M 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 July 21, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting) DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
July 21, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk ~
(858) 668-4535 or [email protected]
Item 14 - Development Review 25-0002 and Tentative Tract Map 25-0002, a Request to Construct 47 Townhomes and Four Ground-Floor Commercial Spaces within the Town Center Land Use District of the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan Located at 13044 and 13056 Poway Road (APNs 31-7-101-04 and 317-101-05); and Determine the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline. proved By:
tevens
Assistant City Manager
1 of 20
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Chris Hazeltine
City Manager
July 21, 2026, Item #14
From:
To:
Lisa Dumolt
~
Subject:
Date:
Agenda attachment DR 25-0002/TTM 25-0002, Intracorp Homes, 13044 & 13056 Poway Road Monday, July 20, 2026 2: 15: 18 PM
Attachments: Item 14 - DR 25--0002 & TIM 25--0002. Request to Construct 47 Townhomes & 4 Ground-Floor Commercial Spaces within TC Land Use District of PRSP. CEOA Exempt.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important -Xl" - RNAL -MA IL.
City Clerk's Office,
Please find attached my written public comment for the record regarding Item #14 on the July 21, 2026, City Council agenda (DR 25-0002rTTM 25-0002, lntracorp Homes, 13044 & 13056 Poway Road).
I would appreciate confirmation that this has been received and will be included in the record for the meeting. Please let me know if any additional information or format is needed.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Lisa DuMolt
District 3, City of Poway
2 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
July 20, 2026
Honorable Mayor Steve Vaus and Members of the City Council City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Re: Public Comment for the Record - Item #14, July 21, 2026 City Council Agenda - DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 (lntracorp Homes, 13044 & 13056 Poway Road) Dear Mayor Vaus and Councilmembers:
I am a District 3 resident submitting this letter for the public record in connection with tonight's hearing on Item #14. Over the past several weeks I reviewed the primary approval records for three Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan (PRSP) projects - the Fairfield Poway Mixed-Use development (PDC 20-002, September 2020), the Poway Commons mixed-use development (TTM 19-005/DR 19-004, December 2019), and the lntracorp project before you tonight - along with the lntracorp project file materials produced to date under a pending California Public Records Act request. This letter summarizes what that record shows. I support approval of the project as proposed, and I respectfully raise two questions I ask the Council and staff to address on the record, and one recommendation concerning the Specific Plan itself.
1. Summary Position
I support approval of DR 25-0002/TTM 25-0002. The project's density and setbacks conform to, and in the case of setbacks substantially exceed, the requirements of the PRSP's Town Center (TC) land use district. The record of negotiation between the applicant and staff since the November 2024 Pre-Development Conference shows meaningful improvement to the project's commercial component. I raise the two questions below not to oppose approval, but because they bear on obligations the Council and the public should have clearly in view when the vote is taken.
2. What the Corridor Record Shows: Density Is Not the Issue A common public concern about this corridor, one I initially shared, is that redevelopment has exceeded what the PRSP allows. The approval record does not support that concern for any of the three projects reviewed:
Project Approved/Propose PRSP Ceiling Primary Density/Height Mechanism d Density
Fairfield (PDC 33.33 du/ac; 220 35 du/ac (TC, 3 Local PRSP incentive tier (lot 20-002) units community benefits) consolidation + community benefits); City Council approval
3 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
Poway Commons 16.41 du/ac; 141 24 du/ac by right (35 Below by-right ceiling overall; (DR 19-004) units with incentives) senior/affordable component used State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915)
lntracorp (DR 22.8 du/ac; 47 units 24 du/ac by right Below by-right ceiling; Tier 1 height 25-0002) incentive only (3 stories/38 ft. via lot
consolidation)
In each case, overall project density is at or below the ceiling this Council's own 2017 plan established. The lntracorp project before you tonight conforms to every Table 2 development standard in tonight's staff report, including a rear setback of 39 feet against a 15-foot minimum and a front residential setback of 20 feet against a 10-foot minimum. I raise this because it is material to my second point: where this corridor's outcomes have diverged from public expectations, the cause has not been excess density, but the treatment of ground-floor commercial space under State Density Bonus Law and under the PRSP's own drafting.
3. The Density Bonus Alternative Was Never Filed
Public discussion of this project, including District 3 Councilmember DeHoffs July 3, 2026 newsletter, has focused on a choice between a PRSP-compliant version and a State Density Bonus Law alternative. Records produced to date under my pending Public Records Act request clarify the status of that alternative:
• The Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) preliminary application for this project, submitted September 3, 2024, answers "No" to the question of whether the applicant would seek Density Bonus Law incentives, waivers, concessions, or parking reductions under Government Code § 65915, and reports zero affordable units and zero density bonus units. • A letter from the applicant's counsel dated April 3, 2026 (produced as Attachment E to tonight's staff report, and in full through the Public Records Act request) states that if the City did not approve the project's commercial square footage as proposed, the applicant would file a project under State Density Bonus Law and "utilize its mandatory concession to eliminate the alleged commercial space requirement altogether," in addition to unlimited waivers of height, setback, and open space standards, and reduced parking with no guest parking required.
No density bonus application has been filed. Tonight's report reflects extensive negotiation between staff and the applicant following that April 2026 letter: ground-floor commercial square footage increased from 1,407 to 2,830 square feet, commercial frontage coverage increased from 80 to 100 percent, ceiling heights in the commercial spaces were raised, and a fourth commercial space was added. I raise this not to characterize the April letter, which reflects rights the applicant holds under current law, but to note for the record that both parties' filed conduct over nearly two years reflects a preference for the version before the Council tonight. I understand that under the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5), denial of a project that conforms to objective, written standards is subject to strict limitations, and that a denial vulnerable to reversal risks statutory fines and attorneys' fees while likely producing, on this record, a less favorable outcome for the corridor than the project as proposed.
4 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
4. Question for the Record: Replacement Affordable Housing Capacity Tonight's staff report states that the project site is identified as Sites 12 and 13 in the City's Residential Sites Inventory (Table 4.5 of the Housing Element), with potential to accommodate 50 affordable units (18 low-income, 32 very-low income), and that the applicant is required to fund identification of a replacement site or sites and an update to the Sites Inventory within 180 days, consistent with state law.
I ask that the Council direct staff to clarify, on the record, two related points: first, which parcels are under consideration as replacement sites, and whether staff has assessed whether such sites would satisfy the adequacy criteria the California Department of Housing and Community Development applies to Housing Element site inventories (including sufficient zoned density, realistic developability, and, where a site is already occupied, a reasonable expectation of turnover); and second, how much remaining lower-income capacity exists elsewhere in the Sites Inventory to absorb this and similar conversions as additional Town Center parcels are developed as market-rate housing. I raise this because the City's obligation to maintain an adequate sites inventory under state housing element law is a standing, cumulative obligation across the corridor, not a matter resolved project by project, and because I understand that Poway's limited capacity to rezone land outside the PRSP area for higher density - given voter-approval requirements under Proposition FF for other residential land - may narrow the City's options for identifying adequate replacement sites over time.
5. Recommendation: Deliver the Directed PRSP Standards Report I understand this Council has previously directed staff to examine potential amendments to PRSP development standards, and that this report has not yet been returned to Council. I respectfully request that the Council direct staff to complete and return this report promptly, and that its scope include clarification of the following provisions, each of which has produced ambiguity or dispute in corridor projects to date:
• Measurement of the commercial storefront standard. The applicant's counsel's April 3, 2026 letter identifies a dispute over whether the PRSP's 40-foot commercial storefront depth requirement is measured from the recorded property line (which for this site extends to the centerline of Poway Road) or from the project's development boundary. The PRSP does not appear to define this term, and the ambiguity was cited as a basis for potential Housing Accountability Act liability.
• "Commercially supportive space." Tonight's staff report calculates the project's conformance with the PRSP's stated 6,300 square-foot commercial goal for this site by including outdoor courtyard, patio, and commercial setback areas (a combined 3,270 square feet) alongside leasable commercial building area (2,830 square feet), for a stated total of 6,100 square feet. I do not raise this to dispute the value of well-designed outdoor space adjacent to commercial uses, which may in fact benefit the businesses involved; I raise it because the term does not appear to be defined in the PRSP, and an objective definition would allow the public and future applicants to evaluate conformance consistently.
5 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
• City-owned property exemption. The PRSP's commercial storefront requirement expressly exempts city-owned properties from the ground-floor commercial use requirement. Given that this provision applied to at least one major corridor site developed on City-owned land, I ask that the Council consider whether this exemption should be revisited as part of the same review.
raise these as drafting matters within the Council's clear authority to address, and not as a request to reduce the corridor's planned capacity, which I understand would raise separate and significant issues under the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) and the City's Housing Element obligations.
6. Conclusion
I appreciate the time City staff and the applicant have invested in the negotiated project before the Council tonight, and I support its approval. I ask that the Council direct staff to respond on the record to the replacement-site question above, and I respectfully request that the previously directed PRSP standards report be completed and returned to Council with the scope described in Section 5. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa DuMolt
District 3, City of Poway
6 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Caylin Frank
Carrie Gallagher
Sarah Klaustermeier
Letter of Support for Item 14
Monday, July 20, 2026 12:03:06 PM
image.png
image.png
Poway Road Specific Plan Support. 7-20-26.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this i~ important E., rERNAL EiVIA ll.,
Hi Carrie,
Please accept this letter of support from our CEO for tomorrow night's item 14.
Thank you!
BUILOIIIG INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
----•OiS.V/OlfGOCOUIHY
7 of20
Caylin Frank
Legislative Affairs Manager
Building Industry Association of San Diego
County
9201 Spectrum Center Blvd #1 JO
San Diego , CA 92123
760-473-2065 (cell)
1v1vw.biasandi ego .nrg
July 21, 2026, Item #14
BUILOl lG lt'OUSTRY ASSOCIATION
---- u•·. •-•1: ,
July 20, 2026
Mayor Vaus and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of San Diego County, I am writing to express our strong support for the Poway Road Specific Plan and the City's efforts to revitalize this important corridor through projects like the proposed development at 13044 Poway Road.
The Poway Road Specific Plan represents a thoughtful and forward-looking framework that has already begun to spur much-needed housing production while creating new opportunities for businesses, residents, and investment. By encouraging a mix of uses and higher-quality development, the PRSP positions Poway for a stronger long-term economic future and supports the creation of housing options that can help address the region's ongoing affordability crisis.
In that spirit, we strongly support projects-such as 13044 and 13056 Poway Road-that are consistent with and implemented pursuant to the Poway Road Specific Plan guidelines and advance the plan's stated goals for housing, economic development, and corridor revitalization.
Approved specific plans are intended to provide certainty for the community, elected officials, and property owners alike.
Continued adherence to the Poway Road Specific Plan, along with the City's certified Housing Element, will be essential for Poway to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations and remain in compliance with state housing law. Doing so will help Poway deliver on its housing commitments, strengthen its local economy, and provide greater housing opportunities for current and future residents.
Thank you for your leadership and for your continued commitment to planning for Poway's future. We look forward to working with the City as these efforts move forward .
Sincerely,
qtu<#
Aimee Faucett
President & CEO
Building Industry Association of San Diego County
8 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
July 13, 2026 RECEIVED
RE: Project DR25-0002 & TTM25-0002 47, 3-Story Townhomes (lntracor ~~L 1 5 2026
CITY OF POWAY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Dear Members of the Poway City Council,
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed townhome development at 13044 & 13056 Poway Road and respectfully ask the City Council to vote against approving this project.
Our family lives just a few blocks away on the hillside overlooking this area. We chose to make Poway our home because it has always felt different from the rest of San Diego County.
It has maintained a small-town feel ~ . and that's something many of us value deeply.
What concerns us most is that this would be the third major residential development within about a two-mile stretch of Poway Road in just the past three years . While each project is considered on its own, the reality for those of us who live here is that we experience the combined impact of all of them.
Traffic on Poway Road has already become noticeably worse. During rush hour, getting through this corridor can be frustrating, and it's only getting more congested as additional housing is built. Adding more townhomes will bring even more cars onto roads that already feel stretched . We don't believe this project reflects the current capacity of our infrastructure or the direction many residents want to see Poway heading.
We're also concerned about the impact construction will have on nearby neighborhoods. A project of this size means months of heavy equipment , truck traffic, noise, dust, and disruption. While construction is temporary, the effects on residents are very real and we've already been experiencing the noise and disruption for the past few years consistently.
More than anything, we're concerned about what Poway is becoming. We understand that growth is inevitable, but should not come at the expense of the character that makes the city special. Poway has always been known as "The City in the Country." That identity is slowly being chipped away as more high-density developments are approved.
We respectfully ask the Council to consider the cumulative impact these recent developments are having on traffic, infrastructure, and the identity of our community. We do not believe this project is in the best interest of Poway or the residents who already call it home, and we urge you to deny this proposal.
Thank you for your time and for representing the residents of Poway.
Sincerely, [~
Trey & Cassidy Hornberger £. ;~
13065 Tuscarora Drive, Poway, CA 920~
9 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
From: Michelle Long
To: Jenny Maeda: Chris Pikus: CitY...Qer!s; Steve Vaus: peter De Hoff; Anita Edmondson: Mary Piscitelli Subject: Item 14 - DR 25-0002 & TTM 25-0002, Request to Construct 47 Townhomes & 4 Ground-Floor Commercial Spaces within TC Land Use District of PRSP, CEQA Exempt Date: Friday, July 17, 2026 12: 14:56 PM
Attachments: Intracoro 2.docx
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why thi~ is importa nt E:XTER.l A El I I
Please see the attached document for my comments on the referenced agenda item.
Regards,
Michelle Long
Poway Commons Resident
13091 Olympus Circle Unit 3
619-990-2805
10 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
July 16, 2026
To: J. Maeda, C. Pikus, P. De Hoff, S. Vaus, A. Edmonson, C. Gallagher, City Clerk Subject: Item 8-Development Review 25-0002 and Tentative Tract Map 25-0002, a Request to Construct 47 Townhomes and Three Ground-Floor Commercial Spaces within the Town Center Land Use District of the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan Located at 13044 and 13056 Poway Road (APNs 317-101-04 and 317-101-05); and Determine the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act My name is Michelle Long, and I have been a resident of Poway for 32 years. I moved from the Sycamore Creek neighborhood to Poway Commons in 2023, purchasing a townhome in the Town Center.
Overall, I am pleased with the updates made to the lntracorp development plan in response to both community concerns and inconsistencies with the PRSP, specifically:
Larger setbacks for the open plazas between the commercial spaces 100% commercial frontage along Poway Road- wonderful!
More pedestrian zones in front of the commercial units
- The installation of grease interceptors for two of the commercial spaces to facilitate tenancy by food-related businesses
Ingress and Egress from Complex
a. The developer is proposing one driveway from Poway Road into the complex on the north side of the street. As the street is currently configured, there would be no entrance to the complex from eastbound Poway Road. There will be hundreds of new U-Turns at the corner of Poway Road and Civic Center Drive. Since the Town Center area is designed to generate more pedestrian traffic, an evaluation of the risk of new U-turns at the crosswalks is warranted.
b. If entrance from eastbound Poway Road is desired, it would require adding a left-hand turn cut out across from one of the Poway Commons access roads next to Enterprise Rental Car. This would eliminate Poway Common residents and Enterprise customers from making a left-hand turn onto westbound Poway Road.
Affordable Housing
There are no affordable housing units included in the plan. This is a blatant example of the City's ridiculously low fees for buying out of affordable housing, resulting in 100% market based development.
11 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
New Development Across the Street on Poway Road
A new town home development project from Meridian is proposed for the three lots directly across the street from the project. The two projects should be evaluated together, instead of individually. Total impacts on traffic, noise, lighting, etc., for both projects combined is warranted, especially since construction may be concurrent.
Attorney Letter
The threat letter from lntracorp's attorney concerns me, as I see lntracorp's increase in commercial space and parking as positive, whereas the letter reflects poorly on the Company's intent. Will they get approval and public support, and then reduce the commercial space because they can under state law? I hope not, but the attorney's letter indicates that it could happen. Bait and switch?
Additional comments about the Poway Road corridor-specific plan a. 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 Staff report does not state the number of units and percentage to date, nor the number of units and percentage including the proposed developments. (Including Meridian) The staff should report these numbers as new projects are proposed. b. 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, and certainly as new large housing projects are proposed.
I am encouraged that this new Town home development appears to be more closely aligned with the PRSP vision. I am also anxiously waiting for the commercial spaces in the West Village to be occupied.
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
619-990-2805
12 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
EXTERNAL EMAIL
[email protected]
Steve Vaus: Jenny Maeda; Peter De Hoff; Anita Edmondson; Chris Pikus; Chris Hazeltine; Julie Procopio; ~ ~
IntraCorp and the PRSP
Monday, July 20, 2026 11:51:36 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing regarding the Intra Corp Development project and, specifically, the letter submitted by lntraCorp's legal counsel.
While I recognize that the City's goals may differ from those of the developer, I find myself agreeing with one important point raised in their letter: development should not be subject to subjective judgment by public officials. When standards are open to interpretation, they invite inconsistent decisions, prolonged negotiations, and uncertainty for everyone involved; developers, staff, elected officials, and residents alike.
Growth and development will continue in our community, and I accept that reality. What is most important is that FUTURE projects are evaluated against objective, quantifiable, and clearly written development standards, conditions, and policies. Clear standards create fairness, transparency, and predictability while reducing unnecessary conflict and protecting the integrity of the planning process.
I also recognize that there may be circumstances where flexibility is appropriate, particularly when a project includes meaningful affordable housing or advances another clearly defined public benefit. In those cases, carefully considered exceptions may be warranted. However, those exceptions should remain just that, exceptions. They should not become the standard practice, nor should the possibility of litigation or other pressure be used to obtain exceptions for primarily market-rate developments during the entitlement process.
I respectfully urge the Council to strengthen the language and design standards within the PRSP so that FUTURE developments are guided by specific, measurable requirements rather than subjective interpretation, BEFORE future projects are submitted for approval. (Increase setbacks, reaffirm building heights, require ample parking, meaningful landscaping, set clear design standards.) Doing so will benefit both the City and applicants by establishing clear expectations from the outset.
Our community has learned valuable lessons from development decisions made over the years. Please use those lessons to create a stronger framework that will serve the City well into the future. By adopting clear, enforceable design standards now, you can help prevent future developers from raising these same concerns and ensure that all projects are held to the same consistent expectations.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for your continued service to our community. 13 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
Respectfully,
Vanessa Springett
14 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Dear Resident,
Mary Piscitelli
Himanshu Upadhyaya
TRUPTI PATEL
RE: Inquiry Regarding Height and View Impact for DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 Tuesday, July 14, 2026 8:00:00 AM
Thank you for reaching out to the City of Poway Development Services Department and sharing your neighborhood's questions regarding the upcoming development proposal on Poway Road.
We appreciate your active engagement in ensuring that local context and aesthetics are thoroughly considered.
As a primary clarifying point regarding your reference to a "critical view corridor," please be advised that the City of Poway does not maintain a private viewshed ordinance that legally protects scenic views from private residential properties. However, potential regional visual impacts were comprehensively evaluated under the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan. That program-level environmental analysis determined that implementation of the Specific Plan's standards would not result in significant impacts to public scenic vistas. Because the project adheres to the 38-foot building height restriction and complies with the vision established in the Specific Plan's certified EIR, the City has not required the developer to perform an independent localized line-of-sight analysis or construct a physical story-pole study for the project, which sits 24' below your residential area.
To give context to the spatial relationship between your neighborhood and the eastern mountains, the mountains to the east are known as Iron Mountain and they sit more than 2 miles away and range from an elevation of 800 feet to 1,200 feet. Because your residential area sits more than 275 feet below this mountain range, public sightlines to the mountain's upper elevations remain broadly preserved under the area's planned geometry.
Below are the specific clarifications and data points requested for items 1 through 3 in your inquiry:
1. Maximum Structural Height
The maximum building height standard established by the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan for this zoning district is 38 feet. For the specific project layout submitted by lntracorp, the proposed structure stands at 37'-9" feet measured directly from the finished architectural grade to the highest roof ridge line, fully conforming to local development limits without exceeding standard allowances.
2. State Density Bonus Waivers
The applicant (lntracorp) is not utilizing the California Density Bonus Law to request any 15 of20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
structural height modifications, additional stories, or zoning waivers; however, they are requesting a Tier 1 incentive to increase the building height from 35-feet to the 38-foot height maximum dictated by the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan. The project is being processed entirely within the standard height envelopes set forth by the City's existing corridor plan.
3. Sightline / View Study
Because the project adheres to the 38-foot building height restriction and complies with the vision established in the Specific Plan's certified EIR, the City has not required the developer to perform an independent localized line-of-sight analysis or construct a physical story-pole study for the elevated residential parcels situated to the North and to the West of the project.
While localized sightline graphics do not exist, the comprehensive architectural site plans, structural elevations, and the original Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan EIR will be fully accessible to the public one week prior to the meeting. You are welcome to review these materials in person at the Development Services Department front counter at City Hall prior to the July 21st meeting.
If you would like to arrange an appointment with the project planner to review the physical site blueprints together, please let us know what day or time works best for your schedule this week.
Thank you,
Mary
Mary Piscitelli (she/her/hers)
Associate Planner
Development Services
City of Poway I 13325 Civic Center Drive I Poway, CA 92064 Phone(858)668-4657IFax(858)668-1211
[email protected]
From: Himanshu Upadhyaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 8:35 AM
To: Kevin Parker <[email protected]>; Julie Procopio <[email protected]>; Mary Piscitelli <[email protected]>
16 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
Cc: TRUPTI PATEL <[email protected]>
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Height and View Impact for DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 You don't often get email from himanshu !aJcox net. l&am whv this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Height and View Impact for DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 Hello,
I am a resident living at 12893 Carriage Heights Way, located on the hillside West of the proposed development. I am writing to request specific technical information regarding the upcoming Public Hearing for the 47-unit townhome project at 13044 & 13056 Poway Road (DR 25-0002 & TTM 25-0002).
Because my property features a critical view corridor of the eastern mountains, I would like to review the specific visual impact documentation before the July 21st meeting. Could you please provide clarification on the following items:
1. Maximum Structural Height What is the exact proposed building height in feet from the finished grade to the highest roof ridge?
2. State Density Bonus Waivers: Is the applicant (lntracorp) utilizing the California Density Bonus Law to request any height modifications or zoning waivers that exceed the standard Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan limits?
3. Sightline/View Study: Has a line-of-sight analysis or a story-pole study been conducted to evaluate the visual impact on the elevated residential properties directly North of Poway Road? If so, is that data available for public review? Thank you for your assistance and for helping ensure our neighborhood's concerns are addressed.
Sincerely
Himanshu and Trupti
858 2050061
17 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Himanshu Upadhyaya
Kevin Parker
JRUPTI PATEL; Mary Piscitelli; Julie Procopio
Re: Inquiry Regarding Height and View Impact for DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 Friday, July 10, 2026 8:45:59 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important 1:.Xf El{N L EMA i
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize , Conquer
On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 8:04 AM, Kevin Parker
<[email protected]> wrote:
Received
18 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
Kevin Parker, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Poway
From: Himanshu Upadhyaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2026 5:03:19 AM
To: Kevin Parker <[email protected]>
Cc: TRUPTI PA TEL <[email protected]>
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Height and View Impact for DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important -XTE R.1"-!AL EMAJL
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Height and View Impact for DR 25-0002 / TTM 25-0002 Dear Mr. Parker,
I am a resident living at 12893 Carriage Heights Way, located on the hillside south of' the proposed development. I am writing to request specific technical information regarding the upcoming Public Hearing for the 47-unit townhome project at 13044 & 13056 Poway Road (DR 25-0002 & TTM 25-0002) .
Because my property features a critical view corridor of the northern mountains, I would like to review the specific visual impact documentation before the July 21st meeting. Could you please provide clarification on the following items:
1. Maximum Structural Height: What is the exact proposed building height in feet from the finished grade to the highest roof ridge?
2. State Density Bonus Waivers: Is the applicant (lntracorp) utilizing the California Density Bonus Law to request any height modifications or zoning waivers that exceed the standard Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan limits?
3. SightlineNiew Study : Has a line-of-sight analysis or a story-pole study been conducted to evaluate the visual impact on the elevated residential properties directly south of Poway Road? If so, is that data available for public review?
Thank you for your assistance and for helping ensure our neighborhood's concerns are addressed.
Sincerely
Himanshu and Trupti
858 2050061
19 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Weina Jiang
Kevin Parker
Public hearing map
Tuesday, July 14, 2026 10:53:56 PM
[You don't often get email from veraj [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https-//aka rns/LearnAboutSenderldentification J
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Good evening,
I received a notice of city council public hearing for new construction on Poway road. However, I am concerned the map sent out to residential may not be correctly labeled since I believe Civic Center Dr is parallel, and not perpendicular to Poway Rd. Please make revisions if need exists for recipients to correctly identify the location of the potential new development.
Thank you,
Vera
20 of 20 July 21, 2026, Item #14