M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents prov ided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the Agenda Packet for the December 16, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting) DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
December 16, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk ~r
(858) 668-4535 or [email protected]
Item 8 - Development Review 25-0001 and Tentative Tract Map 25-0001, a Request for an Additional West Village Multi-Family Building and Private Dog Park (Fairfield II) within the Town Center Land Use District of the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan located at 12947 Poway Road, (APN 317-490-68-00)
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
Assistant City Manager
1 of 10
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
Ch~Q:>
City Manager
December 16, 2025, Item #8
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
~
~
12/15/25. #8. Fairfield
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:18:40 AM
From: chris cruse <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:39 AM
To: Jenny Maeda <[email protected]>; Chris Pikus <[email protected]>; Steve Vaus <[email protected]>; Peter De Hoff <PDeHoff@poway .org>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 12/15/25. #8. Fairfield
EXTERNAL EMAIL
To: Mayor and Councilmembers
Re: Fairfield Phase 2
I am opposed to this proposed project because it doesn't fit the requirements of The Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP) The PRSP says "the continuous presence of active retail storefronts and walk-in commercial uses are imperative to establish a "main street" environment in the Town Center District. A minimum of 75% of ground-floor space along any block face shall be occupied by commercial uses."
Oof 21G
1 ) such architectural element clearly does
not appear to habitable space and 2) the
additional height of such architectural
element is reviewed through the
Development Review process (PMC
Chapter 17.52).
For any habitable building area over 35
feet pursuant to the bonus program, review
by the City Council shall be required as set
forth in Chapter 8 - Implementation.
REQUIRED COMMERCIAL STOREFRONT S
The continuous presence of active retail
storefronts and walk-in commercial uses
are imperative to establish a "main streef'
environment in the Town Center district. A
minimum of 75 percent of ground-floor
space along any block face shall be
occupied by commercial uses.
1 . Exception . Certain projects may be
allowed additional non-commercial
building frontage through the
Administrative Adjustment process
(Chapter 8 Implementation). City-
owned properties are not required to
have commercial ground-floor uses.
2. Storefront Depth. Storefronts shall be a
minimum of 40 feet deep from the front
property line.
3. Storefront Width. Individual storefronts
shall not exceed 75 linear feet of
sidewalk frontage.
4. Location of Commercial and
Residential Uses. Where commercial
storefronts are required, residential uses
shall be located above ground-floor
commercial uses or behind a
commercial building that fronts Poway
Road.
The agenda report claims that this requirement is fulfilled, but the chart erroneously included quasi public open space in the calculation of commercial space .
Quasi open public space is identified in purple on this site map from the 9/15/2020 agenda when Phase 1 of Fairfield was approved. 2 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
r---- -----·-
- I + 1 Automatic Zoom ~ J
~1Gt1Alll£D 11/l[~~ ECTIQrj
~-==============================~r
N -----------------------------0>
FAIRFIELD POWAY MIXED USE
FRH REALTY LLC
!,510 MOREHOUSE ORIVf , SUHE 200, SArl O!EGO. C l\ 9~ 121 (8SSJ 626-8) 3~
POWAY.C A
OPEN SP/,CE E,'11,H'.B!T
O,l\ ( O(l ~ ;(l
,c,,.o·:•; 11 111
AO ARCHITECTS
l ol •I NQPI IH OR ANGE ~I .. ORANG!:. CA 928U
{1l ol] 6J9 -9SW
September 15. 2020, Item #13
Erroneous and Misleading Chart from Dec 16, 2025 agenda claiming quasi public open space is a "commercial use." 75 percent of the ground floor space along any block face of Poway Road to consist of active commercial uses. Table 4 below provides analysis of the Project once consolidated with the Fairfield Poway project. which when combined, meet tl1e overall intent of the PRSP with a mixture of commercial and public spaces:
Table 4 - Commercial Ground Floor Block Face Percentages 1\~4 t '. - : ·, 'Location · Commercial?:,..:.,, Block Face Lfnear Footagellill Perce. g Buildings 1 & 2 Fairfield Poway Yes 368 100
Public Tot-Park/ OutdooI· Seating Public Amenity 140 100 Fairfield Poway PRSP 4-6 & 4-30
The Project No 150 0
The Project & Fairfield Poway Mixed 658 77.2
A1.4
Only 368 linear ft of the total block face of 658 linear feet is designated as commercial. And 0% of that is active commercial, but assuming they did get tenants at some time, only 56%, or slightly over half of it would be an active commercial use.
The Poway Road says it is IMPERATIVE that there be a" continuous presence of active retail storefronts and walk-in commercial uses". If it is imperative, you must deny this project as it would destroy the possibility of creating a viable town center district. »
In addition to failing to meet the 75% active commercial ground floor block face criteria, the project contributes nothing towards the goals of the specific plan:
a. Create a distinct and vibrant Town Center District. Nope, it is turning formerly active commercial area into a CACM residential district, all Condos And Cars And
Apartments.
b. Increasing Mix of Uses. Nope it's all CACM. Condos And Cars And Apartments No real mix of commercial and residential. 3 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
c. Implementing Complete Streets. It's totally car-centric. Nothing multi-modal about it. The people who live there will use their car to get everywhere. The sidewalks are too narrow for be people to walk side-by-side. d. Facilitating and incentivizing the right kind of development. No again. There is no highly attractive retail development that is increasing the tax base with this additional apartment house. f. Connecting the Poway Rd Corridor. There is no new pedestrian or bicycle connectivity from this new apartment house . The sidewalk ends abruptly and does not even connect to anything in Phase One. g. Diversifying Housing. This is the biggest failure. ALL of the new housing built on Poway Rd is above moderate income except for the yellow senior housing and some units at the former Outpost Project. Fairfield already built over 200 luxury apartments and opted out of the required inclusionary housing requirement by paying a paltry $500 per unit. None of the proposed 16 units will be affordable housing and none of them will help Poway meet RHNA requirements. We cannot waste space that has been rezoned to meet RHNA requirements by building more luxury apartments. There is no way to meet the "mix" of housing needed for moderate income, and below moderate income families with the current incentives .
Instead of approving this project, I suggest that the planning department work on an incentive program that would actually create a true town center district that does meet the goals of the Poway Road Specific Plan.
Sincerely,
Chris Cruse
PS I sincerely hope the council does not allow the Director of Development services to use the loophole and approve an exception via a secret administrative process.
4 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
From: Michelle Lona
To: Qr£...Qe.ds; Kevin Parker: Jenny Maeda: Peter De Hoff: Steve Vaus: Chris Pikus Subject: Item 8 - DR 25-0001 & TTM 25-0001, Request for Additional West Village Multi-Family Bldg & Private Dog Park (Fairfield II) within TC Land Use District of PRSP 12947 Poway Rd Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 6:46:28 PM
I You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important EXTER.1'\JAL EMAJl
Hello Poway Council,
My name is Michelle Long, and I have been a resident of Poway for 31 years. I moved from the Sycamore Creek neighborhood to Poway Commons, purchasing a townhome in the complex facing Community Park. We decided to move forward with knowledge of the Poway Road corridor-specific plan details and vision. My comments today are in regard to the addition of another building in the West Village apartment complex.
1. The setback for the existing buildings and the future building from the street appears to be too close to allow for the full implementation of the Poway Road plan. One example is that the Poway Road plan calls for an 8-foot-wide Class IV cycle track on both sides of Poway Road.
A consistent complaint I have heard from Poway residents and others is that the large buildings are too close to the road.
2. Private developers are supposed to "Activate Pedestrian Zone" along the ground floor frontages by requiring setback areas for landscaping, private open space, and or outdoor dining. Please ensure the developer provides space for a pedestrian zone.
3. The city provides a residential density and height incentive bonus to developers who provide community benefits. It would seem the huge apartment complex met the benefit requirement by providing a public open space in the form of a "playground" on Poway Road. I pass the "playground" several times a day and have not seen anyone using the open space.
Who wants children playing adjacent to busy, busy Poway Road? A private dog park may also stand unused.
4. The TC land use district requires a minimum of 75 percent of the ground floor space along any block face of Poway Road to consist of active commercial uses. The new building will provide no new commercial space, and instead relies on combining the existing empty commercial space to meet the overall intent of the PRSP with a mixture of commercial and public spaces. It appears no additional commercial space is being provided with the new building. Converting empty commercial space to an event space should not meet the requirement, even if it is better than nothing. It still doesn't meet the plan and shouldn't be signed off. Let's hold the developer to the plan's standard! 5 In the plan, one community benefit was a restaurant row. The commercial spaces in the existing apartment buildings are standing empty. We bought into the vision that there would be actual restaurants, cafes, and outdoor seating, but we have not seen any built. I don't agree the developer should be "off the hook" for getting commercial tenants by simply renting an "event space."
I have some additional comments about the Poway Road corridor-specific plan. 5 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
I. The implementation action plan has a requirement to "Monitor Maximum Allowable Development (Residential Housing Bank)". The city is to publish the amount of residential development that occurs by unit and percentage of the Residential Housing Bank entitled. The public should know these numbers as additional projects are proposed.
2. There is a requirement in the plan to "Revisit Maximum Allowable Development" residential housing bank once 50 percent has been depleted or every five years to determine whether adjustments are warranted. The revisit should have happened in 2022. Is there a record of that review by the City Council? Poway residents should see these numbers published before another building is approved.
3. The plan says to "construct plazas in partnership with private developers." I did not see any new plazas associated with the new building.
4. The plan has a requirement to develop and implement an internal street between Civic Center Drive and Carriage Heights Way in conjunction with the private development of catalytic sites. Where is the internal street planned to be located? The builder did not build a street. The city development department did not require the builder to follow the plan.
There are many other plans for the corridor that have not yet happened. I encourage the city council to diligently follow the plan because private developers and city residents are making serious investment decisions based on the 2017 plan being executed.
Sincerely,
Michelle Long
13091 Olympus Cr. Unit 3
Poway, CA
619-990-2805
6 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
GREGORY PAYNE
~
Item number 8
Saturday, December 13, 2025 5:27:01 AM
I You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important EXr •RN EIVIAJL
Please do not approve the Fairfield 2 apartment house expansion as it does not fit the Poway Road specific plan and is not what was agreed upon.
I appreciate your consideration .
Greg Payne
13862 Temple St
Poway CA 92064
7 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
EXTERNAL EMAI L
[email protected]
Couocilmembers; ~
vsprjnqett9@cs com
No to Fairfield"s newest proposal
Friday, December 12, 2025 3:20:17 PM
imaaeoo3.ona
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
In this month's Poway Living magazine, Mayor Steve Vaus wrote about Poway's incorporation.
He reminded us that "we'd grow, yes, but on our own terms ... From the very beginning, our residents embraced an idea that is as strong today as it was at incorporation: Poway would be the "City in the Country." That phrase wasn't just a slogan. It was a promise-a promise to value open space, to preserve our rural roots, and to build a community where neighbors know each other's names. And it's a promise we've kept."
I sincerely appreciate our parks, our trails, our open space, and our community events. But I am honestly dumbfounded by the type of residential housing that is being allowed-and continues to be proposed-in Poway's Town Center. There seems to be absolutely no respect for the existing residents surrounding this area, and no meaningful commitment to the vision that the Poway Road Specific Plan requires .
We talk about mixed-use spaces that could bring together residential and commercial areas to create a vibrant urban center for Poway. Many people paid top dollar for newer homes - anticipating a walkable, thriving Town Center filled with restaurants, coffee shops, and other commercial ventures. But what are we seeing now? More and more dense residential development stacked directly on top of Poway Road. And none of this reflects the promise made at incorporation.
I fully understand that growth and development will occur along Poway Road. But what happened to "our own terms"? The City Council has the ability right now to reduce building heights and to increase setback requirements along the corridor. Why not do so immediately, to preserve the integrity and beauty of our city?
And why not mandate that some of these developments remain commercial (as previously zoned) so that true retail-restaurants, cafes, and local shops-can thrive? That requires adequate parking for customers. It is no surprise that the commercial space in the Fairfield project is not being utilized. There is simply no parking for customers. You cannot create a "restaurant row" without parking. It doesn't work.
Why don't we have a planning commission asking these very basic questions? And why isn't the council/planning department/development services suggesting solutions that enhance our community rather than filling developer pockets with market-rate housing? I understand making exceptions for affordable housing, but very little of what has been built includes 8 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
affordable units.
It's time to set the rules-and to say no when projects do not align with Poway's values. Please give clear directions to Development Services that we welcome growth, we welcome new housing, and we welcome new commercial spaces. But it must be done responsibly, and it must enhance the beauty and identity of our city. Let's set the rules-and share those rules with developers early on-so they understand exactly what Poway stands for and what Poway will protect.
And that is why I am urging you today: say NO to Fairfield's proposed new project. It does not reflect our community's vision, it does not follow the spirit of the Poway Road Specific Plan, and it does not honor the promise of "City in the Country." Please feel free to include in next weeks agenda package.
Thank you.
Vanessa Springett
13331 Tining Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Cell 858-722-5626
For business related emails, please be sure to cc my business partner, [email protected] To upload PDF documents to Avalon's secure share site, please use link below. Please be sure that no symbols (& $ % : ") exist in file names before sending.
click here
6J£ir»-Ja {itforb17cjeft
Cell 858-722-5626
Heidi and Vanessa with Avalon Mortgage Corp
Shared Direct Line: 858-625-8533
Fax: 858-554-0517
Please notify us if sending fax so that we may confirm receipt.
Vanessa cell 858-722-5626
Heidi cell 858-774-5108
Kindly cc us both with any texts and/or emails for work related correspondence.
Avalon Mortgage Corp
6333 Greenwich Drive, Ste 220
9 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8
San Diego, CA 92122
www.AvalonLoanTeam.com
DRE 01192534
NMLS 252171
The information contained in this electronic communications is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized by the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the contents of this email transmission or the taking or omission of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto is prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately of your receipt of this message by email and destroy this communication, any attachments, and all copies thereof. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. 10 of 10 December 16, 2025, Item #8