Item 13 Additional Material posted 9-15-20M EM ORAN 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 15, 2020 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Vaida Pavolas, City Clerk (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 18 Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Approved By: City Manager September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: saskia walker Councilmembers ADDITIONAL MATERIALS "9/14/20 City council meeting, item 13 Fairfield Workshop" Monday, September 14, 2020 5:03:06 PM Dear Council Members, Hereby I would like to let you know that my husband Leslie Walker and Saskia Walker, citizens of Poway are opposed to the Fairfield project, the proposed 200 unit 4-story apartment buildings for the land where the bowling alley and thrift store used to be. The last few years it seems that the goal for Poway Road and surroundings, not just with this project but many others currently under construction or in the planning, is to become a 2nd Mira Mesa Blvd. or Carmel Mountain Ranch Rd. As if Poway Road is not overburdened with traffic yet, you are adding additional dense housing units and entertainment places which will cause a high volume of traffic and require many additional parking places. My understanding is that there is a proposal to add two traffic lights and no plans to add additional Parks or expand the current ones. We are frequent users of Poway Road and it already takes too long to drive from the Garden Rd. area to the I-15. For this specific project I hope you don't tell citizens that the State "requires" low-income housing, because it seems that the moment projects have been proposed close to the Poway North area those projects are cancelled (Twin Peaks). We are aware that the Bowling alley was privately owned, but plans need to be approved by the City. The City only seems to be geared towards keeping the "Country" aspect alive of "Poway, the City in the Country" for North Poway, which is the wealthiest community within our town. As Poway residents, we chose to live in Poway because of the Country aspect, which you have been taking away over the last few years and continue to do so. We are not against improvement, but this is more than improvements driving over Poway Road as it stands right now. Living in "fire country", we think that overpopulating one of the major evacuation routes; Poway Road is irresponsible as well. Poway citizens are not known to share their concern really quickly, but the majority of citizens elected officials with the hope that those officials keep Poway our City in the Country. We don't want to become a San Diego or dense suburb. Thank you for your attention, Sincerely, Saskia and Leslie Walker 2 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Peter Neild ~; Daye Grosch; Caylin Frank; John Mullin; Barry Leonard Sept 15th City Council meeting -Fairfield workshop Item 13 Monday, September 14, 2020 3:54:32 PM While I am against the project from the standpoint of height variances and density. I am willing to participate in any "Workshop" to work with the owner/ developer to formulate an acceptable plan for the site. 3 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: QQ.u.g ~; Dave Grosch; John Mullin: Steve Vaus; Caylin Frank; leonard@poway.org 9/15/20 City Council Meeting, Item 13 -Fairfield Workshop Monday, September 14, 2020 8:56:21 PM Council Members, I am opposed to the Fairfield Project because it is too dense, and it eliminates a great form of family recreation (the bowling alley) with no replacement. The parks and quasi-public open space proposed is a joke and a slap in the face to the people who live both nearby, and in the proposed new housing. Poway needs to put more emphasis on creating more open space and recreation opportunities, and less on dense housing projects. Cordially, Doug Seybert Poway Resident 4 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: Michelle Lowen To: Cc: ~; grosch@poway orq: Caylin Frank; Steve vaus: John Mullin; Barry Leonard Chelle Lowen Subject: Date: 9/15/20 City Council Meeting, item 13 Fairfield Workshop Monday, September 14, 2020 7:52:09 PM Dear Council Members, My own words, sorry so wordy~ I am writing to beg you to please consider the disruption the new Apartment buildings will create for our small town. I live off Carriage Road. I also live on on the same street I grew up on. I love my town, and it's been the only reason I've remained in California. I'm asking you to please reconsider, if nothing else, at least the size of this project. While I understand some change is necessary, I'm increasingly disappointed in the City's apparent willingness to create something that this town is unable to handle. We've never approved buildings higher than 2 stories in the City proper, and having this blight on our main thoroughfare, a two lane main road, with traffic already an issue, is frightening. My residential neighborhood is already a frequently used bypass to Poway Road. The added personage, right on the main road, will no doubt, have major implications. Am not at all sure why this couldn't have been placed in a less dense area .. ? I don't want to leave my town, and truly fear that this may create the necessity to do so. I know I'm only one person, and perhaps it doesn't make a difference to anyone ifl leave. I've also been a Palomar/ Pomerado Hospital employee since 2003. I really had no intention of writing such a long email, but I do hope you were able to read, and to consider my words~ Thank you so much for your time~ Please make every attempt to mitigate this .. please .. I truly love this town .. Sincerely, Michelle Lowen 40 year Poway Resident (Proudly) 5 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Joan Smith Councilmembers Fairfield development project Monday, September 14, 2020 6:23:25 PM Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Fairfield project on Poway Road. This project will create over 200 market rate residences, which will place a significant burden on the traffic on Poway Road. As a resident of the Garden Road community, I travel Poway Road regularly and already experience significant travel delays. The addition of two stoplights to accommodate access to Poway Road will only add to the traffic nightmare on this major thoroughfare in our town. Additionally, since these will be apartments/condos, these homes will have minimal outdoor space, which will cause the new occupants to seek public recreational areas. Community Park is normally a busy park during non-Covid times, and the addition of roughly 400 new residents, on top of the 200 or so new residents from previously approved projects on Poway Road will severely strain this resource. I don't believe that this project is the appropriate scope and scale for our city and I hope that you all take the concerns of residents who travel on Poway Road regularly into consideration. Thank you, Joan Smith District 2 resident Sent from my iPhone 6 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dear Council, Juliet Vasel-PhjlHps cavlin Frank Steve vaus: Dave Grosch: John Mullin; Barry Leonard; Ana Alarcon; Jasmine Pernicano September 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield Proposal Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:29:20 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, 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 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 7 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
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-liue of fees ( despite John Mullin just saying we need more affordable housing), why even have rules? Sincerely, Juliet Phillips D4 resident 8 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: ~ Ana Alarcon Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:17:41 AM Dear Mayor, Council Members and other parties involved in this matter-I am a 20+ year member of Poway-which used to be a quiet city in the country-we are moving in a direction far from that. 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. NO 4 STORY BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN POWAY, PERIOD. · 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. I live in the Garden Road area, and the one additional traffic light for Lowes has made traffic a nightmare-lights are NOT in sync and back ups occur especially during rush hour. · 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. Not to mention when visiting someone off Metate I was personally involved in a car accident that totaled my vehicle due to unsafe speed and volume of 9 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
cars that never should have been on that residential road-this is before the detour that will occur. 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? As a tax paying citizen, I expect these concerns to be addressed in lieu of being able to protest in person. Therefore I wish my concerns to be expressed via email, and answered to by those who represent me . Thank you for your time and attention, Karen Machamer 10 of 18 Sender notified b) Mailtrack September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: ptrivjnol@cox.net To: Subject: Steve Vaus: Pave Grosch; John Mulljn: Cayljn Frank; Barry Leonard; Jasmine Pernicano; Ana Alarcon Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:21:19 AM To the City Council: This message is to express my opposition to the proposed development in the approximately 12900 block of Poway road. Many residents have written detailed analyses of the issues with the project in and on the several Poway related Facebook pages, Nextdoor etc. and I won't repeat them here. My main messages to the Council are these: • I will not support any development, nor any Council member who supports such developments, for any area of Poway that does not include low income housing. It is clear that we are not meeting state requirements and we need to address that sooner rather than later. Projects I would support could be "packaged" (i.e., not physically in the same location but structured where needed as a "both or neither" approval). • The Council and individual members need to increase their responsiveness to voters'/residents' concerns on such projects. • The Council needs to follow the Plans previously adopted as the "rules" for such developments. Thank you for your attention. Paul Trivino 11 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Duane Herrmann Vaida Pavolas Fairfield Poway Road Mixed-Use -Item # 13 Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:49:22 AM My concerns regarding the Fairfield project are as follows: 1. Building Heights 2. Ingress and Egress 3. Poway Road traffic 4. Parking 5. Noise Sent from my iPad 12 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Subject: Date: Dennis Paige ~ City Council Meeting 9 /15/ 20 item 13 Fairfield Monday, September 14, 2020 5:37:33 PM Thank you for allowing our voices.to be heard on the Fairfield Project. We are excited to see poway developing poway rd, we are not excited to see so many apartments on poway road as it will add to traffic/parking issues would like to see the size of the build reduce maybe to 2 stories spread out and keep poway as the "City in the Country" Really hate to see that Bowling Alley go. It did provide some good family entertainment RI Dennis & Bonnie Paige 13 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: Pam Collazo To: Subject: Steve Vaus.: pave Grosch; John Mullin; Caylin Frank; Barry Leonard; Jasmine Pernicano; Ana Alarcon Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 12: 11:07 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 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. If every development "needs" to go beyond the rules, in a city that offers amazing benefits and an absurd in-lieu 14 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
fee buyout; why do we even have rules? Thank you, Pamela Collazo Slack Street 15 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: cavlin Frank; Barry Leonard; Jasmine Pernicano; Ana Alarcon: Steve Vaus: John Mullin: Dave Grosch Bob Casey: chrisolps@olps4poway.com Sept 15th meeting, Item 13 Fairfield proposal Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:00: 17 PM Good afternoon, Please do not approve this plan. I am from Millbrae, CA where they destroyed their town by building these types of high rise buildings with no setbacks. I can send you pictures or you can google it to see how crowded, ugly, and big city it looks now. Just like Millbrae, our hill views will be blocked, traffic increased (not wide enough Poway Rd), etc. At least Millbrae had a 6 or 8 lane road already there (El Camino Real) to help mitigate some of their added traffic.This is not a good fit for Poway! Why would you approve even more dense housing on Poway Rd? The other two projects on Poway Rd already being built will be bad enough. We do not want anymore market or above market dense housing crammed down our throats. If this had been allowed by you to come up for a vote by the people of Poway, it would have been defeated. I know many people here that feel the same way about this as I do. We should have been allowed to vote on the penitentiary too which destroyed our views.You will all move on eventually and we (Poway) will be stuck with all this mess forever. Please reconsider this plan and don't destroy any more of our quality of life. I can't afford to move. Please read below-all good points that I agree with: 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 16 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
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 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? Thank you, Bob and Sandy Casey 17 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13
From: To: Marshall Hill ~ Subject: Date: Re: Poway City Council Meeting 9/15/2020 Comment Submission -Agenda Item 13 Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:59:23 PM My apologies I listed the date incorrectly in the subject line. Correct date now listed in subject line. > On Sep 15, 2020, at 2:57 PM, Marshall Hill <marshallhill@cox.net> wrote: > > Good Afternoon, > > In regard to the redevelopment of the Poway Fun Bowl and Carriage Center sites at 12845 to 12941 Poway Road. Will final approval for redevelopment be subject to a public vote? If so, when? If not, why? It is of my opinion, as a City of Poway resident, that all redevelopments of this nature be approved in a measure by public vote, similiar to how Measure P is going to the ballot this November for The Farm in Poway Specific Plan. > > Respectfully, > > Marshall Hill > Concerned Poway Resident > Cell: 858-668-8022 > MarshallHill@cox.net 18 of 18 September 15, 2020, Item #13