45,000 square feet be subject to special "big box"design standards. The Planning Commission could recommend an alternate ordinance that limits building size and further restricts floor area ratios and lot coverage requirements in the C-R and C-S zones. The revised floor area ratios and lot coverage requirements would not affect C-C zoned properties in the downtown. The Commission should specify the appropriate limits and recommend Council approval. Staff would prepare an ordinance for the Council's consideration. The Commission could find the ordinance to be inconsistent with the General Plan, and recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Element to add more definitive language on the City's identity and character. The Planning Commission may continue action, if additional information is needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments commented on the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance limiting the size of retail uses to 138,000 square feet with the provision that any building over 60,000 square feet require special design. -t�rt�e�t�nts — �aeafe :eeee-ae:ev > c JShoaWPC/TA29-01 (PC) d-ys Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # �. BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner (781-7170)'—' --,MEETING DATE: April 25, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: TA 29-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance establishing maximum building size for retail commercial uses. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt draft Ordinance "A" with findings. BACKGROUND Situation On January 16, 2001, the City Council directed the Community Development Department to study and present a draft ordinance that would limit the overall size of retail establishments in the City. The Council's primary concerns were with the large size of"big box" retailers, the lack of architectural character and their overall impact on the community. Staff has researched this issue and prepared a draft ordinance for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. The draft ordinance is an amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to limit retail establishments to 138,000 square feet and to require retail buildings over 60,000 square feet be subject to special "big box" design standards. The draft ordinance is included as Attachment 1. The Planning Commission's role as policy makers is to review the ordinance and make to a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will make the final decision on the retail size cap ordinance. DISCUSSION The Council did not give any specific direction on what criteria should be used in the ordinance. The general direction was to look at a range of building sizes, between 50,000 and 110,000 square feet. To determine what standards should be used in the draft ordinance, four specific questions had to be answered. What retail uses should be subject to the ordinance? What is the appropriate building size limit for the City of San Luis Obispo? How have other communities dealt with large retail uses? Should design standards be included the draft ordinance? 1. What retail uses should be subject to the ordinance? The City's Zoning Regulations generally classify large retailers in two categories—general retail and warehouse. General retail uses are drug, discount, department, variety and specialty stores, Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) AttaChment 3 Page 2 which include retailers such as Gottschalks, Copeland Sports, Michaels and Sears. A warehouse use is defined as retail or wholesale store that sells items primarily in bulk quantities or containers. Costco and Home Depot are defined as warehouse stores. The question is should the ordinance apply to retail stores only, warehouse stores only, or both. The proposed ordinance is intended for all large retail uses (general retail and warehouse) for a couple of reasons. First, it has become very difficult to distinguish between a traditional retail store and a warehouse store given the variety of "value" retailers and their wide array of products. In staff's opinion, only including certain retail uses would lead to Code enforcement problems and could possibly allow some retail establishments to circumvent the ordinance. For example, if the ordinance only targeted large warehouse stores, it would not apply to Wal-Mart or any other general retail use. Second, traditional retail stores have become very large in size and present the same design challenges and visual impacts as warehouse stores. The existing Gottschalks store is approximately 108,000 square feet in area. It differentiates itself from traditional big box establishments of similar size by its design and architecture. Based on these reasons, staff recommends that the ordinance apply to all retail uses. 2. What is an appropriate size cap? The draft ordinance proposes a retail size cap of 138,000 square feet with the provision that buildings in excess of 60,000 square feet require special "big box" design standards. This building size maximum is based on several factors, including: the size of current large retailers, the size of existing retail establishments in the City, and the size of future retail uses in the City. Large retailers can vary greatly in size ranging from 50,000 square feet up to 250,000 square feet. A Circuit City is generally about 50,000 square feet in size, a Costco store about 150,000 square feet, and a super Wal-Mart store about 250,000 square feet. A typical grocery store is between 45,000 to 60,000 square feet in size. The largest existing retail establishments in the City are: Gottschalks department store at 108,000 square feet, Copeland Sports at 102,440 square feet (includes both retail spaces), Sears at 75,000 square feet, Ralph's at 53,000 square feet, Vons at 52,000 square feet and Food-4-Less at 50,000 square feet. A 135,00-square foot Home Depot (presently under construction and approved for annexation) will be the largest retail establishment in the City. Costco has filed applications for environmental, architectural and use permit review with the City. If approved, the Costco store would be 138,000 square feet. Another consideration in deciding the appropriate building size limit was the potential negative impacts of this type of ordinance.. Although the City Council did not specify a particular retail size cap, there was some discussion on what might be an appropriate building size limit. Some Council members expressed a desire to have the limit set at 50,000 square feet similar to the Food-4-Less store and Ralph's grocery store. Other members felt that a larger limit (90,000 to 110,000 square feet) might be acceptable, if the building were designed properly. 0742 Retail Size Cap Ordinance _ — TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 3 While the lower limits would result in smaller retail buildings, they would also cause some existing structures to become non-conforming, which is contrary to City Code. The City's non- conforming structures regulations are intended to provide for the correction or removal of such structures as soon as practical. If the size limit were set at 110,000 square feet, the planned Home Depot would come into the City as non-conforming structure. If the size limit were set at 90,000 square feet, Gottschalks, Copelands, Home Depot would become non-conforming. If the size limit were set at 50,000 square feet, seven buildings would become non-conforming. The proposed ordinance sets the size limit at the largest retail establishment so that it does not cause any existing or future retail uses to become non-conforming. The Planning Commission should discuss if the benefits to having smaller retail buildings outweigh this negative impact. 3. Should Design Standards be included in the Ordinance? While people generally like what big box retailers provide (affordable prices on a wide selection of products), they show less enthusiasm for the external effects of the stores, big box sprawl, traffic and nondescript buildings with expansive asphalt parking areas. City Code requires that the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approve all new commercial developments, including significant additions and remodels. The draft ordinance would require all retail buildings over 60,000 square feet be subject to design standards beyond current ARC standards. The City is currently in the process of updating the ARC guidelines and developing "big box" design standards. Some design principles being considered by the ARC are: • Minimizing the scale and bulk of buildings with wall articulation and openings; • Varying roof lines to break up building mass; • Site planning emphasizing pedestrian-oriented features; • Grouping of buildings to create common outdoor use areas or focal points, such as fountains, benches, landscaped areas, etc. • Delineating pedestrian walkways with different paving materials; • Designing parking lots to be equally pedestrian and vehicular oriented; • Protection of view corridors, tree clustering as a screening technique; and • Methods to minimize the visual dominance of parking lots. It is staffs understanding that the draft "big box" design guidelines will be presented to the Council sometime next month. a-zlg Retail Size Cap Ordinance -- TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 4 4. How have other Communities dealt with large retail uses? The question of big box retailing is being considered throughout America and the world. Each city seems to have its own bottom line that develops in dealing with regulation of such uses. Many cities have acted to limit the homogenizing effects of big chains through design guidelines, caps on the size of big box stores, restrictions on trademark architecture and special use permits for formula fast-food restaurants and drive-through uses. City staff contacted several California cities to find out how they are dealing with large retailers. Those cities included: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Davis, Grover Beach, Lompoc, Monterey, Morro Bay, Oxnard, Paso Robles, Salinas, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria. Other jurisdictions were identified in a nationwide search of the Internet. With the exception of Arroyo Grande, none of the California cities have retail size cap ordinances. Staff was only able to identify 10 cities or towns (nationwide) that have adopted this type of ordinance. As shown in Table 1 (following page), there is no established pattern with size limits ranging from 40,000 to 102,500 square feet. TABLE 1: SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES Jurisdiction Ordinance Retail Size Cap Largest Retail Building Arroyo Grande, CA Yes 102,500 SF 102,500 SF Atascadero,CA No -- 135,000 SF Davis,CA No -- 40,000 SF Grover Beach, CA No -- 80,000 SF Lompoc,CA No -- 125,000 SF Monterey, CA No -- 35,000 SF Oxnard,CA No -- 125,000 SF Paso Robles,CA No -- 125,000 SF Salinas,CA No -- Santa Barbara,CA No -- Santa Cruz,CA No -- 122,500 SF Santa Maria, CA No -- 135,000 SF Clermont, FA Yes 100,000 SF po opo-/ Roswell, GA Yes 100,000 SF p Stratham,NH Yes 80,000 SF 000 Taos,NM Yes 80,000 SF Rockville, MD Yes 65,000 SF Easton, MD Yes 65,000 SF oa. 000 h North Elba,NY Yes 40,000 SF WalPole,NH Yes 40,000 SF o7-1-19 Retail Size Cap Ordinance TA29-01 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has reviewed this project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San Luis Obispo Environmental Review Procedures. It has been determined pursuant to Section 1.5061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council adopt draft Ordinance "B" with findings. This alternative ordinance amends the Zoning Regulations to limit retail building size to 110,000 square feet and to require retail uses over 45,000 square feet be subject to special "big box" design standards. 2. The Planning Commission could recommend that the City Council adopt an alternate Ordinance. The Commission should specify the standards to be included in the ordinance. 3. The Planning Commission may continue action, if additional information is needed. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS No other departments commented on the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance limiting the size of retail uses to 138,000 square feet with the provision that any building over 60,000 square feet require special design. Attachments 1 �iEt�66Qd �'il�tnirlinanrP a.Qa �z-�rltein$Ei+,�Bis€t�r�inanee—a= JShoals/PUFA29-01 (PCReport) o7-,5Z Draft - Attachment 4 ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS)TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR LARGE-SCALE RETAIL USES,TA 29-01 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held public hearings on April 25,2001, May 23,2001 and July 11,2001 to consider amendments and recommended approval of amendments to Title 17 of the City Municipal Code(Zoning Regulations)to establish a maximum building size for large-scale commercial buildings;and WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on , 2001 and has considered testimony of interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend relevant sections of the Central-Commercial(C-C),Retail-Commercial(C-R),Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N);Tourist-Commercial(C-T)and the Commercial-Service(C-S)zoning designations to limit the size of large retail stores(buildings)and to add performance standards;and WHEREAS,the purpose of the Zoning.Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo is to establish a precise and detailed plan for the use of land in the City,based on the General Plan,and WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for the development and use of property within the Commercial Zoning districts;and WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has conducted an environmental review of the adoption of an ordinance establishing procedures to limit the overall size of retail stores in the City of San Luis Obispo,and has found that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have an effect on the environment and therefore is exempt from the q�S/ City Council Ordinance No. - ' (2001 series) .- Attachment 4 Page 2 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code Section 21000,et seq.;and WHEREAS,the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted on August 1994,sets forth goals,policies and programs to: develop and maintain a pleasant and harmonious environment;promote and enhance real property values;conserve,the city's natural beauty;preserve and enhance its distinctive visual character;and insure the orderly and harmonious development of the city with attention to site planning and exterior appearance of public and private structures;and WHEREAS,the size of large-scale retail buildings present unique challenges for local government requiring a significantly higher commitment of police,fire and public safety resources as opposed to smaller neighborhood stores;and WHEREAS,it is the City's goal to reduce the physical impacts of large-scale retail structures on the community. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Regulations is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3), and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Fes. That this Council,after consideration of all the evidence makes the following findings: 1. That the City of San Luis Obispo is a city with unique characteristics,ideal climate conditions,spectacular natural vistas,and dynamic natural features.The proposed limits on commercial building size are necessary to reduce the visual impacts associated with large commercial buildings and to sustain and encourage development �"Sd City Council Ordinance Nu. (2001 series) Attachment 4 Page 3 of commercial buildingsthat are more compatiblewith San.Luis Obispo small town atmosphere. 2. That to protect the economic welfare of the community,it the policy of the Council to protect,maintain and enhance the social and economic values created by past and present investments in the community by requiring all future development to respect these traditions and require that all buildings and structures placed on the land respect the natural land forms,and become a compatible part of the total community environment,both in the local neighborhood and the city as a whole. 3. The proposed limits on commercial building size are consistent with the goals, objectives,policies,and programs of the General Plan,and are necessary and desirable to implement the provisions of the General Plan. 4. The proposed limits on commercial building size will not adversely affect the public health,safety,and welfare. 5. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed limits on commercial building size are insignificant. SECTION 3. Sections Amended: The following sections of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows: 1738.020 (Neighborhood-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 55,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.40.020(Retail-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and "H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:.No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection"H"and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or insignificant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. as� City Council.Ordinance No. (2001 series) Attachment 4 Page 4 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.42.020 (Central-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G" and"H"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by subsection H and section 17.16.035. H. A retail establishment may be allowed up to 110,000 square feet of gross floor area,if it meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community,in whole or in significant part,and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function. 2. The building in which the use is to be located is designed in discrete-elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in strict compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects. 17.44.020(Tourist-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G. Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 45,000 square feet of total gross floor area,unless excepted by section 17.16.035. 17.46.020(Service-Commercial)is hereby amended by adding"G"to read as follows: G..Maximum Building Size:No retail establishment(commercial building)shall exceed 60,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless excepted by Section 17.16.035. a=sf City Council Ordinance Nu (2001 series) -- ' Attachment 4 Page 5 17.22-AM Table 9-Uses Allowed by Zone is hereby amended to read as follows: Table 9:Uses Allowed by R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 UOS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Zone Retail Sales-convenience storesLj A A A A D D Retail sales-indoor sales of A8 A A A A building materials and gardening supplies(hardware,floor and wall coverings,.paint glass storesj` I Retail sales-appliances,furniture, As A A A A musical instruments;data processing equipment,business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;.sporting goods,outdoor supply p Retail sales-groceries,liquor and A A A PC specialized foods(bakery,meats, dairy items,etc.);M Retail sales-neighborhood grocery A A D (See also Sec. 17.08.095)U Retail sales-gen'l merchandise nom, (drug,discount,department,and variety stores)(See also"Retail sales-warehouse stores) -15,000 square feet or less gross floor area per establishment A A A -15,001 to 60,000 square feet gross PC A A floor area per establishment -more than 60,000 square feet PC D gross floor area per establishment Retail.sales and rental—specialties As A A (shoe stores,clothing stores, book/record/videotape stores,toy stores,gift shops),'j Retail Sales-Warehouse stores u -45,000 square feet or less gross PC D D floor area per establishment -more than 45,000 square feet gross floor area per establishment PC PC PC 0�-�5 y City Council Ordinance No.- (2001 series) — Attachment 4 Page 6 Notes: 23. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not.exceed the retail size limits established f6r each commercial zone district, see Sections 17.16.035, 17.38.020, 17.40.020,17.42.020, 17.44.020 and 17.46.020. A large-scale retail commercial building is defined as the construction of a single structure for the express purpose of accommodating one retail tenant on one parcel. Commercial uses in different structures separated by a public right-of-way shall not be considered the same building. When a large-scale commercial use is located within a multi-tenant building, the retail tenant's space shall define the "building." SECTION 4. The following section of Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows: 17.16.035 Size limits on Large-Scale Retail Establishments A. Large-scale commercial buildings shall not exceed the retail size limits established for each commercial zone, see Sections 17.16.035, 17.38.020, 17.40.020,17.42.020, 17.44.020 and 17.46.020. B. Exceptions to Retail Building Size Limits 1. When an otherwise lawful retail establishment existed on the effective date of the size limits, such structure shall be considered a development non-conformity but may be continued, structurally altered,repaired or reconstructed so long as it is not increased,extended or enlarged beyond the gross floor area of the building that existed on that date. To the extent practicable, the design guidelines for large-scale retail projects shall be applied to any alteration, reconstruction or repair that takes place after the effective date of the size limits. 2. The size limits in this section shall not be applied to any development or portion of a development that is covered by an approved development permit or a development permit application deemed complete by the Community Development Director prior to the effective date of the size limitations. SECTION 5. Summary. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against,.shall be published at least five(5)days prior to its final passage,in. the Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. City Council Ordinance No.- (2001 series) Page 7 kC merit t INTRODUCED on the_day of ,2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,2001,on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Allen K. Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G.Jorgensen,City Attorney TA29-01(0rdinanceD) a-S7 MEETING AGENDA. COUNC I L MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 2001 oUNCIL C CDD DIR O<AO ❑ FIN DIR TO: City Council Fk(coiRNEY ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIRRWORIO ❑ POUCE CNF VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO T HEADS O REC DIR ITF CJ UTIL DIR FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct- 2i oN� C HR DIR J. Shoals BY: John Shoals,Associate Planne SUBJECT: PROPOSED RETAIL SIZE CA'P''ORDINANCE; TA 29-01 The Council Agenda report for the retail size ordinance stated that staff would be providing the Council with a copy of Planning Commission minutes from the May 23rd and July l l'meetings, and additional information on the development standards of certain retail establishments, including the company's smallest store size, the number of customer entrances/exits per store and parking requirements. The results of the additional "big box"research are provided in Attachment 1 and summarized in the following paragraph. Attachment 2 is a copy of the draft minutes for both meetings. Staff reviewed these minutes, but the Planning Commission has not officially approved them. City staff contacted several retail establishments including Nordstrom, Macy's, IKEA, Costco, Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot to find out their development standards. The smallest stores range from a.29,000 square foot Wal-Mart neighborhood store to a 147,000 square foot IKEA. According to a Costco representative,a 138,000-square foot store is the smallest building constructed in the past five years. While there have been reports of a smaller Costco store (70,000 square feet) in Hell's Kitchen,New York, staff has recently learned that the company withdrew its plans for the smaller store. Most of the stores have only one customer entry/exit: Nordstrom and Macy's did not specify a number of entrances. Most of the retailers did not identify a specific parking requirement. Those with specific parking standards are: Home Depot at one space per 200 square feet of floor area; IKEA at 1,600 spaces minimum per store (about one space per 90 square feet); and Costco at 800 spaces minimum (approximately one space per 180 square feet). The City standard for general retail stores is one space per 300 square feet. While most of the retailers surveyed did not give a specific parking standard, it is Planning staff s experience that the parking standards for most retail establishments exceed the City's Parking Requirements. If you should have any questions, please contact John Shoals at 781-7166. ATTACHMENTS 1. Additional Research on Large-Scale Retail Establishments 2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 1 Department Store vs. Big Box Research Nordstrom Contact: Joanne or Shasha Richardson in PR(206-373-3030) • Smallest store: 71,000 sq. ft. in Salem, OR • Customer entrances: unknown • Parking requirement: unknown Macy's Contact: Reins Neiman in PR (415-393-3455) • Smallest store: 100,000 sq. ft. in Redding, CA - "small store strategy" • Customer entrances: unknown • Parking requirement: unknown IKEA Contact: George Fuentes, Building Team (310-217-8005) • Smallest store: 147,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store • Parking requirement: 1,600 spaces minimum per store COSTCO Contact: Todd Bartok (425-427-7553) • Smallest store (last 5 years): 138,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store • Parking requirement: 800 spaces minimum for California stores WAL-MART Contact: Amy in PR (501-2734314) • Smallest store(s): 29,500 sq. ft. in OK, TN, MO ("neighborhood markets") • Customer entrances: l entrance/exit per store • No specific parking requirement TARGET Contact: Mary Morelli in PR(612-304-0701) • Smallest store: No specific data but the average store is 126,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit per store except Superland w/2 • No specific parking requirement In the past, Target has constructed stores between 80,000 and 90,000 square feet. Home Depot Contact: Chuck in PR(714-940-3699) • Smallest store: No specific data but the average store is 105,000 sq. ft. • Customer entrances: 1 entrance/exit unless there is a"garden center" • Parking requirement: 500 to 600 spaces average per store DRAFT Attachment 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 11, 2001 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 p.m. on Wednesday, July 11, 2001, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Allan Cooper, James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Vice Chairwoman Alice Loh, and Chairman Stephen Peterson. Absent: Commr. Jim Aiken Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate Planner John Shoals, and Deputy Community Development Director Ron Whisenand. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: At the recommendation of staff, Commr. Cooper moved to continue Agenda Item 2 to July 25 2001. The motion was seconded by Commr. Loh and unanimously approved. The agenda was accepted as amended. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of April 11, 2001, were accepted as presented and the Minutes of April 25, 2001, were accepted as corrected on pages 3 and 7. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Citywide: TA 29-01; Amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to regulate the size of retail establishments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the revised Draft Ordinance A with findings. Commr. Cooper had staff comment on the origin of the four conditions proposed for Draft Planning Commission i.....Jtes Attachment 2 July 11, 2001 Page 2 Draft Ordinance C and on residential and non-residential growth caps. He questioned why staff is recommending 36,000 square feet above the maximum cap shown on Table 1. Associate Planner Shoals explained that the majority of the cities with adopted ordinances have set the limit at the size of their largest buildings to avoid creating non- conforming situations. Commr. Cooper commented that the proposed ordinance speaks to retail stores rather than retail buildings. He suggested that the language be changed to reference "a single structure for the express purpose of accommodating one retail tenant." Commr. Osbome asked if staff has found examples of big box stores have been developed into multiple stories or examples of alternatives to surface parking. Associate Planner Shoals explained that there is a two-story big box store (Target) in Southern California and there is a combination Home Depot/Costco with underground parking proposed in Oregon. Commr. Loh noted Land Use Policy LU 3.1.6 speaks to floor area ratios and quested why the C-S zone was excluded. Associate Planner Shoals stated that retail warehouse stores with areas larger than 45,000 in the C-S zone require a use permit and are subject to ARC review and approval. Commr. Boswell questioned staff on the recommended findings, criteria, design guidelines and alternatives available to the Commission. Commr. Loh questioned staff on design guidelines found in Attachments 5 and 6. Commr. Cooper commented on the limitation of square footage for same ownership and same parcel and asked if same "tenancy" should be included. Associate Planner Shoals recommended that same tenancy be included. Chairman Peterson had staff discuss (1) projects currently in the pipeline and citywide land opportunities for large-scale retailers, (2) how other communities are dealing with nonconforming issues, and (3) other C-R zoned property in the city. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, expressed general support for Draft Ordinance C and suggested increasing the performance bond from three to five years. He noted that buildings should be regulated, not businesses.. Draft Planning Commission I-.,_,utes Attachment 2 July 11, 2001 Page 3 Dave Yunki (Inaudible), Chamber of Commerce chair, stated the Chamber's Economic Vision document recognizes that city character, economics and sales tax revenue are important for the future viability of the community. The Chamber has taken a position of opposition to any absolute size cap on retail development. He urged adoption of Alternative Action 3 (denial), stating that any fixed square footage limitation is inconsistent with the General Plan. Chris Ivy, 127 Bridge Street, expressed support for Draft Ordinance C and felt it would be easy to grandfather in existing stores. Lee Feraro, 1720 14th Street, Los Osos, felt broader issues should be addressed beyond size limitations, such a compatibility and character issues. Patricia Wilmore, Chamber of Commerce representative, noted the interest and concern on the part of the Chamber's membership. She felt that if the City were to decide that a certain size business in a certain place is inappropriate, then the City could be closing the door on potential success stories in this town. The unique character and quality of life in San Luis Obispo should be protected, but limitations on retail size do not protect these goals. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso felt that focusing on building design standards would achieve the goals more appropriately than a size cap. He could, not support a draft ordinance that imposes a size limitation. Commr. Loh concurred with Commr. Caruso and stated General Plan consistency and economic goals should be top considerations. Commr. Cooper felt that exemptions should be applied to projects in the pipeline, expansions of existing businesses, and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. He could support a cap with certain exceptions applied. Chairman Peterson stated he would be uncomfortable letting design standards handle location and size of large retail buildings. He felt there is evidence to show that big box stores are not positive sources of overall sales tax revenue, can harm existing smaller local businesses, and can negatively impact the character of a community. He could support Draft Ordinance C. Commr. Boswell felt that proposed Draft Ordinance C is a good compromise to what he had previously proposed. He felt that there are issues to address that go beyond what could be addressed with scale, size, and design guidelines. He commented on the nature of large retail tenants and noted that one large individual tenant does not equal 10 or 20 small tenants. He felt that smaller scaled businesses that are more in character with the kind of retail that has developed in this community collectively create a diversity of social and cultural life that a large, single tenant does not. He felt that Section 17.44.020, H, 4 should be tied into abandonment of a structure rather than its Draft Planning Commission i._.Jtes July 11, 2001 Attachment 2 Page 4 viability. Commr. Osborne moved to recommend that the City Council approved Draft Ordinance C. Commr. Boswell seconded the motion. Commr. Cooper voiced concern about the verbiage in the three draft ordinances related to "retail stores." He requested the verbiage be change to reflect, "The construction of a single structure for the expressed purpose of accommodating one retail tenant on one parcel not to exceed 110,000 square feet." He requested Table 9 be incorporated into Draft Ordinance C. Commrs. Osborne and Boswell accepted the amendments to the motion. Commr Cooper recommended that exemptions be applied to (1) projects in the pipeline, (2) expansion of existing businesses, and/or (3) adaptive reuse of an existing building. Commrs. Osborne and Boswell accepted part one the amendment to the motion. Chairman Peterson recommended that Draft Ordinance C be changed to reflect: Submittal of a Performance Bond to guarantee that sponsoring corporation will pay the cost of demolishing the structure and return the site to is preexisting condition if the building remains abandoned for three years. Commr. Boswell recommended striking performance bond language completely from the draft ordinance. Commr. Osborne felt the City Council should consider demolition of vacated structures at a later date. Commr. Osborne and. Boswell agreed to strike performance bond language from Draft Ordinance C. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Boswell, Cooper, and Chairman Peterson NOES: Commrs. Caruso and Loh REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Aiken The motion carried 4-2. Commr. Osborne moved to recommend that the City Council consider including language in the ordinance that requires large retail buildings be demolished after the use has been abandoned for three years and that a performance bond be posted at the time of the issuance of the building permit. or certificate of occupancy to insure demolition occurs in the future. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion. Draft Planning Commission n_..,utes — Attachment 2 July 11, 2001 Page 5 AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Aiken The motion carried 6-0. Chairman Peterson felt that innovative components of the design guidelines that de- emphasize parking and include multi-levels should be recommended to the ARC. Commr. Boswell moved to amend Attachment 5, page 6 of the previous staff report by including: De-emphasizing parking/parking alternatives such as underground parking, multi-story structures mixed-use components, and buildings that address the street by pulling them toward the street. Chairman Peterson seconded.the motion.. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Peterson, Caruso, Osborne, Cooper and Loh NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Aiken The motion carried 6-0. 2. 1039 and 1057 Monterey Street: GPC 78-01; General Plan Conformity Report for . the proposed design and construction of new County Offices; C-C Zone; County of San Luis Obispo, applicant. At the recommendation of staff, Commr. Cooper moved to continue this item to July 25, 2001. The motion was seconded by Commr. Loh and unanimously approved. 3. Irish Hills West of Royal Way: GPC 93-01; General Plan Conformity Report for the proposed acquisition of the Foster property for open space; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission determine and report to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms to the General Plan. Commr. Cooper asked the intended use of the paved road once this becomes open space. Deputy Director Whisenand was not sure of the intended use of the road, but stated once it becomes City-owned open space property, the Natural Resources Program Management Team would review site. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. Draft Planning Commission n.. Aes July 11, 2001 - Attachment 2 Page 6 PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso moved to determine and report to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms to the General Plan. Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. Commr. Osborne expressed strong support of the acquisition of this open space. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Loh, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Aiken The motion carried 6-0. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: Agenda Forecast: July 25 — A General Plan Conformity Report and an appeal of an administrative use permit for an office project on Walnut Street. August 8 — Continued discussion of the Creek Setback Ordinance, the Augusta Partners Project, and a Higuera Commerce Park Specific Plan Amendment and Environmental Review. August 22—Albertson's project on Broad Street. Deputy Director Whisenand reviewed a memo from Attorney Trujillo regarding Roberts Rules of Order. 5. Commission: Chairman Peterson reported meeting with Chairman Stevenson of the ARC and setting a tentative joint Planning Commission-ARC meeting on September 12th. Commr. Boswell reported attending a Natural Resources Management presentation and complimented staff on their great work. Draft Planning Commission�iv .,utes Attachment 2 July 11, 2001 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for July 25, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary DRAFT Attachment 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 23, 2001 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, Orval Osborne, and Chairman Stephen Peterson Absent: None Staff: Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate Planners John Shoals and Glen Matteson, .Parks and Recreation Director Paul Le Sage, and Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:. There were no public comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Citywide: TA 29-01; Review of an amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to regulate the size of retail establishments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of Draft Ordinance A with findings. Commr. Loh complimented staff of their report and had staff address how the recommended square footages were derived. Commr. Cooper questioned why staff recommended a 138,000 square foot limitation; this figure is higher than the largest reported in the survey at 102,000 square feet. Commr. Aiken asked for staff comment on square footages of non-contiguous retail stores. Draft Planning Commission__..lutes May 23, 2001 Attachment 2 Page 2 Associate Planner Shoals explained how the square footages were derived and why the 138,000 square feet limit was recommended. He also explained that the gross square footage of a structure is the footprint or the overall size of the building. The Commission should discuss the square footage of non-contiguous stores. Commr. Osborne expressed concern about making some current structures non- conforming and questioned if existing businesses could be considered exempt. Associate Planner Shoals stated language could be included that would address grand —fathering in non-conforming structures. He noted that non-conforming structure regulations allow for interior modifications. Community Development Director John Mandeville described the process for modifying within-limited-bounds extensions of non-conforming structures. Commr. Boswell commented that non-contiguous retail floor areas could be addressed by a separation of use or by public right-of=way. He asked if proposed design regulations would be discretionary or prescriptive. Associate Planner Shoals stated the intent of the guidelines is to go beyond the ARC process and be used as standards. Commrs. Caruso and Loh commented on the need for special design guidelines for large retail stores to address such items as lot coverage. Commrs. Aiken and Loh noted that similar ordinances in other areas of the county might not be applicable because of town size and population. Commr. Aiken noted recently reviewing the ARC's draft design guidelines and questioned if parking garages are related to site coverage or overall building areas. Chairman Peterson expressed concern with strong design guidelines and felt they could be substantiated with ARC findings. Commr. Boswell asked if staff considered spatial limitations on where big boxes could locate. Associate Planner Shoals stated that in considering the ordinance, staff reviewed the city as a whole. In the previous discussion of the former ordinance, staff surveyed available commercial land, existing businesses, and the limited land opportunities downtown. The downtown has very few vacant lots and the land controls regulate what happens.. Director Mandeville noted the General Plan states that regional-draw retail uses will be located in the C-R areas that are located near Highway 101 or major arterial intersections. He added that gross floor area is defined in the Zoning Regulations as the total area enclosed within a building, including closets, stairways, and utility and Draft Planning Commission ,__iutes Attachment 2 May 23, 2001 Page 3 mechanical rooms, measured from the exterior base of the walls. Mezzanines and multiple stories would be a factor in the net floor area. Commr. Osborne referred to Land Use Policy 3.1.6, Building Intensity, and noted there is a maximum, but there is no minimum. He asked if a minimum could be established to discourage sprawl. Associate Planner Shoals stated a minimum building intensity has not been considered. Director Mandeville stated that in the residential expansion areas in the General Plan, the City has established target densities. Associate Planner Shoals stated the General Plan policy and the current Zoning Regulations allow 100% lot coverage in the downtown area and a higher intensity is to encourage this type of development downtown to keep the compact urban form. Commr. Osborne asked what the legal basis is for the City to establish an ordinance that is before the Commission. Attorney.Trujillo replied the City's General Police Power is the basis. There are no State laws conflicting with this ordinance. The facts that are stated in the proposed ordinance, along with the findings, and the General Plan references establish a rational basis for this type of ordinance. Commr. Loh asked for comment on the City's non-residential growth rate. Director Mandeville stated it is important to recognize that the City does not have an adopted non-residential growth limit. There is a policy that states once the growth rate exceeds a certain point, the City Council will consider setting ordinance limits. The City Council has reviewed the status of non-residential development and acknowledged that it has passed the threshold or it is time to consider setting some limits and has asked staff to come back with some options on what forms the limits would take. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jim Lopes, Architectural Review Commissioner speaking on his own behalf, reviewed a letter previously submitted to the Commission, noting he felt more research is needed before action can be taken. He felt there are major unresolved issues in the staff report, including non-conforming uses, the appearance of super stores, and the possibility of the provision or requirement of structured parking. He felt in the overall context of this issue, San Luis Obispo is a regional center for many uses, but it doesn't have to be the regional center for retail shopping. Patricia Wilmar, Chamber of Commerce representative, reviewed the process that the Chamber uses in looking at issues like this and stated the Chamber has not yet taken a Draft Planning Commission. _.,utes Attachment 2 May 23, 2001 Page 4 position on the proposed ordinance. She noted the Chamber is concerned with the economic vitality of the area and protecting the rights of those who own property to develop the property in a reasonable manner. The Chamber is also concerned about protecting the character of San Luis Obispo. Andrew Carter, 1283 Woodside Drive, commented on balancing the economic needs of the community with the small town atmosphere that is cherished. He felt the city should be "a" retail hub of the area, but not "the" retail hub. He felt tax revenue is lost when citizens drive to Santa Maria or over the grade to shop. The creation of non-conforming uses should be avoided. He supports the 110,000 square foot proposal over the 138,000 square foot proposal because of how the 135,000 square foot building came into the city. He felt the ARC and adequate mechanisms could insure that a big box store is as attractive as it can be. Todd Bartok, Costco Representative from Washington, came forward to answer any questions. Commr. Caruso asked if gas stations are components of Costco stores and if so, is one proposed for the San Luis Obispo site. Mr. Bartok replied yes. Commr. Osborne asked if Costco has examples of two-story construction. Mr. Bartok stated Costco is working on a two-story design in the Los Angeles area. Commr. Cooper asked how Costco is addressing energy conservation. Mr. Bartok stated each store has an energy management system that utilizes skylights and dims indoor lighting by 25 percent. Commr. Cooper asked if there is a reuse program that come into place when Costco buildings are closed. Mr. Bartok stated Costco builds 148,000 square foot prototypes solely forCostco's use. Some buildings are sold to other users when no longer in use. Commr. Aiken asked if a service station use would fall under the guidelines of the proposed ordinance and asked if the 138,000 square feet proposal encompass the service station. Mr. Bartok stated the service station would be unmanned and for members only. It would be a roof structure without walls. Chairman Peterson asked if a two-story requirement would make the Costco project infeasible. Draft Planning Commission,. _ .rtes Att8Chl71@Ilt 2 May 23, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Bartok could not answer that question, but noted that multi-level parking structures cost approximately $25 per square foot to construct. Commr. Aiken asked if Mr. Bartok had reviewed the proposed draft guidelines for large retail stores. Mr. Bartok replied no, but he would like to have a series of design workshops to work directly with the City. Within reason, they would be willing to modify the store design to conform to adopted guidelines. Commr. Osborne asked if Costco customers on the average all arrive by car. Mr. Bartok replied yes, they sell merchandise in bulk and target large-purchase customers. Commr. Osborne asked what percentage of Costco customers would be drawn away from existing businesses in town. Mr. Bartok did not have that information. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boswell moved to direct staff to prepare for consideration a draft resolution C to include the following:. (1) That the C-T and C-N zoning categories have a restriction for 45,000 square feet gross floor area; (2) that the C-C, C-R, and C-S zoning categories have a restriction of 60,000 square foot gross floor area; (3) that the large-scale retail overlay zone or similarly effected regulatory mechanism would be developed that would allow gross floor areas up to 110,000:sguare feet and that these zones be specified in two places, the existing Central Commercial zone downtown and the.existing C-R zone at Madonna and Highway 101; and (4)-that the 45,000 square -foot special design review regulations be.included. Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. Commr. Boswell stated his point in making the motion is to try to increase the range of alternatives that the City Council can consider. He noted in reading the goals in the Land Use Element in discussion of small-town character, compact urban form, and sense of place, it calls for something more restrictive than what is before the Commission. Commr. Cooper expressed support for the motion and suggested a bi-polar concept for big box stores. He felt that additional direction and guidelines could be given to the ARC. Commr. Caruso could not support the motion and questioned the City's readiness in passing such an ordinance. He recommended that the City Council appoint an ad hoc committee to look at this issue more closely. He noted (1) that building size limits might not be that important because the impact of big box stores is not just based on its size, Draft Planning Commission ,. _.rtes Attachment 2 May 23, 2001 Page 6 (2) that a special policy should be adopted to address big box demolition upon vacancy, and (3) storm water and pollution studies should be conducted. He suggested implementing small-town big box guidelines and a bi-polar big box parks, similar to auto parkways. Commr. Boswell supported the requirement of demolition bonds and commented that the City is moving forward to develop storm water regulations in response to a federal program. Commr. Aiken could not support the motion. He voiced support for forming an ad hoc committee to look at the issues more closely and noted size limits on store footprints may not necessarily be the solution. He felt thorough guidelines would be important in addressing larger volume stores. Commr. Cooper also expressed support for forming an.ad hoc committee. Chairman Peterson felt with the large-scale projects in the pipeline, an ad hoc committee might not be able to address the issues quickly enough. Commr. Loh felt ARC design development guidelines and ARC review could enforce the design of large-scale retail buildings. She stated thatnon-residential growth management could regulate growth and what could be allowed. She felt the motion on the floor is too complicated and felt the key is to use enforcement design and development guidelines. Commr. Osborne noted that there are concerns associated with big box stores. He felt that big box stores do not fit the scale of the city and they have predatory marketing plans that take away from existing businesses. He felt the way to avoid or minimize predatory impacts is to put a cap on the size of the store. Commr. Boswell noted his motion is not for the Commission to endorse, but it is to ask staff to prepare it as another option to be considered either again by the Commission or by the City Council. He urged support of his motion. Commr. Caruso requested the motion be amended to have staff address alternative C .that would include specific direction and give examples of design standards and use performance standards in scaling the size of these buildings, required special findings, address water quality issues, best management practices, and the community character and scale. Commr. Boswell and Osborne accepted the amendment to the motion. Commr. Boswell noted Commr. Caruso'samendment could also be applied to alternatives A and B as well. Director Mandeville stated the existing General Plan Policies state that the areas within the city for regional attractions would be at Madonna Road/Highway 101, Highway Draft Planning Commission i.,__ .iter AttaChmBr>t 2 May 23, 2001 Page 7 101/1-os Osos Valley Road, and the downtown, and asked if it is the intention that the overlay include Los Osos Valley Road, the Madonna area, and the downtown. Commr. Boswell stated he did not include the Los Osos Valley Road in the designation. Chairman Peterson requested the motion be amended to include a demolition policy and bonding for demolition. Commrs.. Boswell and Osborne accepted the amendment to the motion. Commr. Aiken questioned the timeframe for demolition and felt some consideration should be given to the viability of these sites for other uses. He noted that sometimes after a use has ceased, a building can be vacant for some time before it is sold or leased. Commr. Cooper moved to end discussion and call for the question. The motion was seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Loh, Caruso, Aiken, and Boswell NOES: Commr. Osborne and Chairman Peterson REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried 5-2. Commr. Cooper moved to bring this item back before the Commission at a date uncertain. The motion was seconded by Chairman Peterson and approved 4 to 3, with Commrs. Aiken, Loh, and Osborne in opposition. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Osborne, Caruso, Cooper and Chairman Peterson NOES: Commrs. Loh and Aiken REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried 5-2. 2. Citywide: GPC 67-01; General Plan Conformity Report for the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Program: City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission report to the City Council that the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement. Program conforms with the General Plan contingent upon the location, design, and mitigation for certain projects complying with General Plan policies. Commr. Cooper stated page 155 references the 1994 General Plan Circulation Element as the basis for a recommendation of a median strip on Los Osos Valley Road. Draft Planning Commission i. rtes May 23, 2001 Attachment 2 Page 8 Director Mandeville stated the Circulation Element Streets Map shows Los Osos Valley Road as a parkway arterial and the definition of parkway arterial includes landscaped median and roadside areas. Associate Planner Matteson stated the reference was to the character of residential arterial streets, not specially median strips. Commr. Cooper noted vehicle replacements in the report and asked if replacements will be energy efficient or conserving. Associate Planner Matteson stated the Energy Conservation Element calls for this to happen. Commr. Cooper noted that page 153 addresses the street sign replacement at an estimated $500,000 over a three-year period. Commr. Cooper had staff comment on the link between the General Plan and the public art referenced on page 383. Commr. Loh complimented staff on their comprehensive report and questioned staff on the wastewater collection. She noted that construction regulations were omitted from the list on page 2. Associate Planner Matteson noted the omission was in error. Chairman Peterson noted widening of Santa Barbara Avenue and South Street could be considered contrary to the General Plan policies that encourage the promotion of alternative modes of transportation rather than single-occupant vehicles and preserving the city's small town character and scale. Associate Planner Matteson responded that on South Street there is one remaining section across from the bus station that hasn't been widened; this would not be a significant impact on community character. He noted that: Santa Barbara Avenue is designated as a bicycle boulevard and the decision was made to widen it seven feet and not provide any additional travel lanes. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments made. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso moved to report to the City Council that the 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Program conforms with the General Plan, contingent on the location, r Draft Planning Commission.—,Lites Attachment 2 May 23, 2001 Page 9 design, and mitigation for certain projects complying with General Plan Policies. Commr. Loh seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Loh, Osborne, Cooper, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carded 7-0. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: June 12 —Wireless Communications Special Meeting. June 13 — Cannon Annexation and PD rezone and the TK project at the southeast corner of Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. Director Mandeville reported the City Council has directed staff to return with a resolution increasing meeting reimbursements from $25 to $50 per meeting per Commissioner. 4.. Commission: The Commission set June 27th as the date for its annual retreat. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m. to a special meeting scheduled for June 12, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary y'ETIN AGENDA UATE_ ITEM #...____._ San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 • TDD (805) 541-8416 David E. Garth, President/CEO August 27, 2001 QUNCIL_1., D DDIR' El FIN DIR RECEIVED ®'ACCO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Mayor Allen Settle UaIAUZRNEY C PW DIR Members of the City Council AUG 2 rj HIM LERIQORIQ C. POLICE CHF City of San Luis Obispo HEA REO DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL C UTIL DIR 990 Palm Street n LIR DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Retail Establishments Size Ordinance Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members, As you deliberate the merits of a proposed ordinance to regulate the size of retail establishments, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce asks that you consider the following position which was developed in committee and is forwarded to you by our Board of Directors: "We stand opposed to a strict square footage limitation for retail buildings and propose that aesthetics, design elements, community character and neighborhood compatibility be the determining factors on a case-by-case basis for large retail projects." While attempting to deal with the challenges presented by large-scale retail moving into our area, there is danger in applying rules (ordinances) that preclude the possibility that a building over a certain size might meet other criteria important to the community such as appealing form and function. For instance, our current sign ordinance would exclude, due to size, the Fremont Theater sign, a recognized historical and architectural treasure. This example points to the importance of looking at the unique features of each building proposal, regardless of size, and not automatically eliminating some because of size. Maintaining San Luis Obispo's unique character is important to us all; however, there is not a proven nexus between the size of stores and the quality of life in our city. The proposed retail size cap, Ordinance "C," creates complex rules with unintended consequences. The goal of controlling architectural character and reducing negative impacts on the community is a laudable one but the direct connection to size has not been made. It is telling that exemptions for existing businesses such as Gottchalks and e-mail: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com Copelands need to be made under this ordinance. The sense of place that we treasure is at its core the result of architectural character and neighborhood compatibility. This is where your guidance and the role of the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions is needed on an individual project basis. A large structure can produce and enhance the ambience of a place when it is designed with that goal in mind. Disneyland Main Street, for example, exudes small town charm but is constructed within one large shell. In other words, the so called "big box" doesn't need to look like one. The ordinance coming to you on September 4 is counter productive to our shopping diversity and economic vitality. It discourages all types of larger retail establishments from locating in San Luis Obispo including those that may fit well in our community and that would appeal to the consumers in our region. It also prevents existing, successful retailers from expanding. It is interesting to note that three of the Planning Commissioners have gone on record as opposed to this ordinance and have indicated that taking care to ensure the design quality and elements of large scale projects is more appropriate than limiting the size of buildings. We appreciate the balancing act that decision makers such as you are faced with. It is our hope that you will continue to accept that challenge when it comes to the size of retail establishments and conclude that a project would not automatically be eliminated based on size but could be considered individually on its own merits, using applicable zoning and design standards. Thank you for considering our point of view on this matter. Sincerely, Dave Juhnke Chairman of the Board MFFnN AGENDA C057ccV. - Arm% August 28, 2001 e<N`IL ❑ FIN DIIRR O FIRE CHIEF Mayor Alan Settle and J20AUeTNEY ❑ PW DIR Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D EADS ❑ REC DIR 990 Palm Street ❑ UTIL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ HR DIR RE: Proposed Ordinance RestrictingDevelopment of Large Retail Establishments To the Honorable Mayor Settle and the Members of the City Council: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission recently recommended a draft ordinance prohibiting approvals for retail stores exceeding 110,000 square feet. Included in the recommendation is the provision that projects that are currently in the"pipeline"would be exempt from the proposed ordinance. In its current form, the proposed ordinance would not impact us because Costco has plans for a new building currently in the"pipeline" at the City's Planning Department. However, we are philosophically opposed to the passage of the proposed ordinance because of the bad precedent that it would set. Once this type of legislation is on the books, it can be amended so as to directly impact Costco. Consistent with the proposed ordinance's design guidelines, we believe that the visual impact of a large format store can be addressed through thoughtful planning and design. By carefully placing the building and appropriate landscaping,-the design can be integrated with the community's distinctive visual character and small town feel. Existing land use regulations require evaluation of impacts and development of appropriate mitigations. The proposal does not prohibit retail developments of more than 110,000 square feet. It prohibits only those where the square footage is all under one roof. Therefore, the proposed ordinance couldn't logically achieve its stated objective. A new shopping center of 115,000 contiguous square feet, containing a food store, a drug store,and a hardware store, for example, will remain perfectly legal under this proposal. The visual impact and impacts on public resources,traffic, and pollution would be at least as great as a result of the three-tenant shopping center as those resulting from one store of 115,000 square feet containing the same merchandise. Illogically, the first would be permitted while the second would be prohibited. It is clear, therefore,that the proposal would have only one possible result: to benefit merchants(including ourselves at present)whose format is compatible with the ordinance or fortunate enough to be"grandfathered" in the city, while barring those who chose a larger format. The consumer would be the loser. We already operate a large number of warehouses in California, and are currently proposing a location in San Luis Obispo, and therefore some would say that we are foolish to challenge these efforts because they are not aimed at us, and we may be indirectly benefitedERECEIVED r. 2001 999 Lake Drive • Issaquah, WA 98027 • 425/313-8100 • costco.comCOUNCIL hindrance they pose to our major competitor. But, even as we look forward to joining your community, Costco is opposed to this type of legislation as a matter of principle, and we will continue to oppose it.. We ask that you carefully consider the precedent.that this proposal would set, the danger it poses to fair competition in the marketplace, and the risk that it will lead to higher prices to the consu er tax revenues to the City. Sincere eff rO-*han Ch ' an ' _'TING AGENDA DATE 9�-� / ITEM#. September 4, 2001 NCIL DD DIR To: Mayor Alan Settle & � 0 FIN DIR City Council Members ��N�f 0 FIRE CHIEF PLEOR110M ❑ POLICE CHF From: Dr. Jack and Mrs. Joy E. Jones ®" HEAQ8 El REC DIR C LITIL DIR Re: Costco support/design C HR PIR A recent news article indicated possibility of non-support of the Costco project due to size, and perhaps, exterior design. We continue to urge your support so that we, as a city, can benefit from added tax income from shoppers who would remain here to shop throughout the city, rather than going to Santa Maria to "shop Costco" (and other stores and restaurants in that area.) Facades have been mentioned as a design item for the Costco exterior. Recently we drove past the Salinas Costco and admired the lovely Spanish style faux red-tile design and the color of the building itself. This type of architectural facade would be highly appropriate in San Luis Obispo, rather than the stiff, austere exterior used in the Marigold Center. We are a Mission town; it would make sound sense to adhere to a mission design style. Again we urge your support of Costco as approved earlier by the council, without placing interior restrictions by size or commodities sold. Thank you for your hard work. Sincerely, tDr. ack and Mrs. Joy E. Jones RECEIVED SEF 0 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL - "%TING AGENDA ..�,TE ITEC!# P _ lvate Industry B September 3, 2001 Honorable Allen Settle, Mayor 1JNCIL D DIR Members of the Cit Council �O ❑ FIN DIR City �A, C3 FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo DIATXRNEY ® PW OIR City Hall - 990 Palm Street LERK/ORIA 0 POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA R ® ® RTC DIR LITIL DIR HR p1m Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: V Due to out-of-town meetings, I regret losing the opportunity to address you in person tomorrow night, when you take up discussion of the so-called "big box ordinance." Most likely, you are reviewing ample input on all sides of this issue, so please add this letter to the stack. The word that seems to arise most often in this debate, is the community's"character." I certainly wouldn't quibble over the importance of this element for San Luis Obispo. It is too easy, however, to simply brand a particular business as a "box store." If you are opposed to box stores (and, I'm not convinced anyone has the right definition for these), then at least come up with a better way to describe what we are talking about. It seems to me that the wrong way to define them is by the amount of square footage they occupy. Of more interest to me would be an intense effort to consider the appearance of the structure: the design, the landscaping, the color, the shape...the architecture in general. Case in point: I've seen a lot of Costco stores, and a few Wal-Marts. Most of those are allowed to look less than ideal. On the other hand, in Freeport, Maine, there is a huge"big-box" (180,000+ square feet) that serves as the retail showcase for L.L. Bean. It fits, in virtually every way, the definition of a big box store. But, inside...and especially outside...it is positively striking and beautiful. If L.L. Bean ever wanted to relocate to San Luis Obispo, and the City was imposing an arbitrary square-footage limit, then we would lose a real treasure. The City Council (and the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Commission, and any other similar local bodies), should allow themselves sufficient flexibility to take each and every situation as one case at a time. Effective community leaders should strive to retain flexibility for the community, for projects, and for themselves when considering each new idea. Intense focus on something as arbitrary as the size of a building's footprint in the dirt, is not nearly as effective as taking into account the character of the community and how well a new business can enhance the look and mood of that community. To accomplish this by limitations on size is a simple and incorrect way to go. Thank you. Sincerely, RECEIVE® SEP 04 2001 Lee Ferrero SLO CITY COUNCIL President& Chief Executive Officer 4111 Bmed Street m Suite A m San Luis Obispo 0 California o 93401 m (805)788-2600 ■ Fax(805)5414117 ME NG AGENDA DATE 2-4-01 ITEM#_.__ September 4, 2001 NL �UNCIL DD DIR A'O ❑ FIN DIR To Honorable Mayor Settle 921 CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Members of-the San Luis Obispo City Council M ArrORNEY ❑ Pw DIR 10-0CLERK/ORI3 ❑ POLICE CHF 0WTHEA ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR Re: Retail Space Cap Ordinance ❑ HR DIR I am a 13 year resident of San Luis and I love living here. Like you and other members of our community, I very much want to protect the economy and architectural character of our precious little city.. Although Ordinance "C' is well intentioned, I do not believe that it is the right way to reduce negative impacts on our community. We already have too many controls on business, building, and growth in San Luis as it is. I feel that the current governmental planning processes and controls (Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, etc.) have successfully provided effective rules for planning and building in the past. In my opinion, design and function is the key to economic vitality. Size does not determine what "fits" into the community. Rather than impose another cumbersome ordinance . . . please let the processes that are already in place do the job they were created to do. Those processes can be refined and adjusted if necessary. I appreciate the job that the Mayor and City Council do for our community. Thank you for the opportunity to expesss my opinion. Very truly yours, Barbara Ellen Barker FEP ED 2001 UNCIL Aug 31 01 05: 05p Dave Ramero 80_5-594-1336 p. 1 MEETIN� �� AGENDA DATE ITEM #______ Dave Romero August 31, 2001 . OUNCIL CDG D! ®�O G FIN DIR Honorable Mayor & City Council, O G FIRE CHIEF ErA ORNEY ❑ PW DIR LERK/ORI(3 12 POLICE CHF Subject: Proposed Regulation of Large Retail Establishments 11 D� EA 13 REC DIR 12 UTIL DIR When the City proposes new regulations, it should ask 3 ques o When BIR 1. What is the roblem? 2. Is the p proposed regulation the most effective approach? 3. What are the negative implications of the regulations? 1. What is the problem? According to staff reports, the concern is that large stores may lack architectural character, will create undesirable visual impacts and are not in keeping with our small town atmosphere.. My response: The detailed review process in SLO does an exceptional job of assuring quality aesthetics, building design, visual and neighborhood compatibility. Recent examples are Copelands Sports in the Downtown Center, Vons at the Marigold Center, Ralphs and Gottschalks on Madonna Road. None would have been allowed under the Planning Commission proposal. 2. Are the proposed regulations the most effective approach? My response: The current City review process is more than sufficient to assure quality design. I believe the proposed regulations could easily be circumvented by constructing two smaller stores in place of one large one. 3. What are the negative implications? My response: If the proposed regulations had been in effect, we would not have in their current form: Gottschalks, Sears, Vons, Copeland Sports, Food-4-Less, and Ralphs. Much of the City vitality, convenient shopping and sales tax would be affected, and San Luis_ Obispo would be a poorer place. The proposed ordinance would make these stores non-conforming, RECEIVED which impacts long term plans for keeping these as vital businesses SEP �) 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL Rug 31 01 05: 05p Dave Romero 805-594-1336 p. 2 This ordinance might preclude development of the new Copeland Center, which many have warmly received. The ordinance might preclude a number of stores the citizens have indicated they would like to see in SLO, such as Target, Pennys, or even Nordstrams. Conclusion: I believe SLO is best served by NOT adopting any ordinance restricting_ retail building size.. If the Council does pass such an ordinance, I suggest the original staff recommendation (A) would give the most flexibility and have the least adverse effect on the community. Dave Romero PS Suggested changes in wording of Ordinance: pg 2-11 2nd Whereas - Did Police and Fire testify that servicing one large building presents a "significantly higher commitment of resources" than servicing 2 buildings, each half that size? If not, the statement is misleading and the Whereas clause should be eliminated. pg 2-12 - Section 2, Findings - I believe the public welfare will be adversely affected by making a number of existing stores non- conforming (thus affecting their viability) and by limiting the Public's choices in allowing new and desirable stores to be developed in SLO. I suggest the term "welfare" be deleted.