From: Irene Patton
To: Steve Vaus; Peter De Hoff; Chris Pikus; [email protected] Subject: Intracorp Home Project
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:49:28 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Poway Leaders,
I am currently learning more about the Town-home development (Intracorp Home Project) that is being considered for Poway Road. I am very concerned that not all of the City's requirements (which you know much better than I do) will be adhered to as you determine the future of this project.
I have been a resident of Poway for more than 30 years and often brag (to friends and family) about how well run this city is; and have often communicated this directly to the various City departments over the years.
I hope that I will be able to continue to believe this as you consider our City's future, especially along the already congested Poway Road.
Sincerely,
Irene Patton
From: Dale Davis
To: Chris Pikus; Steve Vaus; City Clerk; Peter De Hoff
Subject: I oppose the construction of the 47 townhomes on Poway Road up for council approval this evening, Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:10:41 AM
Attachments: image.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
I could support this project if:
...there were 1.5 or more parking places for each unit (72 spaces) ...the construction followed the Poway Plan
...20% or more of the units met the affordable unit guidelines followed by San Francisco
Dale & Lynn Davis
Green Valley Residences since 1971
From: Ellen Pilsecker
To: Steve Vaus; Peter De Hoff; Chris Pikus; Jenny Maeda; City Clerk Subject: Intracorp Homes Project on Poway Road
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:10:44 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
My name is Ellen Lair. I live on La Venta Drive in Poway. I drive on Poway Road regularly.
I strongly oppose the Intracorp Homes Project. Poway Road is already overburdened with traffic. Adding 47 townhomes directly on Poway Road will add to the congestion and delays that already exist.
Please consider the needs of your constituents. Vote no on this project.
From: Nancy Littrell
To: City Clerk
Subject: Poway Resident against more housing on Poway Road Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:03:25 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
EXTERNAL EMAIL
As a resident of Poway since Poway became a city, I am so so disappointed to see the high rise buildings on Poway Road right next to the road. We used to be the City in the Country. Please, please do not vote for more apartments on Poway Road. Enough is enough. I image we have reached the quota for low income housing.
Nancy Littrell
Poway Resident for over 50 years.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
From: JACQUELINE LOCKHART
To: Steve Vaus; Peter De Hoff; Chris Pikus; Jenny Maeda; City Clerk Subject: RE: 2/17/2026 council meeting #8
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:34:06 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear City Council,
I'm writing regarding the proposed "Town Center" development on Poway Road. Please do not approve another townhome/condo development on Poway Road. There are already too many ugly multi-family developments on Poway Road, which is turning Poway into another UTC or Mira Mesa. You promised more shopping and restaurants. Instead, you've turned Poway Road into a parking lot during rush hour, while taking away parking spots for the hundreds of housing units. There are many other areas to build housing that won't negatively impact the standard of living of Poway.
Thank you,
Jacqueline Lockhart
From: Alison Bell
To: Peter De Hoff
Cc: Chris Pikus; Jenny Maeda; Steve Vaus; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Agenda item #8
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:04:33 PM
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Councilmember De Hoff,
Thank you for your response and for taking the time to address my concerns. I appreciate the dialogue and would like to seek clarification on several points you presented to better understand how the City ensures that approved projects remain consistent with adopted plans, legal requirements, and long-term community interests.
PRSP Consistency and Project Viability: You noted that there is a degree of leeway to ensure project viability. Could you please identify the specific sections of the PRSP that authorize deviations from stated land-use or development requirements for reasons of viability, and whether any objective criteria are used to determine when such deviations are appropriate? Understanding how this discretion is guided would be very helpful. The Specific Plan states it is intended to guide development through standards, regulatory tools, and implementation actions.
Commercial Component of the Project: My concern extends beyond whether tenants are secured prior to approval to whether the required commercial component will ultimately be delivered, maintained, and functionally viable over time. If substitutions such as home-office uses are considered, could you clarify how the City determines whether those alternatives provide equivalent economic, service, or community benefits compared to traditional commercial uses contemplated by the PRSP?
The Vision Framework emphasizes a coordinated mix of retail, office, and residential uses intended to create an economically vibrant Town Center. I would appreciate clarification on how potentially substituting home-office uses fulfills that objective. Based on my reading of the Town Center objectives, purely residential or quasi-commercial substitutions would appear inconsistent with that intent.
Additionally, if commercial viability is cited as a reason to reduce commercial uses, this would seem to create tension with the Plan’s stated purpose of establishing an active commercial corridor. The current proposal replaces an existing commercial building with predominantly residential development and only three relatively small commercial units, which raises questions regarding long-term commercial sustainability.
Project Modifications and Accountability: Your response suggests that you are projecting that you may be unaware of developers misrepresenting plans. It may be prudent to take stock in whatever publicly available documents and court judgements are at your disposal connected to recent development in Poway. In turn, perhaps refer back to your ghost website in the event that this topic was touched upon.
Could you describe the mechanisms the City uses to ensure that approved projects are built substantially in conformance with what was presented to the public and decision-makers, particularly when market conditions change?
Relatedly, are there objective standards used by the City to distinguish between minor and major modifications to approved projects? Many jurisdictions employ measurable thresholds, such as percentage changes in density, land-use mix, or site design to guide such determinations. When I previously raised this concept years ago, no such quantitative mechanism appeared to exist, and I would be interested to know whether that has changed.
Authority for a Temporary Pause: Regarding the possibility of pausing approvals, my understanding is that California Government Code §65858 allows for temporary moratoria under certain findings and conditions. Has the City evaluated whether a limited or targeted approach of this kind could be used, if necessary, to review plan consistency, infrastructure capacity, or implementation safeguards?
Affordable Housing and RHNA Compliance: You mentioned that the project appears to comply with at least one category of the RHNA allocation. To better understand this, could you clarify how the project contributes to Poway’s RHNA obligations in categories that have not been met or exceeded already? It is my understanding that market rate housing objectives have been exceeded.
The agenda materials indicate that the project site was previously identified as having capacity for affordable units, instead there appears to be in its place an option for the identification of replacement sites. I would appreciate clarification on how relocating this capacity affects the City’s ability to produce units within the planning period and maintain compliance with State housing requirements. Replacement sites do not guarantee production within the planning period.
Housing Element Compliance: Given the State’s increasing scrutiny of Housing Element implementation, I would appreciate information on how the City is tracking progress toward its RHNA targets and ensuring that approved projects are likely to produce units within the planning period rather than relying on theoretical capacity alone.
As stated in my initial email, my intent is not to oppose development outright. Rather, I hope to better understand how the City objectively balances growth with adherence to adopted plans, accountability, and protection of residents’ long-term quality of life and property interests.
Thank you again for your time. I would welcome any documentation, reports, or references that could help clarify these matters.
Alison Park
On Feb 16, 2026, at 1:07 PM, Peter De Hoff <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Alison,
Thanks for reaching out. Please see my interspersed comments in blue.
The Intracorp project as it is proposed does not fulfill or follow the PRSP That is possible, however, as it is written, along with some hard lines that I don't think can be crossed, there is a fair amount of leeway granted in the PRSP to the Development Services Department to ensure project viability. or the affordable housing as per the housing element.
I am not sure this is true. I understand the project to comply with at least one of the classes of the RHNA allocation and there is contractual language to ensure compliance in other parts.
In turn, if Intracorp have been unable to secure the commercial areas with tenants that should not equate to being given a pass or exception by bypassing requirements to shift to home offices as some kind of qualified substitute nor should the lack of commercial fulfillment mean its okay to just keep moving forward. That commercial aspect should be addressed.
For a project of this size, I think it is an unreasonable requirement to have signed agreements for residential and/or commercial occupancy of a site prior to the legislative approval of the construction. This is perhaps one of the many reasons why this type of requirement is absent in the PRSP. IIRC, the PRSP calls for a mix of commercial uses. I agree that the commercial part of a mixed use project is very important and there is language in the contract part of the item that addresses this. I understand that language was generated based on learnings surrounding the Fairfield project. Should you wish to review the language, it is present in the published agenda item.
In my view, I believe that the only reasonable move at this time would be to take a pause on approving projects,
I am fairly certain that a building moratorium is against state law. review the PRSP and other project in the pipeline to ensure that there are protective mechanism that prevent developers from misrepresenting plans to only later asking for modifications due to their miscalculations on market viability or financial constraint’s.
With the exception of the Paseo project using state bonus density laws to change the layout post approval, I am unaware of such a thing having occurred in the PRSP. Any developer can use the state bonus density laws to bypass most local requirements.
I am not anti development. I am against projects that do not have mechanisms of accountability or that allow for subjective discretion for modifications due to their miscalculations city not having an objective quantitative chart that defines clearly what is a minor vs major modification. For example: any modification per a standard chart that exceeds a 10% change would be a significant modification.
Can you point to a project that meets the standards you have enumerated? This will also give the city time to tell the public their plan for not becoming non compliant with the housing element.
I appreciate you concern in this regard, however, I do not see maintaining compliance with its housing element to be a challenge for Poway at this time.
Best,
Peter De Hoff
| Councilmember
City of Poway | Legislative Services Department
(858) 668-4523
[email protected]
From: Alison Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 11:59 AM
To: Steve Vaus <[email protected]>; Jenny Maeda <[email protected]>; Chris Pikus <[email protected]>; Peter De Hoff <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item #8
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Greetings to all,
I have concerns about a potential pattern with development in recent times. Other cities require that certain benchmarks be met before being allow to move forward with projects. However, I interpret that in this city there seems to be a lack of developer/ builder follow through and modifications that do not align with prior requirements seem to be considered and often times approved. I do not see any mechanisms or oversight that protects the financial property interests or quality of life of residents.
As an example : The Farm is incomplete despite residents of that community paying for amenities. The club parcel’s current proposed plan, like Measure H does not fulfill the Specific Plan and from what I have read, modifications are being asked that include but are not limited to erasing the covenant that legally is in place.
The Intracorp project as it is proposed does not fulfill or follow the PRSP or the affordable housing as per the housing element. In turn, if Intracorp have been unable to secure the commercial areas with tenants that should not equate to being given a pass or exception by bypassing requirements to shift to home offices as some kind of qualified substitute nor should the lack of commercial fulfillment mean its okay to just keep moving forward. That commercial aspect should be addressed.
In my view, I believe that the only reasonable move at this time would be to take a pause on approving projects, review the PRSP and other project in the pipeline to ensure that there are protective mechanism that prevent developers from misrepresenting plans to only later asking for modifications due to their miscalculations on market viability or financial constraint’s.
I am not anti development. I am against projects that do not have mechanisms of accountability or that allow for subjective discretion for modifications due to their miscalculations city not having an objective quantitative chart that defines clearly what is a minor vs major modification. For example: any modification per a standard chart that exceeds a 10% change would be a significant modification.
In closing, I would like to see a pause on project approval to include the pause on approval of the Intracorp Project so that the city can set up an objective quantitative approach that includes taking meaningful reflection on the intent of the PRSP and if that vision is being fulfilled or bypassed. This will also give the city time to Tell the public their plan for not becoming non compliant with the housing element.
Thank you,
Alison Park
Sent from my iPhone
From: cynthia brmarketing.com
To: City Clerk
Subject: Intracorp Project on Poway Road
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:18:05 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Please consider stopping this project –
There is not enough parking
Violates Poway Rd. Specific plan
Fails to provide affordable housing
Thank you,
Cynthia Rhine
Even if we disagree about everything, we can still be kind to each other.
From: L V
To: Councilmembers; City Clerk
Subject: RE: 2/17/26 Poway City Council meeting #8
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 7:19:28 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Poway City Council,
I am emailing to voice dissent for more housing along Poway Rd.
I have been a Poway resident since 1997, and feel the recently completed housing projects in Poway have had such a negative impact on all aspects of life here. Dense, vertical housing has brought congestion, overcrowding, and decreased quality of life for residents.
The purpose of the CIty Council should be to advocate for current Powegians and follow our existing plan. More housing along Poway Rd flies in the face of that, and further stresses Poway’s infrastructure.
I applaud the recent decision to preserve open space and ask that future housing projects be viewed through the same lens.
The opportunity to weigh in on this matter and ensure my voice is heard is very appreciated.
Thanks so much,
Leslie Vanslager
From: Taylor Wilsey
To: City Clerk; Jenny Maeda; Chris Pikus; Peter De Hoff; Steve Vaus Subject: RE: 2/17/26 council meeting #8
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 7:34:05 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Poway to express my strong opposition to the proposed construction of yet another condominium development in our city.
Over the past several years, Poway has seen a steady increase in high-density housing projects, yet we continue to lack the restaurants, gathering spaces, and commercial amenities that make a community vibrant and economically sustainable. Many residents have consistently voiced the need for more quality dining options, locally owned businesses, and thoughtfully planned commercial spaces that serve families and strengthen our local economy.
Approving additional condo projects without balancing them with meaningful commercial development places strain on infrastructure while failing to enhance quality of life. Housing growth should be aligned with expanded retail, dining, and community-oriented spaces—not driven primarily by developer interests.
It is the responsibility of the City of Poway to represent and uphold the expectations of its residents. The priority should be creating a well-rounded, livable city that reflects the needs and desires of the people who call Poway home—not simply approving projects that maximize developer profit.
i respectfully urge you to reconsider further high-density residential approvals and instead focus on attracting restaurants, small businesses, and commercial investment that will truly benefit our community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Taylor Wilsey
From: Laura Zeaman
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Town Center
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 6:16:15 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Zeaman <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Town Center
To: <[email protected]
>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Zeaman <[email protected]
>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Town Center
To: <[email protected]
>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Zeaman <[email protected]
>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: Town Center
To: <[email protected]
>
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Zeaman <[email protected]
>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 6:14 PM
Subject: Town Center
To: <[email protected]
>
What we don’t want or need in Poway is more commercial building. You, the council, hasn’t given us what was promised, and I see no reason to expect anything but that from you. You’ve done enough to take the country out of Poway.
Laura Zeaman