Fillmore planning panel votes to recommend removing one‑third retail requirement, forwards incentives list to council

The Fillmore Planning Commission voted 4–1 on Feb. 18 to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance removing the municipal code’s one‑third retail requirement for the Central Business District core and forwarded six related recommendations encouraging incentives and design protections.

Staff presented maps and a downtown inventory showing retail as the largest single use at about 20% of downtown space and an estimated 10% vacancy rate in the downtown commercial area. Staff told commissioners the city has about 110 commercial spaces downtown and that 8% of parcels are undeveloped. As part of the continued public hearing, staff reviewed practices in neighboring cities and recommended adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 26‑10‑66, which would recommend City Council adopt Ordinance 26‑992 to remove the one‑third retail requirement. “Staff is recommending that we open the public hearing and receive public testimony and adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26‑10‑66 recommending City Council adopt Ordinance 26‑992, amending the municipal code to remove the one‑third retail requirement,” staff said during the presentation.

Business owners and downtown advocates gave mixed testimony. An owner of the Fillmore Town Theater (who identified themselves only as the theater owner) said a recent survey they conducted — through Facebook forums and roughly 2,000 emails to theater contacts — showed residents’ top preferences were a coffee shop, ice cream store, used bookstore and a non‑Mexican restaurant, and urged the city to help attract complementary businesses. “The overwhelming thing that people want is a coffee shop,” the theater owner said in public comment.

Several small‑business speakers urged removal of the requirement as onerous. Hank Eisgru, who said he and his wife are attempting to acquire a mixed‑use space at 340 Central Avenue for a wellness and massage business with plans for some retail in the future, described the one‑third rule as a barrier to profitability for small mixed‑use tenants and landlords. “That one‑third retail makes it very difficult for us to make that business profitable,” Eisgru said. His wife, Jo, said the spatial and financial demands of meeting the requirement would deter small operators.

Commissioners pressed staff for context and metrics. Staff responded that the case studies (Old Town Newhall in Santa Clarita and Moorpark’s high street) were selected because of proximity and similar downtown profiles but that the presentation did not establish a causal metric linking the one‑third requirement to downtown success. “We don’t have a metric,” staff said when asked whether the examples proved causation.

Deliberating, commissioners split on emphasis but agreed the requirement has an effect on tenanting and that additional city action is needed. One commissioner argued the retail requirement protects the public realm and walkability; another said the requirement is a regulatory barrier that is contributing to vacancies and is unfair to service‑oriented small businesses. After debate, the commission agreed to recommend removal of the one‑third retail requirement while also asking City Council to consider six items: implement the consultant’s downtown retail strategies, pursue targeted financial incentives or investments, explore lowering or waiving fees for downtown tenant improvements, consider limiting concentrations of certain non‑retail uses where appropriate, retain or clarify design standards to preserve storefront character, and promote retail through programs rather than strict square‑foot mandates.

A motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26‑10‑66 (recommending City Council adopt Ordinance 26‑992 and forward the six items for council consideration) was made and seconded. The commission voted 4–1 to approve the recommendation; minutes record one opposed vote and no recorded roll‑call at the commission level assigning names to each vote.

Next steps: the Planning Commission’s approved resolution and the staff report will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration of Ordinance 26‑992 and the accompanying policy recommendations. The Planning Commission also requested that the commission’s six recommended items be included in the City Council staff report for awareness and possible future action. The commission adjourned; its next regular meeting is scheduled for March 18 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

(Reporting notes: direct quotations and numeric data above come from the planning commission’s Feb. 18 public hearing staff presentation and public testimony recorded in the commission transcript.)