Planning Commission continues review of former Sears remodel, seeks design refinements

The Santa Maria Planning Commission on Wednesday continued its review of a downtown permit to remodel the former Sears building at 226 East Main Street, moving the item to its April 16 meeting after commissioners pressed the applicant for facade and circulation refinements.

Planning staff presented the application for downtown permit DT2020Three-twelve, describing a proposed reuse of the vacant two‑story, roughly 114,000‑square‑foot building on a 5.4‑acre site in the Town Center District. Carol Dizonhennie, presenting for planning staff, told the commission, “My name is Carol Dizonhennie. I will be presenting the, application before you this evening for the remodel of the former Sears building, downtown permit DT2020Three-twelve at 226 East Main Street.”

The project would place an El Super grocery store of about 51,000 square feet on the ground floor, add up to four small ground‑floor tenants and two larger second‑floor tenants, reorient parking aisles for better cart access, add pedestrian walkways compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and relocate loading docks to a less visible internal area of the site. Staff said the project was covered under the previously certified programmatic environmental impact report for the downtown specific plan and concluded that no additional CEQA review was required under CEQA Guidelines §15162.

Why it matters: The site is a critical downtown corner and an anchor property in the Town Center Mall. Commissioners and downtown stakeholders said the project could catalyze additional downtown activity but asked for changes to how the building presents to the street, how the second‑floor promenade and tower elements are scaled, and how on‑site circulation interacts with adjacent drive aisles.

Discussion and concerns

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on several design and operational points: the visual scale of three matching tower elements on the building elevation, the amount of glazing/openings on the east elevation, the relationship between the proposed promenade and the diagonal drive aisle leading through the mall, and the relocation and screening of loading and trash areas.

Commissioner Lopez raised the diagonal drive aisle near the former auto center as a circulation concern and asked whether it could be straightened; staff and the applicant said the plan softens that turn but that portions of the drive aisle are not fully within the parcel under consideration and that further changes would require coordination with mall stakeholders and the city. The applicant said the loading docks would be relocated behind the parking structure and visually screened with a green screen and tower element.

Several commissioners and public commenters said the two outer tower elements looked visually heavy. Commissioner Seifert suggested lowering the two outside towers by about three feet or otherwise breaking up the top line; applicant representatives said structural constraints limited additional openings on the east elevation and that tenant lease requirements factor into final signage and openings.

Operational and public‑safety items

Staff and the applicant discussed operational items including trash management, cart containment and retrieval, and deliveries. The applicant representative said grocery operations would use an on‑site trash compactor and that cart containment and a retrieval vendor would be used for off‑site carts. Staff confirmed that utilities and solid waste reviewed the plan and found proposed measures acceptable. Heather Widom, the city’s assistant city attorney, noted that staff recommended retaining conditions requiring a bus shelter on Miller Street and Caltrans right‑of‑way improvements; she added the work would likely require a Caltrans encroachment permit but staff expected permits could be obtained in approximately two months.

Public comment

Resident Nancy Stewart urged visual softening and landscaping for the tower elements, saying, “those 2 They stick out like a sore thumb,” and suggested trellises, vines or decorative treatment rather than relying on tall trees alone.

Action

Commissioner (mover not specified) moved to continue the item to the April 16 planning commission meeting for further design refinements; the motion was seconded and the commission voted by roll call to continue the item (Blanco: Aye; Seifert: Aye; Mohajer: Aye; Lopez: Aye; Chair Dickerson: Aye). The body recorded the outcome as continued to April 16.

Next steps

Staff and applicants said they will prepare revised elevations and renderings—options discussed included lowering or altering the outer tower cornices and adding trellises/landscape treatments for the second‑floor promenade—and bring the item back to the April 16 meeting. Staff indicated the project is tentatively scheduled for a future city council hearing in May, subject to noticing and council agenda deadlines.

Ending

The commission set an April 16 return date and asked staff to work with the applicant on alternate design options to present to commissioners and, ultimately, to city council for final action.