AG EN DA Poway City Council
Council Chamber I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA I 92064 April 16, 2026 I 12:00 p.m.
Special City Council Meeting I Closed Session
Thank you for participating in your local government and the City of Poway Council meetings.
Agenda Materials I This agenda contains a brief summary of each item the Council will consider.
The Special Meeting Agenda is posted 24 hours prior to the start of the City Council meeting and is available for viewing on the City's website at www.poway.org . Sign up at www.poway.org to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online.
Notice of Teleconferencing Location I Section 54953(b) of the California Government Code authorizes members of the City Council to use teleconferencing to attend a meeting, provided the agenda identifies the teleconference location. In accordance with Section 54953(b), the following location is hereby noticed as a teleconference location for Councilmember Peter De Hoff: 9500 Gilman Drive (Biomedical Sciences Building) San Diego 92093.
Speakers I Public comment is restricted to only items listed on the Special Meeting agenda. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. Please submit a Speaker's Slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or the announcement of the item. All comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. Per the Poway Municipal Code, the speaking time may be reduced.
American Disabilities Act Title II I In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Title II. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk's office 858-668-4530 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
The City Council also sits as the City of Poway Planning Commission, Poway Housing Authority, Public Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
MOMENT OF SILENCE:
PRESENTATION: None
Steve Vaus
Mayor
Jenny Maeda
Deputy Mayor
Peter De Hoff
Councilmember
Christopher J. Pikus Vacant
Councilmember Councilmember
PUBLIC COMMENT: Speakers have one opportunity to address the Council under Public Comment on any matter listed on the agenda. You may speak up to three (3) minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
STAFF REPORTS: None
WORKSHOPS: None
COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS: None
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: Pursuant to AB1234 -(G.C. 53232(d)) CITY MANAGER ITEMS:
CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS: (Including any public report of any action taken in closed session) CLOSED SESSION:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:
One (1) Case
2. Conference with Legal Counsel -Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:
One (1) Case
ADlOURNMENT:
State of California
County of San Diego
)
) ss.
)
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Poway, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that this notice of a Special meeting as called by the City Council of the City of Poway was posted and provided on April 15, 2026 at 11 :30 a.m. Said meeting to be held at 12:00 p.m., April 16, 2026, in the Poway City Council Chambers, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California. Said notice was posted on the Bulletin Board at the entrance to City Hall. 2 of 2 Special City Council Meeting April 16, 2026
111183\19350728v1 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 C Irvine, California 92612-5678 P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699 Morgan L. Gallagher 949.260.4674 [email protected] April 3, 2026
VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Alan Fenstermacher Rutan & Tucker, LLP 18575 Jamboree Rd 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Re: 13044 & 13056 Poway Road, Poway
Alan:
As you know, we represent Intracorp SoCal-1, LLC (“Intracorp”) with respect to its proposed residential project (“Project”) at 13044 & 13056 Poway Road in the City of Poway (“Property”). The Property is within the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan (“PRCSP”) area. City staff has cited to the PRCSP to impose a minimum commercial square footage on the Project, and that interpretation is unsupported by the PRCSP itself and State housing law. For the reasons below, Intracorp disagrees with, and objects to, staff’s interpretation.
The PRCSP states as follows, with the relevant provision underlined:
“Required Commercial Storefronts 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 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 buildingfrontage through the Administrative Adjustment process (Chapter 8Implementation). 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 frontproperty line.
3.Storefront Width. Individual storefronts shall not exceed 75 linear feet of sidewalk frontage.
April 16, 2026, Item #11 of 4
Alan Fenstermacher April 3, 2026
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 Property’s front property line is located along the centerline of Poway Road and there is no development within 40 feet of the front property line. In addition, there is no minimum square footage requirement in the PRCSP. As such, the Project as currently proposed is consistent with the plain text of the PRCSP above.
The City has informed Intracorp that instead of measuring from the property line, as the PRCSP clearly requires, the City intends to measure from the Project’s development boundary. This interpretation has no basis in the plain text of the PRCSP or in any other objective City standard. Imposition of the standard is therefore directly at odds with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), which limits agencies to applying only objective, written development standards. The HAA defines objective, written development standards as follows: “For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project.” (Emphasis added.) Under the HAA, “property line” must be interpreted to mean the property line, not the development boundary, and must facilitate the housing development project as proposed. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (f).)
To the extent the City is considering requiring a future dedication of the public right-of-way (thereby moving the property line), it cannot do so. Intracorp submitted a preliminary application pursuant to SB 330, which vested the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the application was submitted, including the plain language of the PRCSP quoted above.
The City’s relocation of the property line could not possibly have been known at the time the SB 330 preliminary application was submitted because it is contrary to the text of the PRCSP. As such, a future dedication to achieve the City’s goal would be inconsistent with the HAA.
April 16, 2026, Item #12 of 4
Alan Fenstermacher April 3, 2026
Based on the foregoing, there is no objective basis for the City to require the Project to expand its proposed commercial space. We thus dispute the City’s interpretation and respectfully request that the City confirm in writing that the Project can proceed with the commercial space proposed in Intracorp’s most recent plan set.
If the City fails to do so, Intracorp will submit an application for a project that incorporates affordable units under State Density Bonus Law and will utilize its mandatory concession to eliminate the alleged commercial space requirement altogether. A concession is defined under State Density Bonus Law as follows:
“For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following: (1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).”
(Gov. Code § 65915(k).) Utilizing a concession to waive the commercial requirement in the PRCSP is consistent with the plain text of Government Code Section 65915(k) and guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). (See, e.g., HCD Technical Assistance Letter to City of Larkspur (May 12, 2022) [supporting a concession to avoid ground-floor commercial requirements appearing in both General Plan and zoning regulations]; HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Santa Ana (April 27, 2023) [supporting a concession April 16, 2026, Item #13 of 4
Alan Fenstermacher April 3, 2026
where a project, although not zoned “mixed use,” would otherwise have required ground-floor commercial]; HCD Technical Assistance Letter to City of San Jose (May 20, 2022) [removal of mixed-use requirements as illustration of potential concession].)
In addition to utilizing a concession to deviate from the alleged PRCSP commercial requirement, the Project would be entitled to unlimited waivers of development standards under State Density Bonus Law, meaning the Project could unilaterally modify an unlimited number of applicable City development standards (i.e., height, setbacks, and open space). Finally, State Density Bonus Law has reduced parking standards compared to the City’s Code, with no guest parking spaces required. Intracorp would prefer to proceed with the Project as currently proposed but in the event a State Density Bonus Law project is necessary, Intracorp intends to utilize all available State Density Bonus Law benefits.
If the City wishes to have any commercial space as part of the Project, we urge the City to confirm agreement with Intracorp’s interpretation of the PRCSP commercial requirement. We would like to remind the City that there are significant penalties and fines for violations of the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i), (k)(1)(C), and (l).) In addition to attorneys’ fees, court-imposed fines for failing to comply with a court order begin at $10,000 per housing unit and could be much higher. If a court finds bad faith, there is a minimum mandatory fine of $50,000 per housing unit. Bad faith includes an action that is frivolous or otherwise entirely without merit. We believe the City’s interpretation easily meets that legal standard.
We appreciate the City’s prompt attention to this matter and look forward to receiving written confirmation that the Project may proceed as proposed. Sincerely, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Morgan L. Gallagher Partner
April 16, 2026, Item #14 of 4