From: Alison Bell
To: City Clerk; Councilmembers; [email protected]; [email protected]; Julie Procopio Subject: Agenda Item #14
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 11:56:01 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Manager, Director of Department of Development Services and City Attorney,
I am aware that I missed the deadline of
yesterday at 3pm, however I am submitting this
comment for the record in opposition to staff's recommended CEQA exemption determination and the requested administrative adjustments and Tier 1 height incentive for DR 25- 0002/TTM 25-0002, and I ask that these issues be addressed in writing before final action.
1. Class 32 categorical exemption is legally vulnerable under the cumulative impact exception.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(b) provides that a categorical exemption "shall not be used for a project when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." Staff's environmental review section relies on both the Class 32 exemption and consistency with the certified 2017 Poway Road Specific Plan Program EIR. However, the Program EIR expressly found that "long-term cumulative air quality impacts on the region due to implementation of the Specific Plan would remain potentially significant and unavoidable," with mitigation measures explicitly listed as "none available." This is a corridor-wide finding the City itself certified, and it has not been superseded.
This project is one of a continuing series of Class 32 exemptions issued for infill projects along the same corridor since 2017 . Each has been cleared individually as having no significant impact. But the Program EIR these approvals rely on for tiering already concluded that the cumulative effect of this corridor's buildout on air quality is significant and unmitigated. I am asking the Council to require staff to disclose, prior to any vote: (a) the total residential units and commercial square footage approved corridor-wide since 2017 measured against the Program EIR's projected buildout ceiling of net new units and net new square feet, and (b) whether that increment remains within the scope the Program EIR actually analyzed. If the corridor is approaching or has exceeded those figures, this project can no longer lawfully tier off a 2017 analysis, and a project-specific environmental document would be required.
2. The "superior design" finding is being asked to justify a concentration of discretionary relief that individually approaches or meets stated maximums.
The staff report discloses that storefront depth for portions of the project ranges as low as
50.4% of the PRSP's required 40-foot depth , near the outer edge of the 50% maximum reduction the PRSP allows for a "superior design." It is also requesting a ceiling height reduction and a Tier 1 height incentive, all justified by a single subjective "superior design" finding. I would ask the Council to scrutinize whether one design justification can reasonably support three simultaneous, maximum-adjacent departures from the underlying standards, or whether that stacking itself warrants a more searching, project-specific review.
Additionally, the report's claim that the project comes "within 3%" of the PRSP's 6,300- square-foot commercial space goal is achieved only by combining actual commercial building area (2,830 sf) with courtyard/patio area (1,420 sf) and commercial setback area (1,850 sf) into a single "commercially supportive space" total. Courtyards and setback areas are not commercial storefronts, and I would ask that Council's findings not rely on this combined figure as evidence of substantial compliance with a standard that, on its face, concerns commercial square footage.
3. The record shows the current proposal was shaped by a density-bonus threat, which undermines the objectivity of the "superior design" findings.
The staff report discloses that Intracorp's counsel sent a letter on April 3, 2026 (Attachment E) threatening to refile the project under State Density Bonus law and invoke a mandatory concession to eliminate the PRSP's commercial space requirement entirely if the City did not confirm the applicant's preferred interpretation of the standard. To my knowledge the current, revised proposal with increased commercial square footage
followed that threat. To the extent
Council's approval rests on a finding that this design is "superior" and therefore merits multiple concessions, the record should reflect that this finding follows directly from leverage applied by the applicant, not from an independent design evaluation. I would ask that any written findings expressly grapple with this sequence rather than treating the current proposal's commercial features as freestanding evidence of design quality.
4. Loss of designated affordable housing site should be resolved before, not after, approval.
The project site is currently counted in the City's Housing Element Residential Sites Inventory (Table 4.5) with a potential capacity of 50 affordable units (18 Low, 32 Very Low). Approval of this market-rate project requires the City to identify a replacement site or sites within 180 days. I would ask the Council to require, prior to final approval, some indication that a feasible replacement site has been identified, rather than approving this project on the assumption that a suitable substitute will be found afterward.
Requested Action: I respectfully ask the City Council to continue this item and direct staff to respond in writing to the cumulative CEQA question above before any vote is taken on the categorical exemption, the administrative adjustments, or the Tier 1 height incentive.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison Park
Sent from ICloud: Alison Park
From: Dan Heuschele
To: Steve Vaus; Jenny Maeda; Chris Pikus; Peter De Hoff; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: #21, July 21 council meeting
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 12:21:23 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL
I am against the Intracorp proposed changes to Poway Road Specific Plan. The council has already approved to many developer requested changes to the Poway Road Specific Plan.
Poway road is not representative of the best of Poway.
It has inadequate setbacks, too high
in some locations, and has no feel of the city in the country.
It just looks like other over built
cities.
Thanks for your consideration
Dan Heuschele
16955 Old Espola Road
From: Garry Martin
To: Steve Vaus
Subject: A Different Perspective on AI Data Centers in Poway Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 11:34:52 AM
Attachments: png-img-f371c11d-7e8b-40a9-81b7-ec4b443bc560.png You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hi Mayor Steve,
I recently watched your interview regarding AI data centers and your concerns about why they should not be built in Poway.
I agree that one of the primary challenges is the significant amount of electricity these facilities require and the potential for that increased demand to drive up energy costs for Poway residents.
However, what if approval of a data center were contingent upon it providing its own dedicated power generation? Rather than placing additional demand on the existing grid, the facility could operate as a hybrid microgrid utilizing a combination of solar, wind, hydrogen fuel cells, and battery energy storage. During periods of excess generation, surplus electricity could be supplied to the local community, helping improve grid resilience and potentially reducing energy costs for residents.
This approach could transform the conversation from whether Poway should host an AI data center to how it could do so in a way that benefits the community. In addition to supporting a resilient, sustainable energy infrastructure, such a project could create high-quality local jobs, generate significant tax revenue, and position Poway as a leader in innovative energy solutions.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this concept with you in more detail and explore whether it could provide a mutually beneficial path forward.
Kind regards,
Garry.
Garry Martin
CEO
T: 619.921.4949
I
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message is intended for the use of the individual[s] or entity[ies] to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply email and delete the original message from your computer. energy4ce
ENERGY ON YOUR TERMS
From: camille stewart
To: Jenny Maeda; Peter De Hoff; Chris Pikus; Steve Vaus Subject: Intracorp
Date: Monday, July 20, 2026 4:33:23 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Intracorp Homes 47-townhome project on Poway Road.
I ask the Council to carefully consider whether this project complies with the Poway Road Specific Plan and whether it reflects the concerns and vision of Poway residents. Public input matters, and I hope you will take the time to listen to the residents who are asking for thoughtful, responsible development that preserves the character of our community.
I am also concerned about the use of potential bonus density as a justification for approving a project that may not align with the community’s planning goals. Decisions made by the Council have long-term impacts on Poway, and I urge you to prioritize the interests of residents.
With three Council seats coming up for election, I hope each Councilmember will carefully consider how their decisions reflect the views and priorities of the people they represent.
Please vote against this project and work toward development decisions that follow the Poway Road Specific Plan and respect community input.
Thank you for your time and service.
Camille Stewart
12947 Slack St
Poway
Sent from my iPhone
I
July 21, 2026
Mayor and Members of the Poway City Council
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Re: Intracorp Development – 13044 & 13056 Poway Road
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I urge the City Council to carefully consider the implicaƟons of the April 3, 2026 leƩer submiƩed by Cox, Castle & Nicholson on behalf of Intracorp. While the leƩer presents an aggressive legal interpretaƟon of California housing law, it should not be accepted as the final word on either the Housing Accountability Act or the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan (PRCSP).
The PRCSP was adopted aŌer extensive public parƟcipaƟon to establish a clear vision for the Poway Road corridor. That vision was not simply to maximize residenƟal density, but to create a true mixed-use district with acƟve commercial storefronts, pedestrian-oriented design, and an aƩracƟve "Main Street" environment. Those objecƟves remain essenƟal to the long-term success of the corridor.
Intracorp argues that because the PRCSP refers to the "front property line," the City is prohibited from considering any future right-of-way dedicaƟon or development boundary. That interpretaƟon is far from seƩled. The City has both the authority and the responsibility to interpret and implement its own planning documents in a manner consistent with their overall purpose and intent, provided that interpretaƟon is supported by objecƟve standards and applicable law.
The developer further argues that if the City does not accept its interpretaƟon, it will redesign the project under the State Density Bonus Law to eliminate the commercial component altogether while seeking addiƟonal waivers of development standards. This posiƟon effecƟvely asks the City to abandon the very planning principles that residents supported when the PRCSP was adopted.
California's housing laws have unquesƟonably shiŌed the balance between local control and housing producƟon. However, those laws do not require ciƟes to surrender thoughƞul planning or abandon adopted community visions whenever a developer threatens liƟgaƟon. Instead, they require local governments to apply their regulaƟons fairly, consistently, and within the framework established by state law.
The City should ther
efore:
• Defend the intent and purpose of the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan. • Ensure that any interpretaƟon of the PRCSP is based on objecƟve planning principles and the adopted record.
• Seek independent legal review of Intracorp's claims before conceding that the City's interpretaƟon is unlawful.
• ConƟnue to require projects along Poway Road to contribute to the mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented environment envisioned by the community.
Residents supported the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan because it promised more than addiƟonal housing units. It promised a vibrant commercial corridor, opportuniƟes for local businesses, improved walkability, and development that enhances—not diminishes—the character of Poway.
The City should not allow the threat of liƟgaƟon to become the determining factor in its planning decisions. If California law requires modificaƟons to the project, those decisions should be made based on a thorough legal analysis and in a transparent public process—not simply because a developer asserts that the City has no choice.
Thank you for your conƟnued service to our community and for your commitment to preserving the vision that Poway residents worked so hard to create.
Respecƞully,
Bob Walder
Poway Resident
Legal Analysis of Intracorp's Claims Regarding the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan (PRCSP) Project: 13044 & 13056 Poway Road
Issue: Commercial frontage requirements under the PRCSP Intracorp's Claim Poten Ɵal Response by the City
The PRCSP does not
establish a minimum
amount of commercial
square footage.
The PRCSP does not specify a minimum square footage; however, it does require that 75% of the ground-floor space along any block face be occupied by commercial uses. The City may argue that this standard must be interpreted in conjuncƟon with the overall objecƟves of the Specific Plan to create a conƟnuous, pedestrian-oriented commercial corridor.
The 40-foot storefront
depth is measured from the
exisƟng property line.
The PRCSP states "front property line." The City may argue that where a required public right-of-way dedicaƟon is part of project approval, the ulƟmate property line aŌer dedicaƟon governs project design. Whether that interpretaƟon is supported by the PRCSP or other adopted standards is a legal quesƟon.
The City's interpretaƟon is
subjecƟve and therefore
violates the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA).
The HAA prohibits agencies from applying subjecƟve standards to deny or reduce housing projects. However, the City may contend it is applying an objecƟve interpretaƟon of the adopted Specific Plan rather than creaƟng a new standard. The quesƟon is whether the City's interpretaƟon is supported by objecƟve language already contained in its regulaƟons.
SB 330 vested the
regulaƟons in effect when
the preliminary applicaƟon
was filed.
SB 330 generally freezes applicable development standards once a qualifying preliminary applicaƟon i
s submiƩed. The City could
argue that it is not changing a development standard but applying an exisƟng one. Whether SB 330 protects the
developer's interpretaƟon or the City's interpretaƟon depends on the facts and exisƟng regulaƟons at the Ɵme of filing.
There is no legal basis to
require addiƟonal
commercial space.
The City may argue that the commercial requirement should be interpreted in light of the PRCSP's stated purpose of creaƟng a "Main Street" environment, not solely by applying isolated provisions without considering the plan as a whole.
Intracorp's Claim Poten Ɵal Response by the City
The Density Bonus Law
allows eliminaƟon of the
commercial requirement.
Density Bonus Law permits concessions and incenƟves when they result in idenƟfiable cost reducƟons for affordable housing.
Whether eliminaƟng commercial space qualifies depends on whether the statutory criteria are met and whether the
concession is necessary under Government Code §65915. It is not automaƟc in every circumstance.
The project is enƟtled to
unlimited waivers of
development standards.
This overstates the law. Government Code §65915 authorizes mulƟple waivers where development standards physically
preclude the project from achieving the permiƩed density or incenƟves. Each requested waiver must independently saƟsfy the statutory requirements and is not granted simply because it is requested.
The City faces significant
fines if it disagrees.
The HAA does authorize aƩorney's fees and penalƟes when a court finds a city violated the Act. However, those penalƟes are imposed only aŌer liƟgaƟon and judicial findings. The developer's leƩer assumes the City would lose on the merits, which has not been determined.
Planning ConsideraƟons
Beyond the legal arguments, the City Council should also consider the planning objecƟves adopted by the community:
• The PRCSP was intended to create a vibrant mixed-use corridor, not simply maximize residenƟal density.
• AcƟve ground-floor commercial uses were included to encourage local businesses, walkability, and economic vitality.
• Any interpretaƟon of the PRCSP should be consistent with both its specific language and its overall purpose.
• The City has an obligaƟon to comply with California housing law while also defending the integrity of its adopted planning documents where legally supportable.
Conclusion
Intracorp presents a well-developed legal argument, but it is an advocacy posiƟon, not a judicial determinaƟon. Several of its conclusions—including the interpreta Ɵon of "property line," the scope of SB 330 vesƟng, the availability of Density Bonus concessions, and the characterizaƟon of "unlimited" waivers—are subject to legal interpreta Ɵon and may reasonably be disputed.
Before accepƟng the developer's posiƟon or modifying the PRCSP's implementaƟon, the City Council should obtain an independent legal opinion evaluaƟng the interacƟon between the PRCSP , the Housing Accountability Act, SB 330, and the Density Bonus Law. A careful, fact- specific analysis will help ensure that the City complies with state law while preserving the planning vision adopted by the Poway community.