Item 8 Additional Material posted 4-05-21M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIO NAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the April 6, 2021 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
April 5, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Vaida Pavolas, City Clerk V'?
(858) 668-4535 or vpavolas@poway.org
Item 8 -Pre-Development Conference (PDC) 21 -001, a Request for a 20-Lot
Subdivision that Extends Holly Oak Way and Utilizes an Affordable Housing
Density Bonus on a 4.77-Acre Parcel Located at 13667 Twin Peaks Road in the
RS-4 Zone
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
Wendy Kaserman
Assistant City Manager
1 of9
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
Ch~
City Manager
April 6, 2021, Item #8
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
anao preckel@cox net
Valda payolas: Cll:i..Qe.ck
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Steve vaus; Barry Leonard: John Mullin: Dave Grosch: Caynn frank: Bob Manis: David Pe Yctes; Tracy Beach;
Austin snva: Scott Nesoor
Council Agenda Item 8 -Pre-Development Conference on Aprtl 6, 7 p.m. -proposed development by Cornerstone
Communities at 13667 Twin Peaks Road
Monday, April 5, 2021 7:38: 13 AM
Attachments: l.,ettec to Council toe 4-6-2021 Pee-Development conference docx
City Clerk Vaida Pavolas:
I have reviewed the staff report and related materi als concerning Agenda Item
8, and I hereby request that my attached letter t o the Mayor and
Councilmembers be made part of the City's officia l record.
Thank you.
Sin cerely,
2 of9
ALLAN J. PRECKEL
13621 Holly Oak Way
Poway, CA 92064
Allan. Preckel@cox.net
858.382.7561
April 6, 2021, Item #8
Mayor Steve Vaus
Deputy Mayor Barry Leonard
Councilmember John Mullin
Councilmember Dave Grosch
Councilmember Caylin Frank
City of Poway
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
via email
April 5, 2021
Allan J. Preckel
13621 Holly Oak Way
Poway, CA 92064
Allan.Preckel@cox.net
858.382.7561
Re: Council Agenda Item 8 -Pre-Development Conference;
Proposed development at 13667 Twin Peaks Road
("McKee parcel") by Cornerstone Communities
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Having reviewed the Agenda Report prepared by staff for this conference, I take
this opportunity to provide additional input. By letter of January 29, 2021, to
Cornerstone Communities, all the residents on Holly Oak Way and Twin Gables
Court expressed our united and adamant opposition to an extension of Holly Oak
Way for access to the proposed development. We also wrote to you directly on
March 8, 2021, to further express our views and reasoning. I thank staff for
attaching those letters to the Agenda Report (attachment L, pages 21-26), and do
hereby incorporate them in this letter by reference. My neighbors and I have met
with Councilmembers John Mullin and Dave Grosch for candid discussions, and we
sincerely appreciate them affording us that opportunity.
3 of9
1
April 6, 2021, Item #8
It should be understood that I do not represent my neighborhood in any official
capacity. The statements and opinions that ensue in this letter are my own, though
I'm confident that my neighbors would and will echo them.
Cornerstone Communities uses the slogan 11Building The American Dream 11. If this
development were ultimately to be approved as proposed, the slogan would
instead become 1'Bringing a Nightmare to Holly Oak Way and Old Poway".
There are 8 homes on Holly Oak Way. 6 of them are one-story. They sit on spacious
lots and were custom-designed and built, with great attention to detail and in total
conformity with the Old Poway Specific Plan and its design standards. With the 5
on Twin Gables Court, the 13 homes are laid out on two cul-de-sacs. I've been in
my home for nine years, and every day I marvel at my good fortune to live in a quiet
and pristine setting where the quality of life is at its finest.
Simply put, Cornerstone Communities' proposal would permanently disrupt and
destroy our tranquility, and degrade our quality of life. Were Holly Oak Way to be
extended, we would endure two years of construction and all its attendant
problems as heavy equipment, trucks, and material move through the
neighborhood. And the end result? -20 oversized two-story houses on small lots
with miniscule side setbacks. Cornerstone avers that these will be "attractive"
houses. In reality, the fronts will be Craftsman facades, with plaster on the sides
and rear. Imagine yourself living on the west side of Kent Hill Way in Ralph Taylor's
home. His "view" now becomes a 30'-high wall of plaster, with only 10' of
separation between the houses. These houses would not be attractive. They
would be a visual blight. Forgive me, but I'm reminded of the old line that you can
put lipstick on a pig, but it'll still be a pig.
By understatement, it is troubling that the developer can take a statewide statutory
scheme, the Density Bonus Law, and run roughshod over Poway's zoning
ordinances and development standards. To read the letter by Cornerstone's
attorney is to believe that "whatever waivers the developer thinks it needs to
maximize profit, the City of Poway must grant". Of course, this is all in the name of
the developer's desire to provide one "low income" housing unit among 20 that,
according to Cornerstone, will sell for $1.3M to $1.SM . In reality, this is nothing
more than "gaming the system". The word "altruism" is not in Cornerstone's
lexicon .
4of9
2
April 6, 2021, Item #8
The Agenda Report (page 2) states that, "The extension of Holly Oak Way will be a
private road that will be maintained by future residents." Really?! No mention of
a HOA or assessments. This in itself spells disaster, as the street would fall into
disrepair, to our further detriment.
I am also disturbed that, according to Cornerstone (Agenda Report, page 11), their
first design concept was prompted by Development Services: "Per direction from
the City Planning Department, the proposed neighborhood plan was designed as
an extension of Holly Oak Way." Sure wish that Development Services had reached
out to us at that time!
I do credit Cornerstone, though only in the face of " ... strong resistance from the
Holly Oak residents ... ", for proposing an alternate layout that would enter from
Twin Peaks Road and not connect to Holly Oak Way. This is a logical, reasonable,
and common sense alternative -and what I and my neighbors strongly advocate!!
None of staff's asserted "multiple traffic related reasons" should be an impediment
to Cornerstone's alternate layout of using Twin Peaks Road as the access point.
Yes, Twin Peaks is a "prime arterial street", but it has any number of existing access
points, including Kent Hill Way immediately east of the parcel. Much of the
eastbound traffic on Twin Peaks is already siphoned off onto Community Road and
Midland Road. The "blind curve" on Twin Peaks is west of Midland Rd., and about
0.2 mile or more west of the parcel. From Midland, there is a straight line-of-sight
on Twin Peaks to the parcel and as far east as Espola Road. Traffic engineering and
ana lysis can provide mitigants for traffic-related concerns, including speed limit
reductions and/or dedicated turn lan es.
Staff says a new traffic signal would not be recommended, given the parcel's
proximity to the signals at Midland Rd . and Budwin Lane. The proximity is not great
and should not preclude another traffic signal. Consider another prime arterial
street -Pomerado Road . On Pomerado near the hospital are two signal lights
within 100 yards of each other. Here, on Twin Peaks, there would be a greater
separation. Also, I remind you that when a development was proposed further east
on Twin Peaks near the Circle K, staff endorsed a new traffic·signal, notwithstanding
the very short distance to the traffic signal at Espola.
5 of9
3
April 6, 2021, Item #8
Please put yourselves in our shoes and answer aloud: If you were living on Holly
Oak Way and Twin Gables Court, would you want Holly Oak Way to be extended?
Would you want a development of this size and character to be constructed? These
are not NIMBY arguments. It is time for the McKee parcel to be developed -but in
conformity with the Old Poway Specific Plan, and in compliance with Poway zoning
ordinances and design standards -AND with access onto Twin Peaks Road!
Thank you very much for your serious consideration of this letter.
Sincerely,
ALLAN J. PRECKEL
13621 Holly Oak Way, Poway, CA 92064
Allan.Preckel@cox.net
858.382.7561
cc: Bob Manis, Director of Development Services
David DeVries, City Planner
Scott Nespor, Associate Planner
Tracy Beach, Senior Civil Engineer (Land Development)
Austin Silva, Senior Planner (Traffic Engineering)
6 of9
4
April 6, 2021, Item #8
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
ouocyuoNG
Scott Nespor; ~
Steve vaus: Barry Leonard: Cavnn frank: Dave Grosch; John Mullin; Bob Manis; David De Yries: Tracy Beach;
Austin Silva
McKEE ORCHARD HEARING OF APRIL 6, 2021
Friday, April 2, 2021 3:51:55 PM
2021-04-06 -McKEE ORCHARD oeeosmoN odf
The Honorable City Clerk
City of Poway, CA
As instructed, I am attaching my input and opposition to this proposed development for your review and
Inclusion in the minutes of the hearing set for April 6, 2021.
Respectfully,
Quoc M. Vuong
858-565-9901
7 of9 April 6, 2021, Item #8
Mr. Scott Nespor
Staff Planner,
City of Poway, CA
Snespor@poway.org
Re.: McKee Orchard
Workshop Meeting Input
April 06, 2021, 7 :00 PM
Dear Mr. Nespor
April 2, 2021
City Clerk
City of Poway, CA
cityclerk@poway.org
I am one of the thirteen ( 13) homeowners in the Diroma Estate Development having my home at 13620 Holly
Oak Way, Poway and owning it since 2004. 1 am writing to provide my input with the hope that the City of
Poway will NOT allow ingress and egress for the McKee Orchard Development via Holly Oak Way. I
concur with all of my neighbors previously submitted letters in objecting to this development and wish to
emphasize the following four ( 4) specific areas.
Briefly stated, as of January t •t, 2021, California AB 2345 expands and enhances Density Bonus Law (DBL)
Development incentives to a point where your hands are almost tied as well as ours. However if the City of
Poway wishes to preserve and enhance its Motto of a "City In the Country" it may still have a few cards left
to deal with the constraints of AB 2345.
I. PRESERVATION OF OLD GROWTH ST AND OF PINE TREES
"It is the goal of the City of Poway to preserve its natural, scenic, and cultural resources for the future
benefit and enjoyment of its residents and to protect the biological and ecological diversity."
California AB 2345 is silent about this matter and the City of Poway may elect to require that the existing
stand of old growth pine trees on the developer's lot be preserved rather than allowing the developer to cut
them down and replacing them with juvenile plants of no ecological value to the surroundings and to the
detriment of various species of birds nesting and hunting in these large old pine trees.
2. EXISTING HOMEOWNERS EXPECTATIONS
Under Policy B-Subdivision Design, strategy I states "New development should be of a density and design
compatible with surrounding existing development".
The thirteen (I 3) homeowners on Twin Gabble Co urt and on Holly Oak Way purchased their homes with
the expectation that any surrounding development(s) be of a density and design compatible with theirs.
California AB 2345 is silent on the issue of design conformity which allows the City of Poway to require any
new adjacent development be in conformity as much as possible to the existing homes on the Diroma Estate
Development. By requiring design confo rmity, the City of Poway resolves the issue of fairness to the
existing Diroma Estate homeowners as well as future homeowners of the McKee Orchard development.
8 of9 April 6, 2021, Item #8
3. McKEE ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LAYOUT
Under Policy C-Site Design strategy 1 states "The layout of the site should consider the planning of adjoining
parcels to ensure visual and functional compatibility with surrounding development."
At the present moment, Holly Oak Way is no more than six hundred (600) feet long running roughly EAST-
WEST, on the South side there are four ( 4) one-story homes and one ( 1) two-story home. On the North side
there are two (2) one-story homes and two (2) two-story homes (the Diroma Estate Development consists
of a tota l of thirteen ( 13) homes, seven (7) two-story and six (6) one-story homes varying in sizes from 1,600
to 4,200 square feet of living space). This is roughly a ratio of 55/45 two-story/lone-story.
The McKee Orchard Development has no one-story home, the developer plans to construct all twenty (20)
homes between 3,500 and 3,900 square feet of living space. There is absolutely no visual and functional
compatib il ity with the surrounding area as one walks and observes the surrounding of the first six hundred
feet of Holly Oak Way consisting of well and diversely planned homes as opposed to the proposed second
few hundred feet of the 'extended' Holly Oak Way where the proposed new and large homes are almost
identical to each other and tightly squeeze on much smaller lots with minimal front yards.
Again, California AB 2345 is silent on the issue of adjoining parcels regarding visual and functional
compatibility so that the City of Poway, in its infinite wisdom, may elect to require the developer of the
McKee Orchard development to bring visual and functional conformity to the existing homes on Holly Oak
Way so that the City of Poway may preserve its motto of a "City in the Country."
4. ISSUE OF DRAINAGE AND WATER RUNOFF
At the community meeting with the developer on January 23'\ 2021, the developer was asked about the water
runoff and the drainage issues. The developer stated that these issues have not yet been resolved. We now
learned that the 'extended' Holly Oak Way shall be a 'private road' to be maintained by future residents.
It is crucial that the City of Poway takes a critical look at the tradeoffs of 'private road' maintenance given
that a problem exists and the developer has no solution short of punting it to future owners. Without the
City's attention now, the future adverse effects to the City and to the homeowners on Holly Oak Way and
Twin Gabble Court are inevitable.
In conclusion, myself, and perhaps on behalf of many of my neighbors, I am writing to express my opposition
to extend Holly Oak Way to accommodate the McKee Orchard Development. If the stand of old pines trees
must be preserved, then the McKee Orchard developer will not be able to effectively extend Holly Oak Way,
ergo, it must find a way to use Twin Peaks Road. We are not opposed to the development of the McKee
Orchard, but rather the specifics of density, ingress, and egress. Issues 2 and 3 are not rooted in ' Not In My
Backyard' thinking, rather, on the fairness doctrine as the land owner must be able to develop its land but
in a manner congruous to the surrounding area such that existing neighboring home owners will not
experience a degradation of their home values.
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Quoc M. Vuong
13620 Holly Oak Way
Poway, CA 92064
powayhse@yahoo.com
858-565-990 I
9 of 9 April 6, 2021, Item #8