Item 13 Additional Material posted 9-14-20M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the September 15, 2020 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
September 14, 2020
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Vaida Pavolas, City Clerk ·,1f
(858) 668-4535 or vpavolas@poway.org
Item 13 - Pre-Development Conference (PDC) 20-002; A Request to Construct a
Mixed-Use Development with 220 Residential Units in the Poway Road Specific
Plan Area at the former Poway Fun Bowl and Carriage Center
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
Assistant City Manager
1 of 28
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
City Manager
September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Susie Vaughn ~ ADDITIONAL MATERIALS Sept 15 City Council Meeting Item 13 Fairfield Development Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:57:50 PM I have concerns regarding the upcoming agenda for the Poway City Council meeting regarding Item 13. The Fairfield development is up for discussion and the developer has provided a "new" proposal. This proposal has not been through community notification and is quite different from what was described to the community at the 2019 workshop held in the old pawn shop location. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: 1. Council gave statements like "this isn't Poway", but provided no clear direction to staff or the developer. The lack of concise, unambiguous, well defined "community benefits" only amplifies this problem. 2. The problems highlighted last time were: building height, affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkability, and more. None of these has been reasonable addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. 3. From the March 6th 20 l 8 meeting minutes "Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community if a future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled virtual or otherwise. Additionally extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contradicts council's request. A previous community meeting was held in 2019 however the proposal described at that meeting was substantially different from what is now being proposed. 4. Council made requests for "community benefits", additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. 5. Traffic will detour to Metate and Carriage Roads to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what are residential communities is not safe for the families with children, living in those areas. The community off Carriage Road will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. As a resident/homeowner living off of Carriage Road and directly behind the proposed development I have concerns about this additional traffic. Commuters already use Oak Knoll and Carriage Roads in order to avoid Poway Road traffic. This will just get worse with the additional traffic resulting from this proposal. 6. The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sits lower on that same downslope thus exacerbating the problem. Won't life be wonderful for the residents/homeowners that live behind this development. The entire neighborhood will be impacted, most especially Ilene Street 2 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
7. If no 4 story buildings are allowed on Poway Road, as stated repeatedly by the Council, why are they allowed by the Poway Road Specific Plan and as part of this proposal? 8. How will another stoplight on Poway Road make traffic better? This would make a total of 7 lights between Community Road and Pomerado Road (about 1 mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not, and do not wish to be, downtown San Diego. There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time the City Council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues push back; perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. The discretionary developer benefits from undefined "community benefits" are a way to break the rules. The rules themselves in most cases are at or beyond anything Poway has considered before. If every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu fee buyout; why do we even have rules? I and the other residents of Ross Estates look forward to seeing the outcome of this meeting QJl September I 5th Susan Vaughn 12903 Ilene Street rmtch@cox.net Sent from my iPad 3 of28 September 15, 2020. Item #13
From: Cc: Subject: Date: ~ eouocilrnembers Subject: Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fc1lrfleld propoScll Monday, September 14, 2020 6:34:07 AM As a homeowner that lives directly behind where this development is being build, I am very disappointed at city council for even considering it. I attended four City Council meeting prior to COVID. At these meetings where it was discussed how in the business park a hotel and a storage facility could not be built because of the 2 story or height limit. You arc saying no to a non residential area but allowing it to effect my family and my neighbors. I have lives in this house since 1978, purchased it from my parents so my daughter can grow up in Poway. I tried to eat and shop to support local businesses but with everything on Poway Road will have to leave City due to all the traffic this will cause. Adding two more lights will not help. Also we get additional 200 renters while Stoneridge gets homeowners? I'm not against renters, we have them up Carriage, Oak knoll and all my Valley school, but i am against a four story building Apartment building that will effect the value of my home and cause a daily traffic issues. I have concerns regarding the upcoming agenda for council. The Fairfield development is up for discussion and the developer has provided a "new" proposal. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: · Council gave statements like "this isn't Poway", but provided no clear direction. The lack of concise, unambiguous, well defined "community benefits" only amplifies this problem. · The problems highlighted last time were: building height, affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkability, and more. None of these has been reasonable addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. · From the March 6th 2018 meeting minutes "Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community ifa future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled virtual or otherwise. Additionally extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contradicts council's request. · Council made requests for "community benefits", additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. · The community off Carriage will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. · The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sit LOWER on that same downslope thus exacerbating the problem. · Council has repeatedly claimed no 4 story buildings on Poway Rd. but they are allowed by the PRSP. · Another stoplight will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between community and Pomerado (about 1 mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate AND Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children, living in those areas. 4 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues push back; perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. The discretionary developer benefits from undefined "community benefits" arc a way to break the rules. The rules themselves in most cases are at or beyond anything Poway has considered before. If every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu fee buyout; why do we even have rules? Camille Stewart 1294 7 Slack St Poway Ca Sent from my iPhone 5 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Hello Mr. Yaus, Margie Lewis Steve vaus Fairfield Development Sunday, September 13, 2020 7:24:05 PM I oppose the development at the Bowling Alley and Thritl store locations (Fairfield Development). The proposed development for a 4 story housing unit is not inline with a "country" feel of the Poway community. Adding a housing structure with more units, less parking, with little to none commercial space, and taller buildings, would have no community benefits. I am upset that I am only learning about these proposals via social media. This will be the third housing development for Poway Road. This will not only impact traffic, but parking and bordering neighborhoods. We have already lost many retail, professional, and restaurants in Poway. This would include my dentist, who was bought out by the City of Poway and Meridian ... to long time restaurants like Burger King and Pizza Hut. I think a "Mixed use" development, with more dedicated parking and height restrictions would serve our community better. Poway Road has already been impacted by Meridian Community building. Carriage Road is already laden with apartment overflow parking from Oak Knoll and Carriage Apartments. A 4 story housing building would impact traffic and parking for the worse. It will change the look and feel ofour city. This reminds me of the Mira Mesa community. As Sorrento Valley quickly grew, Mira Mesa Blvd became the new "bypass" from the 805 to 15/163 and a 2000 unit housing apartment was built that we see from the 15 freeway. That community was largely impacted by blocked views, heavy traffic, and parking issues. We moved to Poway From Mira Mesa because of the negative impact of mass housing on the community. In short, Poway Road is feeling more and more like Mira Mesa Blvd everyday. I hope my voice is heard and 1 hope the city council considers the opinions of its residents. I am not opposed to improvement and changes, but I would like to sec development more in line with a city in the country feel similar to our Midland Road communities and a parallel plan to widen Poway Road and account for all the new residents and traffic. Thank you, Marjorie Lewis 13022 Carriage Road Poway, Ca 92064 Sent from my iPhone 6 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Mary Vedborg Daye Grosch Steye vaus: cavuo frank: Barry Leonard: John Mullin: Jasmine pernlcano: Mlardon@poway ora Fairfield Proposal. Sunday, September 13, 2020 4:34:25 PM September 14, 2020 To Poway mayor and council members, city clerk and city manager: I have been a resident of Poway for more than 40 years and I am appalled at the development in south Poway that this city council has approved. The latest development up for approval, the Fairfield development is outrageous! The building height, lack of affordable housing, traffic, and loss of existing businesses are all serious issues. Apparently last time this project was brought before council they told the developers to come back with a better plan. The new plan has less parking and less commercial space. You are giving us high intensity housing and massive traffic problems! Please take a serious look at this development and our citizens reasons for opposing it. Lets keep a little of our city in the country and not be so concerned about big developers and $$$$$. Sincerely Mary Yedborg 7 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Tall vauahn Steve vaus: Dave Grosch: John Mullin: CayHn frank: Barry Leonard: Jasmine Pernjcano: Ana Alarcon Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Sunday, September 13, 2020 2:00:29 PM To all it may concern I have concerns regarding the upcoming agenda for council. The Fairfield development is up for discussion and the developer has provided a "new'' proposal. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: · Council gave statements like "this isn't Poway", but provided no clear direction. The lack of concise, unambiguous, well defined "community benefits" only amplifies this problem. · The problems highlighted last time were: building height, affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkability, and more. None of these has been reasonable addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. · From the March 6th 20 I 8 meeting minutes "Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community if a future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled virtual or otherwise. Additionally extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contr"adicts council's request. · Council made requests for "community benefits", additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. · The community off Carriage will suffer from additional trat1ic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. · The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sit LOWER on that same downslope thus exacerbating the problem. · Council has repeatedly claimed no 4 story buildings on Poway Rd. but they are allowed by the PRSP. · Another stoplight will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between community and Pomerado (about I mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate AND Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children, living in those areas. There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues push back; perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. The discretionary developer benefits from undefined "community benefits" are a way to break the rules. The rules themselves in most cases are at or beyond anything Poway has considered before. lf every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu foe buyout; why do we even have rules? Thanks, Tali Vaughn 8 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: susfe Vaughn steye vaus Sept 15 City Council Meeting Item 13 Fairfield Development Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:43:21 PM I have concerns regarding the upcoming agenda for the Poway City Council meeting regarding Item 13. The Fairfield development is up for discussion and the developer has provided a "new" proposal. This proposal has not been through community notification and is quite different from what was described to the community at the 2019 workshop held in the old pawn shop location. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: I. Council gave statements like "this isn't Poway", but provided no clear direction to staff or the developer. The lack of concise, unambiguous, well defined "community benefits" only amplifies this problem. 2. The problems highlighted last time were: building height, affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkability, and more. None of these has been reasonable addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. 3. From the March 6th 2018 meeting minutes "Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community if a future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled virtual or otherwise. Additionally extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contradicts council's request. A previous community meeting was held in 2019 however the proposal described at that meeting was substantially different from what is now being proposed. 4. Council made requests for "community benefits", additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. 5. Traffic will detour to Metate and Carriage Roads to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what are residential communities is not safe for the families with children, living in those areas. The community off Carriage Road will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. As a resident/homeowner living off of Carriage Road and directly behind the proposed development ( have concerns about this additional traffic. Commuters already use Oak Knoll and Carriage Roads in order to avoid Poway Road traffic. This will just get worse with the additional traffic resulting from this proposal. 6. The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sits lower on that same downslope thus exacerbating the problem. Won't life be wonderful for the residents/homeowners that live behind this development. The entire neighborhood will be impacted, most especially Ilene Street 9 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
7. lf no 4 story buildings are allowed on Poway Road, as stated repeatedly by the Council, why are they allowed by the Poway Road Specific Plan and as part of this proposal? 8. How will another stoplight on Poway Road make traffic better? This would make a total of 7 li~hts between Comm1mit,y Road and Pomerado Road (about I mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not, and do not wish to be, downtown San Diego. There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time the City Council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues push back; perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. The discretionary developer benefits from undefined "community benefits" are a way to break the rules. The rules themselves in most cases are at or beyond anything Poway has considered before. If every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu fee buyout; why do we even have rules? I and the other residents of Ross Estates look forward to seeing the outcome of this meeting .on September 15th Susan Vaughn 12903 Ilene Street rmtch@cox net Sent from my iPad 10 of 28 September 15. 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Jessica Jones Coundlmember:s Poway Road Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:09:44 PM Please reject the Fairfield project. The people of Poway are speaking and you guys aren't listening. We want slow growth and you guys arc turning South Poway into madhouse while you sit in your expansive slow growing North Poway, frequenting establishments in RB or sleepy Old Poway. Listen to the people you supposedly represent and stop invading Poway Road with things we don't want or need! Jessica Jones Sent from my iPhone 11 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Thomas castte Coundlmembers New traffic lights Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:27:01 AM Hello reaching out to voice my opinion. I think adding these 2 lights is a terrible idea because the traffic is already horrible and we don't want to have a Mira Mesa blvd 2.0 here in our little town. Sent from my iPhone 12 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Amanda wau Steve vaus: Dave Grosch: Cavlio frank: John Mullin: Jasmine Peraicano Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal saturday, September 12, 2020 10:23:50 PM We don't want this. We moved to this area of Poway for its country feel and it's becoming everything but that. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. The community off Carriage will suffer from additional traffic and overtlow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. The building height has increased, 4 stories?! Another stoplight will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between community and Pomerado (about I mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate AND Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children, living in those areas. Please rethink this. It seems like our section of Poway has taken on more than We should have to. What happened to our little country town? Where are all of your heads at? Miranda Evans 13 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Nick carruthers Steve vaus: Barry Leonard: CayHn frank: John Mullin: Dave Grosch Development along Poway Friday, September 11, 2020 5:19:47 PM Dear Mayor and Councilors: My wife and family moved to Poway in 1999 and selected Poway as an ideal place to raise our two children and because of the excellence of the community. During this time I have become increasingly concerned about the quantity and quality of development along Poway Road and also, most recently, on the ridge line of Scripps Poway Parkway. These developments are beginning to impact the quality of life of many folks in South Poway (we live on Silver Heights Road). My greatest concern is that the more recent developments do not appear to solicit serious input from residents that are, or will be impacted by the proposed construction. For example the new building on the Scripps Poway Parkway ridgeline is from my perspective an eyesore and, perhaps more importantly, I don't believe input was solicited from any neighbors beyond a 500 foot radius. Consequently folks towards the Garden Road end of town were not consulted. Overall I have become disappointed by the council's perfunctory treatment of developers and their proposals to the detriment of your constituents in South Poway. On top of this I sense an increasing tension between residents of South and North Poway, something I would never have expected to observe. However, since the majority of the council resides in North Poway it's an easy, although perhaps unfair, case to make. What I request of you is that you take your positions seriously and endeavor to do what's best for all of Poway and act on the concerns of the residents of South Poway. It is beyond time for you to acquiesce to demands of developers and time for you to do what is best for all the residents of Poway. Thank you for considering this note and working towards a Poway that we can all be proud of. Nick Nicholas Carruthers Ph.D E-mail: oicarruth@gmail com Mobile: (858)-366-5037 14 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Amanda Wall Steve yays: Daye Grosch: cavnn frank: John Murnn: Jasmine eecalcaoo Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:23:50 PM We don't want this. We moved to this area of Poway for its country feel and it's becoming everything but that. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. The community off Carriage will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. The building height has increased, 4 stories?! Another stoplight will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between community and Pomerado (about I mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate ANO Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children, living in those areas. Please rethink this. It seems like our section of Poway has taken on more than We should have to. What happened to our little country town? Where are all of your heads at? Miranda Evans 15 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
Ana Alarcon Subject: FW: Poway Road -----Original Message-----From: Jessica Jones <jessjones888@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 12:03 PM To: Carrie Gallagher <CGallagher@poway.org> Subject: Poway Road Hello, This is email is to serve as my official protest regarding the Fairfield project on Poway Road and the 2 back to back stop lights planned. Poway Road can not afford to have any more traffic and certainly not any more stop lights! The people of Poway are speaking and you guys are not listening I! Jessica Jones Sent from my iPhone 16 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
Ana Alarcon Subject: FW: Proposed Fairfield Development Project • Poway Road From: Julie Randolph <jemnsd@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 7:22 AM To: Carrie Gallagher <CGallagher@poway.org> Subject: RE: Proposed Fairfield Development Project -Poway Road Good morning! First, I'd like to thank you and all city employees for the work that you do. I'm taking nothing for granted in this nutty COVID year. Second, I want to let the City Council and pertinent authorities know that some of us aren't opposed to development on Poway Road--however, we object to the scale, height and potential impact on traffic with the proposed Fairfield project plans. Please see what can be done to reduce the size and impact. Poway Road is bad enough as it is during peak times--and who wants the view of the hills blocked? Development can often be done more creatively with a serious eye to environmental and community concerns. I think more people would approve of development if we got really creative and innovative I Thank you all for your efforts on behalf of our lovely community. Sincerely, The Randolphs on Frame Road (Rick and Julie) 17 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
Ana Alarcon Subject: FW: Oppose street lights on poway rd -----Original Message-----From: Pam Hodge <pamhodge06@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:05 AM To: Carrie Gallagher <CGallagher@poway.org> Subject: Oppose street lights on poway rd I cannot believe that you guys are putting a stop light in front of an already existing stoplight at Terrascan I am opposed to it and I think that it is absolutely ridiculous living close to Garden Road It already takes us 20 minutes just to get out of Poway this is going to slow our commute down so much the lights in the power way are already not synchronized and are poorly synchronized at best please reconsider these two lights Sent from my iPhone 18 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Anjani srtv,astava Ana Alarcon: Jasmine Pecoicano; Barry Leonard: Cavnn Frank: Dave Grosch: John Mullin: Steve vaus On Behalf of many concerned college students from Poway; Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Monday, September 14, 2020 9:42:30 AM I have concerns regarding the upcoming agenda for council. The Fairfield development is up for discussion and the developer has provided a "new" proposal. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: · Council gave statements like "this isn't Poway", but provided no clear direction. The lack of concise, unambiguous, well defined "community benefits" only amplifies this problem. · The problems highlighted last time were: building height, affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkabi I ity, and more. None of these has been reasonable addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. · From the March 6th 2018 meeting minutes "Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community if a future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled virtual or otherwise. Additionally extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contradicts council's request. · Council made requests for "community benefits", additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. · The community off Carriage will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. · The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sit LOWER on that same downslope thus exacerbating the problem. · Council has repeatedly claimed no 4 story buildings on Poway Rd. but they are allowed by the PRSP. · Another stoplight will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between community and Pomerado (about 1 mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate AND Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children, living in those areas. There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues push back; perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. The discretionary developer benefits from 19 of 28 September 1 S, 2020, Item #13
undefined "community benefits" are a way to break the rules. The rules themselves in most cases are at or beyond anything Poway has considered before. If every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu fee buyout; why do we even have rules? 20 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Kamlao Jensen steve vaus: John Hvlllo: Bany Leonard: )asmlne pernjcano; A□il Alarcon: caylio Frank For 9/15 meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Monday, September 14, 2020 2:46:50 PM Dear Councilmembers, I have concerns regarding the Fairfield development. It is up for discussion tomorrow night and the developer has provided a "new" proposal. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: · Council has repeatedly claimed "no 4 story buildings on Poway Rd." but they are allowed by the Poway Road Specific Plan. · The problems highlighted last time were: building height, lack of affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkability, and more. None of these has been reasonably addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. · Council made requests for "community benefits": additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. · The community off Carriage will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. · The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sits LOWER on that same downslope, thus exacerbating the problem. 21 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
· Another stoplight will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between Community and Pomerado (about 1 mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate and Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children. I have lived on Metate Lane for 11 years and have strong concerns about increased traffic. I've asked around about what it would take to get speed bumps put in, and the feedback I've received is that speed bumps are not possible because our street is used by emergency vehicles. I'm not worried about emergency vehicles coming bounding down the road -they give ample warning with sirens and lights. But the number of cars who blast through the Montauk stop sign every day is staggering. I have small children and the entire neighborhood uses Metate for recreation: walking, biking, scootering, etc. The stop sign itself does not slow people down. Please think of the surrounding communities when considering development projects. Simply put, this one is too large. · From the March 6, 2018 meeting minutes: ,;Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community if a future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled, virtual or otherwise. Additionally, extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contradicts the council's request. There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time the council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues pushback, perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. I am not against development in Poway. Being a family with young children, we regularly walk, scoot, and ride our bikes around the city and there are a number of existing projects I am looking forward to seeing completed, including Outpost. I think the new apartments for developmentally disabled adults on Oak Knoll and Pomerado Road solve many problems and will improve the curb appeal of this area. I have lived in Poway for 11 years and welcome development in areas that are considered blight, and there's no shortage of it on Poway Road. But putting a 4 story building with thousands of units will create more problems than those they attempt to solve. A building of this size and density is not suitable for the proposed location for the reasons listed above. Thanks! Kamian Jensen 22 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Hello, &nu Cs!uocHmembers Fairfield Development Monday, September 14, 2020 2:02:20 PM I would like to make sure you are aware that our family does not support the Fairfield Project as written. Revitalization of Poway Rd should include more restaurants and businesses with some affordable housing vs a tiny bit of business and so much unaffordable housing. Housing that is allowed with the Fairfield Project needs to include affordable housing. The in lieu fees are unreasonably low and should not be approved. Please do not allow a 4 story building on this land. The neighborhood below will be basically ruined by such a view. The bowling alley was already quite a wall due to sitting up a hillside. Please do not allow for any variances with the parking as parking is already difficult in many parts of the neighborhood. Please ensure the project includes adequate open space. I understand this meeting is for public input. Due to the meeting time, I will be unable to attend, even virtually. I'm sending this email ahead of the meeting so that the council can note concerns and relay to the developers. Please stand up for us. Thank You, Any Jackson 23 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Nathan Knudson Coundfmembers Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Monday, September 14, 2020 12:52:26 PM I have concerns regarding the upcoming agenda for council. The Fairfield development is up for discussion and the developer has provided a "new" proposal. This should not have come to council in its current state for a number of reasons, and highlights disconnects between council direction to staff and end result. Here are some of the problems: · Council gave statements like "this isn't Poway", but provided no clear direction. The lack of concise, unambiguous, well defined "community benefits" only amplifies this problem. · The problems highlighted last time were: building height, affordable housing, loss of existing businesses, traffic, setbacks, walkability, and more. None of these has been reasonable addressed and in many cases this proposal seeks to make those problems worse. · From the March 6th 2018 meeting minutes "Council emphasized the importance of the proponents reaching out to the community if a future application were to be considered." The recent attempt at a community meeting was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, and has not been rescheduled virtual or otherwise. Additionally extremely limited notice was given, seemingly only to residents that share a property line. This directly contradicts council's request. · Council made requests for ''community benefits", additional parking, comparisons of apartments to commercial use, and affordable housing. The new proposal has less parking, more units, less commercial, and still no affordable housing. · The community off Carriage will suffer from additional traffic and overflow parking in much the same way the Oak Knoll community has. · The building height has increased: the "downslope" mitigation only accounts for those driving down Poway Rd. The entire community behind this lot sit LOWER on that same downslope thus exacerbating the problem. · Council has repeatedly claimed no 4 story buildings on Poway Rd. but they are allowed by the PRSP. · Another TWO stoplights will NOT help traffic along Poway Rd. and would make the total 7 lights between community and Pomerado (about 1 mile). That is almost as signal dense as downtown. We are not downtown San Diego. · Traffic will detour to Metate AND Carriage road to avoid the 7 traffic lights. This increase in traffic from the main thoroughfare to what is supposed to be residential communities is NOT safe for the families with children, living in those areas. 24 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
There are far more reasons, but perhaps it is time council considers that if this is within the vague guidelines of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and the community continues push back; perhaps it is the plan itself that is the problem. The discretionary developer benefits from undefined "community benefits" are a way to break the rules. The rules themselves in most cases are at or beyond anything Poway has considered before. If every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu fee buyout; why do we even have rules? I hope the council will carefully and prayerfully consider the impact this development will have on our country town. Regards, Nate C. Knudson 25 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chrts cruse ~; Dave Grosch: John Mullin: Steve vaus: CayUn Frank: Barry Leonard cmcruse@cox net 9/15/20 city council meeting, Item 13 Fairfield Workshop Monday, September 14, 2020 2:41:14 PM Dear council members, I am opposed to the Fairfield project because it is too tall and way too dense. The quasi public space and dog run seem Insufficient reward for allowing for 2 additional stories. In addition, Poway does not have sufficient nearby parks or a transportation system to support the number of urban dwelling units in this project. Sincerely, Chris Cruse 26 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: MICHELE WIELD ~; Daye Grosch: cavun frank: Steve vaus: John Mullin: Barry Leonard Fairfield Project Monday, September 14, 2020 3:24:27 PM l oppose this development due to its high density as well as the increased traffic it will dump on to Poway Road. Thank you, Michele Wield 27 of28 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: eat Rowean c1tv cJerk: Barry Leonard: Steve vays: John Myrna: caynn frank Fairfield Project Monday, September 14, 2020 3:41:25 PM My husband and are are strongly opposed to this plan! The density is much too high and the height is much lo tall. It does nothing to beautify Poway Road except increase the traffic which is bad enough! Pat and Don Rowean Sent from my iPad 28 of 28 September 15, 2020, Item #13