Questions and Answers from South Poway Votes
SPV Question #1 - Districts
A. Do you think the district elections are a positive or negative thing for Poway voters?
Please explain your thinking.
I believe district elections are a positive change for all of Poway residents. South Poway has been grossly un-represented on council for years, so these district council seats will provide the opportunity for more balanced, authentic representation. These new District Council seats make it possible for us to elect representation that more accurately reflects the needs of our entire community.
B. Would you support a 4 district citizens’ commission to redraw/rebalance the district boundaries after the 2020 census or would you prefer that the council members do it? Again, please explain your thinking.
I absolutely support a four-district citizens’ commission to redraw the district boundaries after the 2020 census. During the 2017 process of creating these districts, we watched the city councilmen select a district-map, designed by the mayor, which protected their individual council seats. This district design by the mayor also had the effect of preventing District-Four elections until the 2020 election.
When Councilman Cunningham unexpectedly resigned, two years early, from what was to become the new District-four seat in 2020, this opened an opportunity for District-four to elect, and have a representative, this November, as is currently the case for Districts One, Two and Three. But instead of this logical progression, the four remaining councilmen voted unanimously to continue this council position as “at-large” representation for the 2018 election, rather than allowing it to be filled solely by an authentic District-Four representative.
Mayor Vaus, and Councilmen Mullin, Leonard, and Grosch made irresponsible and biased decisions that prevented District-Four from gaining representation on the City Council. This was followed by the clearly questionable decision to appoint Ms. Frank, a brand new resident to Poway, with apparent connections to Mayor Vaus, to fill the vacant seat until the November election.
Therefore, due to what I perceive as an abuse of power by our current City Councilmen, I feel strongly that, following the 2020 census, this task of drawing the district boundaries should not be left to the city council, but rather become the responsibility of a community-wide citizens’ commision.
SPV Questions #2 - Parks
A. In your opinion, whose job is it to initiate a park needs assessment?
The council? The city manager? Both? Neither?
Our city has a general plan which includes a Parks and Recreation needs assessment. I think we need to create a plan where the assessment is scheduled to be performed every ten years. If significant growth were to occur, that should trigger a needs assessment to be carried out sooner.
The Community Services Department, with the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Committee, would have the true pulse on this issue. If a need were to arise, they should report the need to City Manager who would in turn alert the council and advise them to plan for an earlier assessment. The Council is also free to, and encouraged to, initiate a Parks needs assessment as well.
B. What kind of maps, data, metrics and other information would you find useful in a park needs assessment ?
Maps of the locations of all current parks would be compared to population density of each area. Parking availability would also be examined. A clear timeline would be established for completing this assessment. I would include all neighborhood, community and pocket parks in the study areas. I would also included all available school recreational facilities, along with the skate park, swimming pools, and recreational parks and trails. Golf courses would not be included in this assessment as they are not intended to serve the general population of the community.
C. When discussing park needs, what is of particular concern to you?
Parks provide a huge community benefit that enhance our quality of life and should always be a part of any new development or city planning. One of my greatest concerns is having sufficient surface space to meet the needs of our residents and guests in addition to sufficient services and amenities. A good plan would provide for example: green space, shade, sports fields, playgrounds, in addition to providing rental space, educational programs and community events.
SPV Question #3 - Poway Road Corridor
The recently approved Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan allows for 1399 new residential units on Poway Road, between Oak Knoll and Garden Road.
That amounts to adding 3456 new residents and 360 new employees to the area, most densely concentrated between Community and Carriage Rd.
Which of the following statements best reflects your feelings about the new Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP)?
a. Poway Rd looks run down and trashy. Bringing new businesses and new residential units to this area will spark a badly needed economic revival in Poway.
b. Poway Road may look funky, but I like it the way it is. I don’t want to see these familiar places torn down and replaced with upscale, chain stores. I want to see Poway’s hills, not 3 story apartment buildings.
c. I thought Poway was all built out. I resent the state making Poway build more residential units. But if we have to build them, I would rather build on Poway Rd instead of opening up east Poway for development.
d. Growth is inevitable. We should look to the future and forget about the past.
This question is at the heart of my concerns for the future of Poway. As I am concerned about many different aspects of the Poway Road Corridor Study, with that said I agree with a piece of each one of these statements regarding different sections of Poway Road.
The committee was originally formed to get input from our community members. There was never any authority in the group that city staff had to follow when writing the specific plan. In fact, when the city finally started to follow the Brown Act that is when the developers really showed up and pushed the narrative that the only way to get anything done on Poway Rd was high density. Within a matter of time the citizens lost their voice.
After that shift in focus, the developers were in charge and they negotiated for the setbacks to go away, greater height to buildings to allow higher density and less parking for residents, shoppers and visitors to increase their profits.
None of these were in the best interest of tax paying residents, but were intended to max out the developer's profit. As a result, we are now at risk of losing our view of the hillsides and the ability to widen Poway Road. The developers also negotiated a way to avoid building 15% affordable housing by paying a fine of $500 per unit.
This process has defunded our Affordable Housing fund which then makes us, the taxpayers, liable for the shortfall. The bottom line is that now the developer don’t have to pay their fair share and we are stuck with covering this expense.
Simply unacceptable!
If the current Council is allowed to continue in the direction they are going, then the developers will over develop Poway Road making it unaffordable for local small business. This will force us into having to accept more large box stores, greater traffic congestion due to higher density, and a severe shortage of available parking. None of this is in line with the quality of life we have grown accustomed to and demand in Poway.
Let’s not forget - where is the housing promised to our Veterans? There are 44 affordable housing units zoned on city owner property on Poway Rd that are in current negotiations, will they be for Veterans?
Growth is inevitable and healthy if done correctly. Unfortunately we are not on that path with this specific plan or council. We need to course-correct immediately by voting in new like minded representatives. I believe it is possible to create a smarter, more responsible plan, with more citizen input, for Poway Road.
SPV Question #4 - General Fund
CHRIS CRUSE·THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
(Short version) Do you think the city is transferring too many general fund expenses to our water, sewer, trash, LMD bills?
(Long version) It seems as if the current trend is to transfer expenses that used to be paid by the general fund to residents. For example, when the City voted to extend a contract to an exclusive trash hauler, the contract included the provision that the City would get free trash service. That wiped hundreds of thousands of dollars off the general fund expenditures and added those costs to our trash bills. The City charges a “cost allocation” to our water and sewer debts, and to the landscape maintenance districts too. The cost allocation is a share of all of the costs of running various city departments. Our water and sewer bills get dinged for half the cost to run the legislative and administrative department in the City (city clerk, city manager, asst city manager, city council members) as well as a portion of the costs to run the human resources department, some planning expenses and to pay the city attorney. This is in addition to paying for the city employees who work in the Public Works department. The City has also been charging the water and sewer ratepayers for all of the water that is used at city facilities including the parks and the pool. Last year, the City started paying a portion of those costs, but not the full costs. Why aren’t those costs paid by the general fund? Payments for a portion of the bonds to pay off the city hall building are charged to our water and sewer bills. But when the City sold the old water building on Poway Rd, a building paid for by water and sewer ratepayers, the proceeds of the sale were put into the general fund, not in the water and sewer fund. Revenue from using the water reservoirs as cell towers amounted to $610,194. All of it went into the general fund, none of it was used to reduce our water bills. The City took $5.2 million from the sewer fund and $2.6 million from the water fund and loaned it to the redevelopment agency. Some of those loans are over 25 years old. The City could pay it back with the proceeds from the sale of redevelopment property, but instead they are squirreling away over $9 million of that money to build a new community center. The general fund used to pay for all street landscaping. Then new developments had to form LMDs to pay for new landscaping Recently, the City tried to add more of us into the old LMDs. Now, they are talking about a city-wide LMD where they can transfer another general expense on to property owners. It seems as if assets go in the general fund, and debts are billed to us. Do you find this trend disturbing? What do you think should be done about it?
Yes, I find this particular situation disturbing- the borrowing of money to the tune of 9 million dollars from the water and sewer fund, giving it to the redevelopment fund as a loan, and then refusing to pay it back. This is unethical.
We need to keep utility revenue and expenses separate from the service revenues and expenses. The city should be able to repay that 9 million dollar loan, by way of an impactful and needed water CIP (capital improvement plan) that benefits the many and not just an individual $1.12 savings for everyone.
For example, we could carry the purple pipes (recycled water) down from the business park along Community Rd, all the way down to Twin Peaks, providing and inexpensive water source for the LMD’s, Hillary Park, Aubrey Park, and so on.
A. Do you think the district elections are a positive or negative thing for Poway voters?
Please explain your thinking.
I believe district elections are a positive change for all of Poway residents. South Poway has been grossly un-represented on council for years, so these district council seats will provide the opportunity for more balanced, authentic representation. These new District Council seats make it possible for us to elect representation that more accurately reflects the needs of our entire community.
B. Would you support a 4 district citizens’ commission to redraw/rebalance the district boundaries after the 2020 census or would you prefer that the council members do it? Again, please explain your thinking.
I absolutely support a four-district citizens’ commission to redraw the district boundaries after the 2020 census. During the 2017 process of creating these districts, we watched the city councilmen select a district-map, designed by the mayor, which protected their individual council seats. This district design by the mayor also had the effect of preventing District-Four elections until the 2020 election.
When Councilman Cunningham unexpectedly resigned, two years early, from what was to become the new District-four seat in 2020, this opened an opportunity for District-four to elect, and have a representative, this November, as is currently the case for Districts One, Two and Three. But instead of this logical progression, the four remaining councilmen voted unanimously to continue this council position as “at-large” representation for the 2018 election, rather than allowing it to be filled solely by an authentic District-Four representative.
Mayor Vaus, and Councilmen Mullin, Leonard, and Grosch made irresponsible and biased decisions that prevented District-Four from gaining representation on the City Council. This was followed by the clearly questionable decision to appoint Ms. Frank, a brand new resident to Poway, with apparent connections to Mayor Vaus, to fill the vacant seat until the November election.
Therefore, due to what I perceive as an abuse of power by our current City Councilmen, I feel strongly that, following the 2020 census, this task of drawing the district boundaries should not be left to the city council, but rather become the responsibility of a community-wide citizens’ commision.
SPV Questions #2 - Parks
A. In your opinion, whose job is it to initiate a park needs assessment?
The council? The city manager? Both? Neither?
Our city has a general plan which includes a Parks and Recreation needs assessment. I think we need to create a plan where the assessment is scheduled to be performed every ten years. If significant growth were to occur, that should trigger a needs assessment to be carried out sooner.
The Community Services Department, with the assistance of the Parks and Recreation Committee, would have the true pulse on this issue. If a need were to arise, they should report the need to City Manager who would in turn alert the council and advise them to plan for an earlier assessment. The Council is also free to, and encouraged to, initiate a Parks needs assessment as well.
B. What kind of maps, data, metrics and other information would you find useful in a park needs assessment ?
Maps of the locations of all current parks would be compared to population density of each area. Parking availability would also be examined. A clear timeline would be established for completing this assessment. I would include all neighborhood, community and pocket parks in the study areas. I would also included all available school recreational facilities, along with the skate park, swimming pools, and recreational parks and trails. Golf courses would not be included in this assessment as they are not intended to serve the general population of the community.
C. When discussing park needs, what is of particular concern to you?
Parks provide a huge community benefit that enhance our quality of life and should always be a part of any new development or city planning. One of my greatest concerns is having sufficient surface space to meet the needs of our residents and guests in addition to sufficient services and amenities. A good plan would provide for example: green space, shade, sports fields, playgrounds, in addition to providing rental space, educational programs and community events.
SPV Question #3 - Poway Road Corridor
The recently approved Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan allows for 1399 new residential units on Poway Road, between Oak Knoll and Garden Road.
That amounts to adding 3456 new residents and 360 new employees to the area, most densely concentrated between Community and Carriage Rd.
Which of the following statements best reflects your feelings about the new Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP)?
a. Poway Rd looks run down and trashy. Bringing new businesses and new residential units to this area will spark a badly needed economic revival in Poway.
b. Poway Road may look funky, but I like it the way it is. I don’t want to see these familiar places torn down and replaced with upscale, chain stores. I want to see Poway’s hills, not 3 story apartment buildings.
c. I thought Poway was all built out. I resent the state making Poway build more residential units. But if we have to build them, I would rather build on Poway Rd instead of opening up east Poway for development.
d. Growth is inevitable. We should look to the future and forget about the past.
This question is at the heart of my concerns for the future of Poway. As I am concerned about many different aspects of the Poway Road Corridor Study, with that said I agree with a piece of each one of these statements regarding different sections of Poway Road.
The committee was originally formed to get input from our community members. There was never any authority in the group that city staff had to follow when writing the specific plan. In fact, when the city finally started to follow the Brown Act that is when the developers really showed up and pushed the narrative that the only way to get anything done on Poway Rd was high density. Within a matter of time the citizens lost their voice.
After that shift in focus, the developers were in charge and they negotiated for the setbacks to go away, greater height to buildings to allow higher density and less parking for residents, shoppers and visitors to increase their profits.
None of these were in the best interest of tax paying residents, but were intended to max out the developer's profit. As a result, we are now at risk of losing our view of the hillsides and the ability to widen Poway Road. The developers also negotiated a way to avoid building 15% affordable housing by paying a fine of $500 per unit.
This process has defunded our Affordable Housing fund which then makes us, the taxpayers, liable for the shortfall. The bottom line is that now the developer don’t have to pay their fair share and we are stuck with covering this expense.
Simply unacceptable!
If the current Council is allowed to continue in the direction they are going, then the developers will over develop Poway Road making it unaffordable for local small business. This will force us into having to accept more large box stores, greater traffic congestion due to higher density, and a severe shortage of available parking. None of this is in line with the quality of life we have grown accustomed to and demand in Poway.
Let’s not forget - where is the housing promised to our Veterans? There are 44 affordable housing units zoned on city owner property on Poway Rd that are in current negotiations, will they be for Veterans?
Growth is inevitable and healthy if done correctly. Unfortunately we are not on that path with this specific plan or council. We need to course-correct immediately by voting in new like minded representatives. I believe it is possible to create a smarter, more responsible plan, with more citizen input, for Poway Road.
SPV Question #4 - General Fund
CHRIS CRUSE·THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018
(Short version) Do you think the city is transferring too many general fund expenses to our water, sewer, trash, LMD bills?
(Long version) It seems as if the current trend is to transfer expenses that used to be paid by the general fund to residents. For example, when the City voted to extend a contract to an exclusive trash hauler, the contract included the provision that the City would get free trash service. That wiped hundreds of thousands of dollars off the general fund expenditures and added those costs to our trash bills. The City charges a “cost allocation” to our water and sewer debts, and to the landscape maintenance districts too. The cost allocation is a share of all of the costs of running various city departments. Our water and sewer bills get dinged for half the cost to run the legislative and administrative department in the City (city clerk, city manager, asst city manager, city council members) as well as a portion of the costs to run the human resources department, some planning expenses and to pay the city attorney. This is in addition to paying for the city employees who work in the Public Works department. The City has also been charging the water and sewer ratepayers for all of the water that is used at city facilities including the parks and the pool. Last year, the City started paying a portion of those costs, but not the full costs. Why aren’t those costs paid by the general fund? Payments for a portion of the bonds to pay off the city hall building are charged to our water and sewer bills. But when the City sold the old water building on Poway Rd, a building paid for by water and sewer ratepayers, the proceeds of the sale were put into the general fund, not in the water and sewer fund. Revenue from using the water reservoirs as cell towers amounted to $610,194. All of it went into the general fund, none of it was used to reduce our water bills. The City took $5.2 million from the sewer fund and $2.6 million from the water fund and loaned it to the redevelopment agency. Some of those loans are over 25 years old. The City could pay it back with the proceeds from the sale of redevelopment property, but instead they are squirreling away over $9 million of that money to build a new community center. The general fund used to pay for all street landscaping. Then new developments had to form LMDs to pay for new landscaping Recently, the City tried to add more of us into the old LMDs. Now, they are talking about a city-wide LMD where they can transfer another general expense on to property owners. It seems as if assets go in the general fund, and debts are billed to us. Do you find this trend disturbing? What do you think should be done about it?
Yes, I find this particular situation disturbing- the borrowing of money to the tune of 9 million dollars from the water and sewer fund, giving it to the redevelopment fund as a loan, and then refusing to pay it back. This is unethical.
We need to keep utility revenue and expenses separate from the service revenues and expenses. The city should be able to repay that 9 million dollar loan, by way of an impactful and needed water CIP (capital improvement plan) that benefits the many and not just an individual $1.12 savings for everyone.
For example, we could carry the purple pipes (recycled water) down from the business park along Community Rd, all the way down to Twin Peaks, providing and inexpensive water source for the LMD’s, Hillary Park, Aubrey Park, and so on.