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