Loading...
Item 12 - Request to Remove from Agenda SP 95-01 GPA 95-01B ZOA 95-01 ZC 95-01 - D'STR'BU~D b~;<3~ 9 S- (}'{ d r CITYOFPOWAY AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members ~ity Council .\ FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manag r wt. INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services DATE: June 27,1995 SUBJECT: Request to Remove From The Agenda Specific Plan 95-01, General Plan Amendment 95-01 B, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-01 and Zone Change 95-01 BACKGROUND Subsequent to the mailing of the public notice for the poway Road Specific Plan staff has received numerous inquiries regarding the status of businesses that would be deemed legal nonconforming uses through the adoption of the Specific Plan. In order to have time to hold further meetings with the business community concerning the proposed specific plan and the provisions of the Municipal Code dealing with non-conforrning uses, staff recommends that the Poway Road Specific Plan and its related adopting resolutions and ordinances be removed from the June 27, 1995 agenda. Staff will meet with business and property owners and reschedule the item for later in the year. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Removal of an item from the calendar is not subject to CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT None PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Staff has informed the individuals who have made direct contact that the item will be recommended for removal from calendar. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council remove Specific Plan 95-01, General Plan Amendment 95-01 B, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 95-01 and Zone Change 95-01 from the agenda. JLB:JDF:RWQ:kls E:\CITY\PLANNINGIREPORTlSPll501 COAGN .... 271995 ITEM 12 1 of 1 -- ".-- . O\S1R\BU1ED _ cO -~ 3 - q ~ - - ~~, ~ \U.LL STREET v n~ ~ PRoPIRll (0\1""," \flr II 12;0 Prospee< Street J 16 1995 SUite 200 une , PO. Box 2633 R E C Lajolla. CA 920. 38 . F'2 f . f (6191 ;;+886; t;; I Ii E r' FAX (619) ",,:;-t-():;Ol ~ JIM 1 ~ Ms. Reba Wright-Quastler, PhD AICP 1995 Director of Planning Services CITY 71TY OF pew ' City of Poway '1ANAGERE' O~ Post Office Box 789 ' rlCr= Poway, California 92074 Re: General Plan Amendment GPA 95-01b Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA 95-01 Zone Chance 95-01A Specific Plan SP 95-01 Dear Ms. Quastler: We are in receipt of your correspondence, dated May 21, 1995 informing us of the pending action by the City Council of the City of Poway for the above referenced. We manage and have a financial interest in Poway Town &. Country and Poway Square Shopping Centers. The two centers are referred to collectively as the Poway Town &. Country Shopping Center, located on Poway Road between Midland and Community Roads. First, we were disappointed that the City Council appointed a committee of property owners, business owners, and citizens in 1991 to evaluate and make recommendations relative to zoning changes on Poway Road and we were never consulted in any way. The Poway Town &. Country Shopping Center is the first or second largest commercial property on poway Road and we were completely surprised to hear of this major pending zoning and use change. In reviewing the proposed changes, our major concern is the elimination or requirement for use permits for a multitude of uses in the proposed TC zone that are cunently allowed in the CC zone and found in neighborhood shopping centers throughout San Diego, California and the United States. In recognizing the 30-40% shop vacancy factor cunently on poway Road for commercial properties, we sincerely question eliminating many uses for poteIItial tenants within already vacant shopping centers. The existing shop vacancy rate is causinl fiDancial problems and further restricting permitted uses will simply exacerbate the problem. Eliminating uses in the TC zone and permitting them in other zones will simply lend support to the existing strip commercial (which the City wants to eliminate) while reducing the viability of the Towne Centre concept. Tenants whose uses are not permitted in the TC zone will merely move into a strip center on Poway Road or not locate in Poway at all. Accordingly, the high vacancy rate for projects located within the proposed TC zone will escalate. JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 ---- .-.... - ---------..---..--------- ------------ -- - ---------- Ms. Reba Wright-Quastler June 15, 1995 Page 2 In a utopian world, planners may be able to sit back and philosophize as to where certain uses should be located within the community. However, we as business people risking our capital must operate in the "real" world and additional restrictions are both nonsensible and onerous. For instance, receiving a letter from the City which indicates approximately 50'll of the existing uses within the Poway Town & Country Shopping Center will become non-conforming and not in compliance with the "proposed" new zoning (TC). Below you will find our specific: concerns relative to the changes that are being proposed: A) Uses Previously Pennitted in the CC Zone and now reauirinl! Conditional Use Penn its or Minor Conditional Use Pennits 1) Offices - The proposed zone change for the Towne Centre will now require a minor use permit to locate the following: medical, chiropractor, optical, and related services; investment, accounting, insurance, real estate services, travel agencies, etc. All of these uses have been allowed and encouraged in neighborhood shopping centers throughout the State of California and San Diego County. We find it inconceivable that a discretionary use permit would be required to locate any of these uses within a shopping center. Will owners be - required to make other improvements and changes to their projects just to obtain approvals from the City? Is this another way to obtain additional fee income for the City? Additionally, the potential delay involved in obtaining a permit may result in the loss of a potential tenant. 2) Furniture and Maior Aooliance Stores - This is clearly a retail use and should be permitted in the TC zone. 3) Swimminl! Pool Suoolies - Same as No.2 above. 4) Dance. Aerobic Exercise. Music. Martial Arts Studios - Same as No.2 above. 5) Drv Cleaners and Laundrv - This is clearly a retail use and should be permitted in the TC zone. Practically every neighborhood commercial shopping center in California contains either a dry cleaner or laundry facility or both. We know of no community where these uses require a conditional use permit, and we feel that this condition is both onerous and unreasonable. These uses should be allowed without a discretionary permit within the new zone. 6) Phvsical Fitness Centers - Same as No.2 above. 7) Self-service laundromats - Same as No.5 above. JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 Ms. Reba Wright-Quastler June IS, 1995 Page 3 8) Weicht Reduction Centers - Same as No.2 above. This proposed prohibition would exclude Jenny Craig, Nutra-Systems, Weight Watchers, and other local and national weight reduction centers. We know of no other community with this type of restriction. B. USES PERMITI'ED IN CC ZONE AND NOT PERMIlTED IN mE TC ZONE EVEN WITII A CONDmONAL OR MINOR USE PERMIT 1) Establishments Enl!a!!!ed in the Sale of ~nared Food Prlmarilv for Deliverv This restriction would eliminate Pizza Hut, Domino's and other uses that are clearly retail/commercial uses, appropriate in the retail district of any community. 2) Small bakeries with onsite retail. but where bakin2 is also done for sale elsewhere - Most bakeries and c:ake shops have a clientele for sale elsewhere and this is clearly a retail use and should be allowed under the new zone designation. 3) PhotocoDvln!!!. blueD"ntln!!! ud other duplicatln!!! services - This use is permitted under the current CC zoning but will no longer permitted. Is this to say that Postal Annex, Mailboxes, Etc. and Kinko's are all noncomplying uses ." within the zone7 Is this really what the City has in mind7 4) Tannin!!! Salons - This use is contained within numerous shopping centers throughout San Diego County. We know of no ~ community with this type of restriction. 5) Video Rental Centers - This use is contained within almost ~ neighborhood commercial shopping center in San Diego County. Is it really the intent to eliminate Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, or our independent Panasonic video operator from operating in shopping centers7 This is both unrealistic and unfair. Is the City of Poway not negotiating with Hollywood Video through the redevelopment agency for a Hollywood Video store to be located in the Security Pacific Bank building at the southwest comer of Poway Road and Community Road7 We recognize the desire of the City to implement their Towne Centre ideas and concepts, however, the City of Poway has to recognize that many of the shopping centers existing on poway Road were built and occupied prior to the City's desire to make these changes. Additionally, as tenants turn over new spaces, owners will need to sign leases with tenants whose uses are consistent with those normally found within retail/commercial shopping centers. As owners, how are we expected to do that when approximately 50% of our existing uses within the centers are now non-complying and in violation of the zone as proposed by the City7 .tUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 -----------....-.------ Ms. Reba Wright-Quastler June 15, 1995 Page 4 As an illustration as to the non-conforming uses in our project and the Creekside project directly across the street, the following existing uses would not be permitted or would require a minor or conditional use permit under the proposed zone designation: 1) Blockbuster Video 10) Dry Clean USA 2) Panasonic Video and Video Rental 11) Ogden's Dry Cleaners 3) Kinko's 12) Real Estate 4) Postal Annex 13) Chiropractor 5) Mailboxes, Etc. 14) Optical SelVices 6) Dentist 15) Tanning Salon 7) Optometrist 16) Weight Reduction 8) Travel Agent 17) Insurance SelVices 9) Laundry We have just listed a few of the uses that will become non-conforming under the new TC zoning designation. Perhaps it would make more sense to take a look at the uses within the shopping centers which find themselves in the proposed TC Zone prior to establishing a "laundry list" of non-conforming uses. We trust that no one wants to further escalate the vacancy factor which is already plaguing .- projects along Poway Road? Does the citizenry and City of Poway want more of a vacancy problem? We would like to meet with whomever is formulating this land use designation change so we may discuss our concerns. We are confident that our problems with the new zone designation are legitimate and reasonable and should be considered prior to adoption of any new zone or land use designation. Please accept this letter as our opposition to the zone changes as indicated in this correspondence. Sincerely, Robert W. Carson RWC/klb cc: Don Higginson Susan Callery Bob Emery Mickey Cafagna JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 Betty Rexford ,- ~ - .?j ':) "TED ~/)3~ - D\5TR\BU --~..J.o tJ;!:, P&G PROPERTIES PO BOX 1809 LAGUNA BCH, CA.92652 TEL (714) 494-7366 FAX 497-7222 June 20, 1995 Don Higginson, Mayor R E eEl V E [' . The City of poway P.O. Box 789 JUN 22. 1995 Poway, Ca. 92074-0789 . f' Pl CITYOFPOWAY Re: poway SpecJ. J.C eln, 1995 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE . Dear Mayor Higginson: We are owners of that property located at 12845 poway Rd, commonly known as the Carriage Center. Though we are supportive of the city of Po\vay improving its image, we have a number of concerns about the details in the proposed Specific Plan. 1. Land Use: Under the designation Community Business District, uses called for include "...a wide range of retail and service type uses such as junior department stores, medical and financial office complexes, food chains, restaurants and special ty stores." Entertainment uses which form a substantial part of our tenant base, appear to be reserved for the Town Center district. Is it the intent of the city that we close the poway Theater and the Batter-up baseball practice venue? If so, we strenuously object. 2. Architecture: We have spent considerable monies upgrading our center in full conformance with all city codes and requests. At a time when real e~tate values have dropped precipitously and where we have sustained a loss in value of over one million dollars, this is no time to be asking property owners to shoulder even more financial burdens. Addi tionally, rental incomes are far below the highs of the eighties. As a result, the burden to maintain our prope:ties at a quality level and still service debt has been very difficult. To suggest that we take on more debt to meet the criteria of t~e Specific Plan seems grossly unfair. 3. Streetscapes: In the specific plan summary it states that "Signs with block numbers will be placed on the street to assist in the location of businesses. New landscaping and street trees are proposed for tile medians and along the sides of poway Road." Our concern here is that we were just required to destroy a sign that cost us $60,000 and to replace it with a monument sign. Now it appears we have to change the appearance of this new sign. As previously indicated, the city is placing unspecified burdens. on t .' '. JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 1 , the propeJ;'ty owners without any regard for the actual economic circumstances in the city of Poway. Likewise, we just spent thousands of dollars re-landscaping the median next to Poway road. Must we spend even more to re-do that work? Finally, as the topography of our center slopes downward and away from Poway road, there is a real concern about obscuring many of our tenants from view if the wrong kind of landscaping is required by the city. , 4. Economic consequences: the specific plan appears to place the burden for beautifying the city solely on the shoulders of the commercial property owners. ".. . some development.. .will be totally privately initiated and funded... (and) some...development efforts may need to be stimulated by City offered incentives...in financing the proposed improvements...." Again, there is no suggestion of city involvement in funding these improvements other than the suggestion of some types of loan incentives and unspecified fee reductions. "To encourage revitalization, the City may offer loans up to $10,000 for the enhancement of a building facade." Is this an error, a joke, or just another slap in the face of property owners? Our estimate of costs for the list suggested in the specific plan runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for our center alone. Again, it appears that the city's idea of "helping" property owners is just a faint attempt to obscure the real economic burdens that would be placed on the property owners. We might remind you that the last big savings proposed by the city was for trash collection. A reduction of 25% in costs was purported by the city whereas in fact, our costs went up 100%. It was only by reducing service that we were able to lower the trash collection fees. So much for good planning! 5. The city has seen fit to allow massive commercial development over the past five years. Yet it appears that many of the newest dev...lop;".lents don't even comply with the proposed specific plan. Where are the ".. . cantilevered balconies, large wood posts, decorative brackets, towers, galleries, arches and trellis elements..." in the Creekside and Wallmart centers? Additionally, this massive development has put inordinate pressure on exi~ting commercial development that has only exacerbated the already difficult economic conditions. As good citizens and property owners, we are dedicated to helping poway improve itself. However, the scope, cost and timing of these suggestions needs to take into consideration the realities of the present economy. To suggest that we adopt a very expensive plan, place the financial burden on one small sector of the community, and hope that the economy will soon get better and so fund these costs, is pie in the sky. We have been in a severe property recession since 1989, and as you can see by driving around Poway, vacancies are still very apparent. .tUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 - -........ ' .~.'., . ""'"'.....,..::=-....;?.=---~,..--.- _u_.,~__. ...._~" _.' , - - - Addi tionally, we have no evidence that rents have begun to firm let alone increase. In fact, we are still being forced to lower rents in order to retain existing tenants let alone attracting any new ones. 6. There is no time-line in the specific plan. Is it the city's intention to ilnplement the specific plan in a relatively short period of time? Again, burdens are being placed only on . commercial propert1 owners with no regard to economic reality. We strongly recommend to the city council that they instruct staff to study and devise a plan that takes into consideration the economic rea).ity of our times and that calls for 'full financial participation by all of our community in its beautification. Anything less than this is inequitable and unfair. We strollgly object to the specific plan as it is currently written and proposed. Furthermore, if the city council adopts the March 1995 poway Specific Plan as proposed, we will work diligently with the other property owners to challenge its validity in court. . ely, cc: Susan Callery, uaputy Mayor Bob Emery, CO:lnc i Imember Mickey Cafagna, Councilmember Betty Rexford, Councilmember Jim Bowersox, City Manager Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services Stephen M. Eckis, City Attorney .' JUN 2 7 1995 ITEM 12 I - 1 - ......1 i"'lmWfl'..lllIIu- - -.."., -.. DISTRIBUTED 10 ~~ 3 - q S- William & Debbie Gillespie ~. 7JtP' 14230 York Avelllle Poway. California 92064 p~ (619) 48~t8t June 20, 1995 e:VEr JUN 2 ~ 1995 Honorable Don Hig inson, Mayor CITYOFPOWAY & Council members P.O. Box 789 CITY M.~NAGERS OFriCE' Poway, California 9207 Re: Re-evalulltion of Zone A Dear Mayor Higginson and Council We cannot attend the fU'St public meeti matter, so we are writing instead. We find it astonishing that our propeny is so how underbilled for street lighting inasmuch as York A venue has no street lights. In fact, e treet is pitch black at night except for private floodlights. We would rather it stay that w pay for services we never asked for. Please fight against the assessments. It m' ht revive faith in public officials if, for once, they voted against picking our pockets. Thank you. . . lV~ ~. . ~/,4r' . William & Debbie JIlt 2 7 1995 ITEM 16