South Poway Votes
Questions and Answers -Mayor
1. District Elections
A. Do you think the district elections are a positive or negative thing for Poway voters? Please explain your thinking.
B. Would you support a 4 district citizen’s 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.
-->
Steve Vaus- declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen- A. I believe the district elections are very positive for Poway voters it gives the voters more choices of candidates to fill the different districts if there where no districts and just four members of the city council it would be like many things in life a click. The city council should serve the people that they represent not themselves.
B. I believe the people should form a citizens commission to redraw or rebalance the district boundaries after the 2020 census and to take it a step further and to avoid any persons or group or organization feeling slighted in the design of the district map have two versions and put it on a special ballot and let democracy work majority decision becomes law. Thank you Chris for the questions.
Emily Johnson- no response
Brian Edmonston-A. At first I was skeptical about the need to create voting districts for Poway. I thought the districts would divide our community and make it more difficult to get things done. However, after meeting with many people I see the districts have brought a new level of energy and involvement to many Poway communities, and I think that is a good thing. Also, I see no evidence of the division I thought might occur. If anything, I think the districts have brought Poway closer together.
So, based on what I have seen so far the districts have been good for Poway.
B. If the districts were going to be redrawn then I would want citizens to be involved. However, I would also like some involvement from city government as the process could get very complicated. I don’t think a citizen only panel could get the job done. Also, I would want to explore some totally different district maps including the use of “bands” running north-to-south so that each district would have portions of each of the major roads (Poway, Twin Peaks, and Espola) and each district would have communities with different densities in them (including commercial and industrial facilities.) This is similar to the way Encinitas districted, which was using east-to-west band so that each district has beach, rail, highway and rural sections, and therefore would all share the same concerns.
That said, if the current district maps seem to be working after the 2020 election, I would see no reason for radical changes at that time. A simple adjustment for the population changes would be enough.
_________________________________________________________
2. Park Needs Assessment
During last Tuesday’s City Council Meeting, City Manager Tina White mentioned that the last time Poway did a park needs assessment was in 2008.
In the 10 years since that last assessment, Poway has added many residents, and the council has approved the Poway Rd Corridor Study, which will add thousands more residents, all without assessing if there are sufficient parks to serve their needs.
A. In your opinion, whose job is it to initiate a park needs assessment?
The council? The city manager? Both? Neither?
B. What kind of maps, data, metrics and other information would you find useful in a park needs assessment ?
C. When discussing park needs, what is of particular concern to you?
Steve Vaus- declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen- A. My answer is neither let me elaborate we are two months away from the most important election in Poway history. Why now a park needs assessment I will tell you why this is just one of the dominos in place to fall for the real game piece of the Poway road corridor project to have in place extra parks to justify the new apartments condos and luxury homes that the current powers that be are trying to force at the expense of small business owners and community church thrift shops in the carriage center strip mall and other areas that they deem not worthy of there vision of Poway. Also if you go on Poway city hall website they list 22 parks in there list some like the swim center and the sports complex are more competitive athletic venues but minus those two its still 20 parks in my opinion we don't need anymore at this time perhaps in the future after 2020 census we could evaluate this again
B. When the appropriate time comes to even consider park assessment we should use some data or other information that shows demographics for example if it is a children oriented park with a large playground area it would not make sense to be located in a heavily populated senior area as an example.
C What concerns me is WHO WHAT WHERE and WHY. Who is spearheading a certain project. What type of park is being proposed. Where is this park being discussed open space or existing space . Why is this a priority at this time does it comingle with other projects etc.
Emily Johnson-A. I believe both the council and city manager need to be on the same page regarding the parks and that the assessment should be done on a schedule, such as every 5 years, so that it is regularly updated without need for discussion.
B. Honestly, I'm not sure, but I feel that it would be important that what is measured is also seen as important information to the citizens of Poway and I would love to have discussion on this should people have thoughts on what they would like measured!
C. I think maintenance of parks has been neglected. Bathrooms of most public parks are dirty and often missing supplies. I also feel like we too often allow items like benches and signs deteriorat too much before they are replaced. It is important that we keep our parks beautiful, considering how large our community is and how many people enjoy them regularly.
Brian Edmonston-A.This task should fall primarily on city council, whose job it is to direct the city manager. Certainly, a proactive and competent city manager would bring this to the attention of city council as part of his or her regular management responsibilities, but the ultimate responsibility should for making sure that Poway has sufficient parks and other recreational opportunities should be on city council.
B. Certainly population maps as well as planned future development. Also, I would want to know how much visitors each park receives and what particular features or areas are use the most. For example, perhaps we need more soccer fields. Or perhaps we need more walkable space or space for dogs to roam free. We need to know how people are using are recreational facilities (including the privately owned facilities) to best determine how and where our park dollars should be spent.
C. I want parks to be used. I want to provide the greatest number of recreational opportunities as possible for Poway residents. I also want parks to bring people together. Finally, I want a park & recreation system that allows Poway to continue to attract great people to come and live here, because in the end it is the people that make Poway special.
3. Poway Road Specific Plan
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.
Please add anything else you would like to say about the PRSP.
Steve Vaus- declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen-I am vigorously opposed to the Poway road corridor specific plan, this is what first inspired me to run for public office. First let me explain I have been going to the carriage center strip mall for the last 27 years as a customer to the various thrift shops. I personally know many of the seniors who volunteer at the different thrift shops many of whom are customers where I work these are friendships not to mention good people who want to stay active in the community. Also a lot of people who might not be able to afford things in new stores can buy nice things at affordable prices. Then there are the church thrift shops who use the money from donations to provide food, clothing and shelter to families in need. One good thing leads to many good things, now how about small business owners who are going the way of the dinosaur it seems as if the powers that be only want corporate franchises the ones you can find in any town. Poway is a family oriented community where generations past, present, and hopefully future can have the same fond memories that I have and I am just one person imagine all who share my sentiment over the years.
Now let me explain with less personal feelings but more logistics the possibility of depending on who you here it from is 1300+ units of either apartments, condos, luxury town homes and probably mix use businesses. Some say affordable housing others don't mention this either way this is not the area to do this there are other empty buildings and land on other areas of Poway road for example the restaurant on the hill that went out of business behind Jack in the box would be a great place for housing including housing for veterans nobody at city council ever really talks about this that can be used for housing. What will happen to Poway road more congestion and long traffic waits during and after completion of this project. Poway road will turn into just another Friars road, Mira Mesa boulevard, Claremont mesa boulevard ETC.
Now my answer is a adamant B Poway Road may look funky but I believe it to look like a place with personality and charm and old school traditions and 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
In closing I have talked to hundreds of people on this subject and all of them share my sentiments thank you
Emily Johnson-I'm going to say statement 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) but adding on that I think the city's construction should be focused more on cleaning up/beautifying what is already there. Freshening up the shopping centers would be nice and would help those smaller businesses bring in new customers.
Brian Edmonston-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.
This is true up to a point, but the PRSP crosses that point. The number of units is too high and the PRSP is too developer friendly.
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.
Decreasing the total number of units that can be constructed will help preserve at least some of the familiar business we know and love in Poway. It will also help preserve the mountain views. I would certainly consider returning building height maximums back down to 35 or 30 feet in some areas if there was sufficient demand. Additionally, by increasing the percentage of commercial space required for each development the opportunity for these or similar businesses to reopen will be increased. The city could also more strongly encourage and/or motivate developers to put in commercial activities such as a modern bowling alley, which seems to have strong support in this community. The city can exercise more influence on the design of these projects if it wants to.
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.
The further away from the I-15 you go the more risky this type of development is, so Poway Road is the best place IF you are going to do it at all. If you are talking about more typical single family home development, adding new homes to east Poway could be investigated, but I would expect the hilly nature this land to make it difficult. This is the hard truth about Poway - although you would think there is still a lot of land to develop by looking at a map, most of the undeveloped land is very hilly and not well suited for a large number of homes. Also, these are the area most venerable to fires.
d. Growth is inevitable. We should look to the future and forget about the past.
Some growth is inevitable, but that growth should be slow and steady and well planned. The additional demands created by those communities much be measured and plans made to accommodate those needs. For example, Del Sur is a huge development. But it was well planned and people seem happy with the development because there are so many amenities mixed in. While the Poway Road Corridor is not Del Sur, the same principals apply. If the development well planed and combined with lots of limitations, protections and enhancements, it might turn out to be something people like.
Please add anything else you would like to say about the PRSP.
The updated Poway Road Specific Plan has some good ideas, but it also has flaws and it is incomplete as an urban planning document. These defects pose a huge threat to South Poway. The flaws include: a) parking requirements that are too lenient and which will cause overflow parking into the local neighborhoods.b) insufficient commercial space requirements (no minimum percentage). The only commercial space requirement in the PRSP is percentage of store frontage on Poway Road. This leads to proposals with only 10% retail/commercial space. which will negate many of the benefits of a mixed use development such as putting residents within walking distance of commercial areas and activities. c) too many units overall - 1148 or 1399 is too many new units for this area. The update PRSP also exposes the lack of overall urban planning for this area. Its particular, the update PRSP does not add any parks or amenities to accommodate the thousands of new residents this development will introduce. This is completely irresponsible in this modern era of urban planning. I have proposed, at a minimum, increasing the size of Poway Community Park with some of the adjacent city owned parcels, but there is no question even more small parks must be added if anything close to the full number of units is developed. Finally, in order to fund these additional amenities higher builder fees must be charged for each unit. This is a common practice and it is strange that the city is not doing this. If $5000 was charged for each unit this would raise $5 million that could go towards new amenities. That seems like a very reasonable price to pay for all the developer friendly accommodations made by the updated PRSP. A Poway corridor melo-roos for new units could also be considered/encouraged.
___________________________________________________________
4. General Fund
(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 councilmembers) 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?
Steve Vaus-declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen-Hello my answer to the short question is a definite yes I have been questioning where the appropriate funds are being allocated to other funds like water LMDs sewer trash ETC.
In response to the longer version if elected mayor I will hire an independent auditing firm to investigate all of the funds with a fine tooth comb to see if any improprieties have been done in an illegal matter or is this just the city council playing monopoly with our tax dollars and it might not be illegal just morally wrong. What ever the case might be we will have things done in a more ethical manner if I am elected there will be full transparency to all the voters.
Emily Johnson- (submitted 9/16/2018)Short Answer: It may be possible but I do not know enough about that to say for sure. I feel as though it would require much more research as well as conversation with city officials
Long Answer: Should I be elected mayor, I feel like a longer investigation would be needed to know anything for sure. There would still be conversation and time would be needed to have any definitive information but, should this prove to be true, I would work to allocate costs back to the general fund over time. Unfortunately, this would have to be done slowly as to prevent a deficit from being formed, which may be frustrating for taxpayers but I would be unsure how to handle it any faster without causing more harm than good.
Brian Edmonston-(short version)I think this is possible. I would conduct a review of water, sewer and LMD fees and expenses to determine if the costs are truly originated from the service provided. If not, I will work to slowly transfer the allocation of those costs from the service budget to the general fund. Looking at the Water and Sewer bills I will say that it does like their are some misallocated costs including human resources and development costs. But I would have to get a more in depth look at the books.
(long version)I think there is a reasonable case to be made that, in some cases, the city is using specific funds to cover general expenses. I make this determination without access to detailed information, however.
I would be willing to review all LMDs to see if they are truly provide a specific benefit to the community that pays them. If there is substantial general benefit I would seek to have the city either take over the responsibility for these functions or somehow match these funds to provide even more enhanced services, depending on the desires of that community. If there was a true specific benefit however, then I would hope the LMD would continue.
With regard to water and sewer, there is also some evidence to suggest general costs are being funded with water fee revenue, although a closer inspection might reveal this is not the case.
Assuming, however, that it is the case I would seek to reduce the water expenses slowly over a four year period by the amount I determine is being over payed and then phase out that additional payment over the four year period.
For example, if I determined the improper allocation was $1 million dollars then each year I would reduce the expenses associated with this improper allocation by around $250,000 each year. Each years budget would have to account for that decrease by curbing any additional expedatures for that particular year. Over the course of the four years the total improper expense would be eliminated and a more fair allocation achieved without causing too much disruption to the budget.
As to sewer fees, I would consider skewing the reduction in costs towards the sewer fee and making those fees more proportional. (currently there is a volume discount for sewer fees). This would skew the benefit of any cost reduction towards lower volume users.
______________________________________________________
5. Housing
There are 2 mandates requiring Poway to plan for and/or build certain kinds of housing, one from the state and the other from the redevelopment program. The state requires every jurisdiction to plan for a “fair share” of the housing needs for the future. Sandag is the local agency where the overall number of low, very low, moderate and above moderate housing numbers are divided up for San Diego county jurisdictions for each housing cycle (a period of about 5- 10 yrs). Poway and the other cities must then zone enough land at a density high enough to meet their allocation of houses in each category. These will be market rate homes, not deed restricted “affordable” housing.
The redevelopment program required that each agency spend a certain percentage of incoming redevelopment dollars on affordable housing. Affordable housing is deed restricted housing for low and moderate income people. People have to qualify by income level for such housing. Because affordable housing brings in less rent money than market rate properties, the financing for affordable units is more complex and difficult. The redevelopment agencies have been disbanded, but some existing affordable housing projects and programs still exist in Poway and are administered by the Poway Housing Authority.
A. If it were up to you, where would you rezone land in Poway to accommodate Poway’s “fair share” allotment from the next housing cycle?
B. Do you think Poway needs more affordable (deed restricted for low and moderate income) housing? Why or why not.
Steve Vaus-declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen- Question A There are many unused open spaces that have been abandoned without active businesses in some cases for many years on Poway road no less the lot across from McDonalds that use to be a bank would be a good place for Housing. There are other empty lots as well for example the restaurant on the hill that went out of business behind Jack in the box its a bad location for any business but would be a great place for homes. Also on Poway road and the corner of carriage the old auto zone has been empty for a very long time and there is the old karate MMA studio next to discount tire that has been empty for a long time as well. Instead of destroying current businesses that are assets to the community why don't we utilize unused properties that can benefit people with affordable housing. These empty properties if developed into affordable housing would also stimulate the active businesses around them and everyone benefits.
Question B Yes with using non occupied land that I have mentioned in question 1 would be good for deed restricted and moderate income housing that would be affordable.
Emily Johnson- A) I feel that, as of right now, there isn't enough open property in Poway to accommodate the fair share allotment and that a conversation of which buildings could be repurposed for this reason would be needed. Unfortunately, the current density of homes and businesses in Poway makes me believe that we don't really have the room to add any more. It would be worth having a discussion about in order to learn how to benefit the largest number of taxpayers.
B) Yes. I believe the current cost of living in Poway is, across the board, unacceptable but especially for those who are disadvantaged by having low incomes. I have friends who have been homeless since high school because their familys could not afford to live here anymore (after living in Poway for generations). Something has to be done about the number of people in Poway who are homeless or on the edge of being homeless because of the cost of most houses here and I believe that low income housing would be the answer.
Brian Edmonston- no response
6. Staff Residency
The city council members must live in Poway since their decisions affect the quality of life in the city in which they live. Senior management on the city staff make some administrative decisions concerning land use, zoning, and developments without taking them to the city council for approval. Should senior city staff management be required to live in Poway since their decisions affect the residents of Poway?
Steve Vaus-declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen-I believe senior management on the city staff should live in Poway because not only do they make suggestions that can be future laws. They also make decisions that affect all of us like land use, zoning and developments and they would have a vested interest in the community. In the future it should be a prerequisite for high ranking senior city officials, but to play devils advocate and to also be fair and balanced the current high ranking officials should not be forced to alter there personal lives by way of moving to Poway. So they should be exempt by way of the grandfather rule for the current staff but future employees should be Poway residents because it would be more than just a 9 to 5 job for them they would be a true part of the community. The past city manager not only lives in Poway but has lived here for over 20 years but in regards to Mrs. White she does have a history with Poway since 2001 and was the assistant city manager since 2010 becoming the city manager in 2016 so she has paid her dues so to speak not like a certain city council member who just happens to be the daughter of a former mayor of Encinitas. So in closing it is something we should formally announce so there will not be any controversy for future city officials it will be common knowledge and no surprises and people that are applying will move here if they really want the job.
Emily Johnson-Yes, I believe that they should live in Poway. I feel like decisions in Poway have to be made by our residents so, that way, they are made with the city's best interest at heart. Many decisions being made in Poway are negativity affecting our residents (mainly in South Poway) so, if Poway citizens were the ones making the decisions, they would also be thinking about their friends, family, and neighbors.
Brian Edmonston- no response
_________________________________________________________
&. Water and Sewer Rates
Which of these would you support?
A. Cost allocations- only allow the city to charge for costs that are directly related to water and sewer. For example, currently half of all of the costs for the legislative and administrative department (city council, city manager, assistant city manager, city clerk, etc) are charged to the water and sewer bills. A change in cost allocations would require that employees keep a record and only charge for the time spent directly on water and sewer issues.
B. Change to a uniform sewer rate. Currently, the lowest water users pay the highest sewer rates. Converting to a uniform rate would relieve an unfair burden on smaller volume users.
C. Disallow legal fees and cost of judgments to be billed to the water and sewer fund. Bill them to the general fund.
D. When assets paid for by water and sewer ratepayers are sold, put the money into the water and sewer fund instead of the general fund.
E. Insist that any rents or leases collected on water and sewer property or infrastructure be put into the water and sewer fund.
F. Pay back the $8 million borrowed from the water and sewer funds at an interest rate equal to the amount that Poway”s investment fund earned each year since the money was borrowed. Accelerate the repayments so that they money will be paid back within the next 4 years.
Please share any other ideas you have to reduce water and sewer rates.
Steve Vaus-declined to participate
Yuri Bohlen-
A. cost allocations should only allow the city to charge for costs that are directly related to water and sewer. 50% of all costs that are of the legislative and administrative departments are charged to water bills. They should keep records and only charge for the actual work related to water and sewer issues. This is what I call bilking the taxpayer for other issues and profiting from work not related to the actual job in relation to water and sewer which is morally wrong in my opinion.
Honorable mention #DWhen assets are paid for by water and sewer ratepayers are sold they should be put back in the water and sewer fund not the general fund.
Common sense ideas for reducing water costs. Don't take 1 hour showers, don't water your lawn at noon on a hot day wait till after 6pm. When drying the dishes turn off the water ETC.
Emily JohnsonI support all of these bullets.
Brian Edmonston- no response
