Peter DeHoff Candidate Statement – Rebuttal
Campaign statements should tell voters what a candidate believes and, just as importantly, provide an accurate representation of that candidate’s record. My opponent’s candidate statement makes several claims about his positions and accomplishments that deserve closer examination against the public record. This article is not about personal attacks; it is about facts, documented votes, and what actually happened. Voters in Poway deserve to make their decision based on the record—not simply on campaign promises or carefully worded statements.
Peter DeHoff states in his candidate statement, “I helped lead the acquisition of over 300 acres of Open Space to preserve our hillsides and ridgelines, with more coming. I initiated the Dark Sky Ordinance to safeguard our night skies and rural landscape, and the Pickleball Noise Ordinance to properly mitigate noise. Poway is meeting its state-mandated housing requirements. I am fighting to retain local control: I consistently advocate for the lowest-density option when evaluating development proposals to protect Poway's character and quality of life.”
There is currently a public review time before they become part of the final record. However, the rules requiring a public official to make a change are significant. To challenge a candidate statement during the public examination period (most notably under California Elections Code § 13313), specific procedural and legal criteria must be met:
Here is the text that I consider to be false or misleading.
Statement: I helped lead the acquisition of over 300 acres of Open Space to preserve our hillsides and ridgelines, with more coming.
Fact: In January 2026, the Poway City Council unanimously approved the redesignation/rezoning of 311.48 acres on 32 parcels as permanent open space. Of those:
25 private properties — about 106 acres — already had recorded biological conservation easements.
7 parcels totaling 205.12 acres had been purchased by the City of Poway for permanent preservation.
The two most prominent acquisitions were 165.86 acres at Van Dam Peak and 39.26 acres at Twin Peaks.
The accurate statement is:
· Poway recently added 311.48 acres to its permanently preserved open-space inventory, but approximately 205 acres of that was land actually purchased by the City; the remainder was privately owned land protected through conservation easements.
The acquisitions were City of Poway actions, approved by the City Council as part of the City's long-running open-space acquisition program and Habitat Conservation Plan. The City says the effort covered nearly five years and involved both acquiring property and redesignating properties that already had conservation easements.
Peter DeHoff took office in December 2022. This process was well under process BEFORE he was even in office.
Mayor Steve Vaus publicly emphasized the importance of these acquisitions and described the preservation as the result of long-term City policy and decisions. The City Council approved the actions, and the work involved City staff and the City's ongoing Habitat Conservation Plan program. The actual acquisition was led by City staff, NOT Peter DeHoff.
Statement: I initiated the Dark Sky Ordinance to safeguard our night skies and rural landscape,
Fact: The Dark Sky Ordinance, Poway's municipal lighting regulations contain dark-sky provisions that trace back to Ordinance No. 162 (1985) and earlier lighting ordinances. The current code specifically cites Ordinance 162, adopted in 1985, among the historical sources for its outdoor-lighting requirements.
· The San Diego County Light Pollution Code, which is the broader regional effort protecting Palomar and Mount Laguna observatories, dates to January 18, 1985. It is commonly referred to as the County's "Dark Sky Ordinance."
· Poway's current code requires outdoor lighting to minimize glare, upward light, artificial sky glow, light pollution and light trespass, specifically to preserve the night sky.
Fact: Poway's dark-sky protections predate DeHoff's time on the City Council by decades. The City's lighting regulations and planning documents have long included requirements intended to reduce sky glow and protect nighttime visibility.
· For example, Poway's Farm in Poway Specific Plan, adopted in 2020, states that lighting must comply with “Dark Sky” policies to the largest extent feasible.
· The City's LED street-light conversion, begun around 2019, explicitly considered conservation of the night sky and compliance with Poway's dark-sky policies.
· I found records showing DeHoff serving on the Council and participating in numerous City matters, but I did not find a City agenda item, resolution, ordinance, staff report, or other official record crediting him with initiating a Dark Sky program.
An interesting connection. There is evidence that “a” Peter DeHoff has a substantial professional connection to lighting standards. An international standards document identifies Peter Dehoff as convenor of an ISO/CIE working group dealing with lighting. However, this Peter Dehoff is an Austrian Division Member. https://cie.co.at/person/dehoff-peter
That could explain why someone might associate him with lighting or dark-sky issues, but that's not the same thing as establishing that he initiated a City of Poway Dark Sky program.
Statement: Poway is meeting its state-mandated housing requirements.
Fact: Not fully—at least not in terms of actual housing production, and the shortfall is particularly significant for lower-income housing.
Poway's current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2020–2029 cycle is 1,319 units, broken down as:
Income Bracket 6th Cycle Target Units Units Permitted So Far Remaining Deficit
Very Low Income 468 Units -15 Units -453 units
Low Income 268 units -53 units -215 units
Combined Income 736 units 68 units 668 units
These are the City's state-mandated housing targets for the cycle.
Where Poway stands
The most recent information I found indicates that through 2025 Poway had permitted approximately 665 units—about 50% of the 1,319-unit target. More importantly, the progress is very uneven by income category:
Above-moderate: approximately 400 permitted, already exceeding Poway's 342-unit allocation.
Moderate: approximately 180 permitted, about 75% of the 241-unit allocation.
Low-income: essentially no progress in 2025 toward the remaining target.
Very-low-income: essentially no progress in 2025 toward the remaining target.
For the lower-income housing categories, Poway is substantially behind.
Fact: Poway is behind its overall RHNA production pace, and the shortfall is especially pronounced for very-low- and low-income housing.
Statement: (I initiated …..)and the Pickleball Noise Ordinance to properly mitigate noise.
Fact: I could not find or attribute the Poway pickleball noise ordinance to Peter DeHoff based on the records I can find.
What I found is actually more complicated:
Poway has had pickleball/noise concerns documented for years. For example, public comments about the proposed Farm in Poway pickleball courts raised concerns about paddle noise as early as 2019, and the project's 2020 noise technical report specifically studied pickleball noise. This was prior to Peter DeHoff taking office.
The Farm project ultimately contemplated 16 pickleball courts, so pickleball noise was already a planning issue well before the current City Council discussion.
More recently, the City Council has been dealing with complaints and questions about pickleball noise and whether the City's existing noise rules adequately address it. A recent report says the Council asked staff to study the City's noise rules in response to the issue.
I have not found a City ordinance, resolution, staff report, or agenda item identifying DeHoff as the person who initiated a pickleball-specific noise ordinance.
The City's official records portal specifically provides access to its Council agendas, minutes, ordinances and resolutions, which is where we would expect to find evidence of such an initiative.
More Information on the Pickleball Claim.
I do not find evidence that Peter De Hoff initiated a “pickleball noise ordinance.” What I do find is a series of pickleball-related noise and land-use issues, with De Hoff participating as a councilmember in the later matters.
Chronology
2019 — The Farm raises the issue before De Hoff was on Council
During the environmental review of The Farm in Poway, residents specifically raised concerns about pickleball noise. A June 22, 2019 public comment said pickleball could be heard over long distances and suggested locating the courts farther from homes.
The important point is that pickleball noise was already a documented Poway planning issue in 2019, before De Hoff was elected to Council in November 2022. De Hoff took office in December 2022.
2020 — City formally studies pickleball noise
The Farm's February 2020 Noise Technical Report specifically analyzed pickleball courts. It assumed pickleball noise of approximately 54 dBA Leq at 80 feet from a single court and evaluated the potential noise from the proposed courts.
The Farm's General Plan consistency analysis also states that the Specific Plan includes noise-level and operating-hour limitations and that future applications could be required to provide additional noise studies.
So there was already a formal City noise-analysis framework for pickleball in 2020.
2023 — The Farm/Life Time changes the pickleball proposal
After De Hoff joined the Council, Life Time proposed a substantially larger fitness facility.
The original approved concept included four pickleball courts and five tennis courts. The revised proposal contemplated up to six pickleball courts or three tennis courts, while the building grew from 6,000 to 30,500 square feet.
I found evidence that De Hoff expressed concern about impacts on nearby residents, particularly concerning the Life Time facility, but I have not found evidence that he proposed a new pickleball noise ordinance.
2024–2025 — A separate private pickleball court becomes a City land-use issue
A much more specific case emerged at 13607 Via Serena.
The City processed Minor Conditional Use Permit 24-0001 to legalize an existing private outdoor pickleball court with four 15-foot light poles. The property is in the Rural Residential-B zone. The City held a neighborhood meeting on May 29, 2025.
This is significant because it was not a Citywide pickleball noise ordinance. It was a land-use/conditional-use-permit matter concerning an existing private court and its lighting.
On August 19, 2025, the City Council considered MCUP 24-0001. The official Council video identifies the item as:
“Minor Conditional Use Permit 24-0001, a Request to Approve Existing Lighting to a Recreational Court (Pickleball) for a Single-Family Residence Located at 13607 Via Serena.”
De Hoff was on the Council at the time.
I have not found a record showing that De Hoff originated the application, initiated the noise issue, or proposed a new ordinance as a result of this case.
2025–2026 — City considers public pickleball courts
The issue then moved from individual-property regulation to providing public pickleball facilities.
The City's 2025–26 budget included funding to identify potential sites for pickleball courts.
In May 2026, City staff presented potential locations to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. Staff recommended a site near Stowe Drive and Crosthwaite Circle in the business park for dedicated public courts. The City described this as the first step in identifying a location and obtaining community feedback.
The June 16, 2026 Council budget discussion subsequently identified financing for six to eight dedicated South Poway pickleball courts near the Sportsplex.
Again, this was a parks/recreation and site-selection issue, not evidence of a De Hoff-initiated noise ordinance.
What about the alleged "De Hoff pickleball noise ordinance"?
This is where I think the distinction is important.
I searched for:
a pickleball-specific ordinance
a Council resolution initiated by De Hoff
a Municipal Code amendment specifically addressing pickleball noise
Council agenda items identifying De Hoff as the initiator
City documents tying De Hoff to creation of such an ordinance
I have not found one.
The City's existing general noise regulations already address noise from recreational facilities. For example, the City's community-services regulations prohibit loud or unusual noise at City facilities and require users to control noise that could disturb surrounding neighborhoods.
My conclusion
Based on the records I can verify:
Pickleball noise was a documented Poway issue at least as early as 2019, and the City formally analyzed pickleball noise in the 2020 Farm environmental review. I find no evidence that Peter De Hoff initiated a Citywide pickleball noise ordinance.
Statement: I am fighting to retain local control: I consistently advocate for the lowest-density option when evaluating development proposals to protect Poway's character and quality of life.
Fact:What he said when running in 2022
De Hoff presented himself as a candidate who wanted to preserve Poway's character. In the 2022 candidate forum, he said he wanted to keep Poway the kind of safe, family-oriented community with open space and local amenities that attracted his family.
More significantly, reporting on the 2025 recall effort says his 2022 candidate statement “strongly opposed high density development.” Residents seeking the recall argued that his subsequent votes did not consistently reflect that position. The same reporting states that De Hoff supported some high-density projects.
Fact: Since taking office in December 2022, Peter De Hoff has supported residential projects that added housing density, Harmon Ranch project, which was originally zoned RS7 and likely could have only around 40 units in there. DeHoff and council approved tiny lots with reduced setback on a flood plain for Harmon Ranch, and the 16-unit expansion of West Village on Poway Road. I have not found a documented Council vote in which he advocated for a lower-density alternative to either project.
That doesn't necessarily mean he favors high density generally—it demonstrates that he is willing to support higher-density housing when he believes that is the way the council is going to vote.
There is also evidence of him supporting development that isn't simply the lowest-density alternative
The 2025 reporting is particularly relevant because it specifically says residents criticized De Hoff for supporting some high-density projects, arguing that this conflicted with his 2022 campaign position.
The 13044/13056 Poway Road project is another useful example to examine. The City identified it as a 47-unit, three-story townhome project with three ground-floor commercial spaces in the Town Center district of the Poway Road Corridor Specific Plan. The two parcels total approximately 2.26 acres. The City's Housing Element identifies the parcels individually at:
13044 Poway Road: 1.34 acres
13056 Poway Road: 0.92 acres
The City's Housing Element previously identified these sites as having a 35-unit and 20-unit housing capacity, respectively, for a combined 55-unit capacity under the housing-site analysis.
However, the City's broader PRSP housing analysis says that the expected development density in the Town Center was approximately 30 dwelling units per acre, while the PRSP allowed maximum densities up to 35 units/acre at certain sites.
The current Intracorp proposal is 47 townhomes, or approximately 20.8 units per gross acre, plus 1,407 square feet of commercial space.
So, I would not characterize 47 units as simply "the highest density allowed." It isn't.
But there was a lower-impact alternative
If our standard is minimum residential intensity while still redeveloping the property, the lower end of the applicable density range would produce fewer units than 47.
There is no evidence that DeHoff has advocated for units fewer than 47.
A 2025 Voice of San Diego report on the recall effort states that De Hoff's 2022 candidate statement strongly opposed high-density development, while residents subsequently criticized him because he had supported some high-density projects.
In all of the project’s analysis, there is no evidence that DeHoff advocated for lower density and in approved cases, voted for the project as presented, including the higher density.
Ultimately, this election is about trust and accountability. If a candidate cannot be trusted to provide voters with an accurate and honest candidate statement, can you trust that candidate to accurately represent your interests on the City Council for the next four years? I believe Poway deserves leaders who tell the truth, stand behind their words, and are accountable to the people they serve.