Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, and welcome to the planning commission meeting of 05/07/2026. Until further notice, planning commission meetings will be conducted pursuant to portion provisions of government code section five four nine five three a as amended by assembly bill two two four nine, which allows the public to participate in person as well as via a hybrid format. This meeting will be live streamed on the city's website. Members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter format the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes.

The virtual queue will close five minutes after in person testimony ends. Also, per section two point six point two a and b of the rules of counsel, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time may only be seated by speakers who are present in chambers. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their testimony.

Thank you, vice chair Boomhauer. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip if you wish to speak. In person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins. Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link, which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the Planning Commission's webpage, or you may dial +1 (669) 254-5252. The webinar ID is 1604075570. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a thirty second delay. Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to

speak. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now take roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Mazari?

Present.

Commissioner Malbro? Present. Commissioner Miyahara?

Present.

Commissioner Reeves?

Present.

Commissioner Renger?

Present.

Vice chair Bohmauer is present and serving as chair because chair Modane is absent. Staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, the assistant deputy director for development services, Corinne Neufer, senior chief deputy city attorney, Tate Galloway, deputy director city planning, Mehdi Kalili, senior civil engineer with the engineering division, and our exceptional legislative staff. We are now going to begin our agenda with public comment for non agenda items. This portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to make comments on planning related items that are not on today's agenda. Any person wishing to speak will have three minutes maximum to provide testimony.

If you'd like to speak online, please click the raised hand icon on your screen. We did receive some written on agenda comment that has been received by the commission. We have two speakers in chambers, Pioreta Javier. And make sure you turn on the microphone. You'll have three minutes. Push the button on the front of the microphone.

Okay. Go ahead, please. My wife first.

Go ahead, miss Javier. Thank you. Three minutes.

Alright. This one?

Yes. It's morning. Don't forget.

Good morning. I am Perrita Javier, senior with existing medical condition and victim of ceramic stone. My husband says her since 1997 and 2012 for him. What you see is a glazed pottery, mauve glazed with paint, with lead, and other metal chemical when has reheated at 2,000 Fahrenheit with wood gas or electric fuel energy will produce poison gas impacting the air we breathe from smoke unseen odorless gases, air contaminants we inhaled and even ingested only explains how we are vulnerable, sick, hurt, depression, anxiety, and stress. And my doctor from Sharp, doctor Sousset Barre, declared my memory, Alzheimer's, dementia, from moderate to some higher.

Added to this is my left level hearing is busted and rights warning. Again and again, we are here for help. And, hopefully, it shall not happen here in our community. It's a lesson because city of San Diego ignores and gradually neglect like the Tijuana.

River Valley.

River Valley pollution crisis. For consular, we have been seeking help from APCD. Bush, we have been seeking help from APCD since twenty Miss '22.

Miss Javier, that that's your three minutes, but I'm gonna call your husband now. Cesar Javier, you have three minutes.

Thank you, sir Bomer. I was expecting the lady, the Hollywood actress like, mom because she was the first, person to respond getting the business tax permit of the owner. We were grateful at last that it reached the hands of the planning philosophers, thinkers. And I said to wife my wife, they are going to solve our issue. Our issue in our community, number one, this toxic thing, poisoning the air we breathe.

And through channel, we ask the help of councilor Rivera. Oh, by the way, he's running for mayor, councilor Rivera. And he's rushing up projects like this one, Chola's restoration. When he could have put something, a program to stop this toxic poisoning the air we breathe in our residential community. It's wrong to be located there.

For five years, we have been knocking, seeking, voicing our issue. By the way, we are advocate of community sustainability, Habir family, with 77 signatories supporting our crusade. It is our community, your community, San Jagan's residence. We are San Jagan's. Why is the city failing?

Evidence. What single cent or a dollar spent to cure, care, feed the victims of the Tijuana River Valley pollution. Where is our place there? If they can do that to San Jacoons at District 8, how much more in our District 9 with a failing leadership under this aspiring mayor, Elo Rivera? He wrote us a letter.

Mister Javier, thank you for reaching us. Just like that. We will reach APCD only to find out discovered in 2024 that he is one of the absentee governing board member. We are the evidence because we have been consistently meeting, joining the APCD. APCD is organized by the city mayor, and he owns it. He decides what is good for his political career. Take note. Citations, penalties are massaged through hearing board. We were there, your honor. Thank you.

Thank you,

mister Javier. That's your time.

Thank you.

Are there any online speakers? There are none, so we will continue on with our agenda. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? Do I did I miss something? Yeah. Is any anything to go on consent? Hearing nothing, I guess we gotta hear today's agenda. Meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes that were presented for 04/16/2026 hearing?

So moved.

Second. Motion and a second. We can vote. Oh, sorry. Are there any public comments on those minutes? Seeing none, we can move to a vote. I just get excitable. That item passes unanimously. Are there any director reports?

Yes. Thank you, vice chair. The last planning commission hearing was held on April 16. The commission heard six items. The first three items were approved on consent unanimous unanimously with commissioner Marlborough absent.

The three items involve modifications to existing wireless communication facilities. Item four was a neighborhood development permit, site development permit, tentative map, and the subdivision of one lot into five lots to allow for 985 multi dwelling units and commercial space, at 7020 Airway Road in Otay Mesa. Item five was an initiation of a community plan amendment to redesignate 6.91 acres from industrial park to high medium residential, allowing up to twenty nine twelve units per acre in the Scripps Miramar Ranch community plan area. And finally, item six was a recommendation to adopt a proposed ordinance phasing implementation of senate bill 79, including exemptions. The phased implementation would occur in areas in very high fire hazard severity zones, areas subject to one foot of sea level rise, low resource areas, and sites with designated historic resources.

Areas more than one mile walking distance from a trolley stop would be exempt from s p 79 implementation in the proposed, package. All four all four three items, excuse me, were approved unanimously with commissioner Marlboro absent. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Anything from planning?

Yeah. Good morning, commissioners. Tate Galloway, deputy director of city planning department. And just to follow-up on what, Michael talked about with the phase implementation for s b 79, That will be at city council tonight at 06:00 for a special city council meeting. That concludes my, report. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any nonagenda comment from the planning commission? Commissioner Reeves is just happy the tech's all working since I'm sharing.

Oh, that's

I said it for you. I saved you. Alright. Then we are ready to move on to item number one, staff, whenever you are ready.

Phone in testimony is now open. Please review the instructions provided on the screen.

And just use a finger?

Go ahead and just start. Okay.

Here it goes. K. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, commissioner. Sorry about that. I'm Oscar Galvez, development project manager with the development service department, and joining me is Sean McGee, principal planner with the city planning department. The item before you today is the Southwest Village specific plan project. A correction memo was submitted to the planning commission.

The memo includes an attachment for each play page that was revised as noted on this slide. Number one, CPOS was replaced with community plan. Number two, text was added to report section seven b three clarifying fire access requirements. Number three, o p dash one one was replaced with o r dash one two. Number four, CPOS was replaced in the community plan and general plan approval, and reference to the endowment resolution was deleted.

Number five, the titles of attachment number 15 and number 16 were revised. Number six, VTM one was added to supplemental development regulation number 24 regarding fire plan requirements. And number seven, text was added to specific plan section 7.13 g clarifying the requirements for Beyer Boulevard West. The 490 acre project site is generally bounded North of The US Mexico International Border, East Of Interstate 805, South of State Route 905, and West of the Central Village specific plan area within the Otay Mesa community plan area. The required approvals include a subsequent environmental impact report, amendments to the general plan in Otay Mesa community plan, the Southwest Village specific plan, a rezone, vesting tentative map, site development permit, MHPA boundary line adjustment, road improvement ordinance for dedicated parkland, and a road improvement resolution for designated parkland.

The project proposes 5,130 homes, 175,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 35 acres of parks, 16 acres for potential school uses, approximately 190 acres of surrounding natural open space, the connection of Caliente Avenue offering North South access, and the connection of Beyer Boulevard offering East West access. The specific plan area includes over 70 owners. Tri Pointe Homes, shown in blue, owns approximately 239 acres. Otay Mesa LLC, shown in orange, owns 55 acres. The Handler Trust, shown in tan, owns 20 acres.

The City of San Diego, shown in red, owns 12 acres. San Isidro Industrial Park LLC, shown in green, owns 68 acres, and other property owners, shown in purple, own approximately 95 acres. Since 2017, more than 30 meetings with landowners have occurred. On 09/13/2018, a notice of application was mailed per the San Diego Municipal Code. On 01/15/2020, the Southwest Village subcommittee voted to recommend approval of the Southwest Village Pacific Plan.

On 03/04/2020, a publicly noticed environmental impact report scoping meeting was held at San Ysidro High School, And public review of the draft subsequent environmental impact report occurred between 05/01/2025 and 06/23/2025.

The Southwest Village specific plan is being prepared in accordance with the Otay Mesa community plan. Adopted in 2014, the Otay Mesa community plan requires a specific plan for the Southwest District Of Otay Mesa to implement the general plans city of villages strategy. The community plan requires that the Southwest Village be planned comprehensively through a single contiguous specific plan. The plan must be privately sponsored and developed collaboratively with the city. The Otay Mesa community plan envisions Southwest Village as a compact, walkable, transit oriented village with sustainable and efficient land use.

The specific plan would address design details for the village core, public spaces, and provide a complete multimodal circulation system connected to the broader Otay Mesa network. Tri Pointe Homes has prepared the Southwest Village specific plan to implement the community plan's vision and policy direction within the Southwest Village specific plan area. The specific plan creates a comprehensive mixed use village that implements the Otay Mesa community plan and the city of villages strategy. It provides a balanced land use framework, including opportunities for new homes, shops, parks, schools, and open space that would support a complete and connected community. The specific plan enables a diverse range of housing types and up to 5,130 new home opportunities, aligning with the community plan's policies for housing, type, variety, and affordability.

A village core would be established near the intersection of Beyer Boulevard and Caliente Avenue, focusing higher density mixed use development to support transit, walking, and daily needs within the community. The specific plan would refine community plan land uses, specifically the community plan's neighborhood village designation to reflect on the ground constraints, adjusting village acreage while also protecting about 200 acres of sensitive habitat and natural open space. The specific plan would provide the detailed policy and regulatory framework to guide cohesive development across the Southwest Village consistent with the community plan. The specific plans village urban design approach defines the character, quality, and sense of place of Southwest Village by integrating architecture, landscape, and site planning into a cohesive built environment. Design policies guide how buildings, public spaces, and neighborhood features relate to one another, helping create a distinct, attractive, functional, and sustainable community.

Policies address general design, the village core, residential areas, streetscapes, and the public realm, emphasizing the connection between individual projects and shared community spaces. The specific plan's urban design policies address the village's urban core, site design, architecture and form, access and materials, noise attenuation, and lighting among other features. The specific plan's land use framework also integrates a grid street network, a transit mobility hub, and safe pedestrian and bicycle connections, advancing the city's climate, mobility, and sustainability goals. The specific plan delivers a safe, reliable, and integrated mobility network that supports walking, biking, transit, and driving while strengthening connections to Otay Mesa and San Isidro. A system of complete streets, trails, paseos, and bike routes link neighborhoods to the village core, parks, schools, and future transit, all designed around a pedestrian scaled grid like street pattern.

The mobility network is coordinated with the general plan, the Otay Mesa community plan, and SANDAG's regional plan with ongoing city and Sand Ag collaboration to pursue transit consistent with community goals. A potential future transit stop and mobility hub at Caliente Avenue and Byer Boulevard would establish the village core as the community's multimodal center. The specific plan street classifications are refined to match the area's topography and open space with Caliente Avenue and Beyer Boulevard redesigned to better support walking, biking, and transit access. The bicycle network upgrades community plan routes with class one paths and buffered class two lanes, creating continuous north south and east west connections throughout the village. Additionally, sidewalks, paseos, and a perimeter trail provide connected pedestrian routes, reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles and supporting the city's climate and sustainability goals.

The specific plan also addresses emergency access and evacuation within the specific plan area. Future development with investing tentative map one that includes more than 200 homes must prepare a fire plan showing two separated access points for emergency response. Other future development within the specific plan area will be subject to the California fire code at the time of application. Beyer Boulevard and Caliente Avenue would service the primary East West and North South fire access routes with a secondary emergency access road connecting to Rail Court in San Isidro. The secondary access would be built during the first phase of the specific plan.

Primary evacuation routes are shown here in red with Caliente Avenue offering North South access and Beyer Boulevard offering East West access. The secondary emergency vehicle access road at the eastern terminus of East Beyer Boulevard and the future South Caliente Avenue intersection extends south to Rail Court and is shown in orange. The specific plan would provide up to 35 acres of parks recreation areas, including two city neighborhood parks supported by a network of pocket parks, mini parks, paseos, plazas, and trails consistent with the park's master plan. The plan incorporates a value based recreation standard requiring each planning area to meet minimum amenity points tied to population, ensuring high quality and well equipped recreation spaces. Larger neighborhood parks would be public, while smaller parks and plazas would be privately maintained with public access, ensuring recreation spaces are distributed throughout each planning area as development occurs.

Parks and trails are woven into the village structure linking homes, schools, open space, and the village core through an interconnected system of sidewalks, paseos, and a perimeter trail with scenic views. Two neighborhood parks, a nine acre park near the village core and a seven acre park in the northern area would offer amenities such as sports fields, courts, and pathways. A future school site located next to a neighborhood park creates a strong community activity center and enables potential joint use recreation facilities. Open space trails would connect Southwest Village to the broader Otay Mesa Trail system and include updates to community plan trail alignments to reflect the specific plan. The specific plan preserves about 200 acres or 41% of the plan area as permanent open space, protecting sensitive habitats, steep slopes, and landslide prone areas.

The open space includes lands within the multi habitat planning area and areas covered under the vernal pool habitat conservation plan. To accommodate necessary infrastructure like the Beyer Boulevard extension, the plan includes a multi habitat planning area boundary adjustment and a major amendment to the vernal pool habitat conservation plan, both developed in coordination with federal and state wildlife agencies. The conservation strategy would replace impact to conserve lands with new high value habitat areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 14 acres of multi habitat planning area land. Conserve lands within and adjacent to the specific plan create an expanded contiguous open space system that supports regional habitat link linkages and long term species protection. The integrated open space network supports scenic views, trails, and natural buffers while ensuring development avoids sensitive biological resources and adheres to habitat conservation requirements.

The specific plan also outlines the water, wastewater, drainage, storm water, and utility systems needed to support development, including extensions of off-site infrastructure, upgrades to existing pump stations, and two new wastewater lift stations. Infrastructure would be installed with appropriate setbacks from street trees and designed to align with the village's complete street network. The specific plan phasing ensures that essential public features such as parks and key roadway segments like the Beyer Boulevard connection to San Isidro are delivered in step with new homes. Schools are recognized as vital community facilities with two potential school sites included, a primary site in Planning Area 16 and an optional secondary site in Planning Area 7 which is subject to the San Isidro School District needs. The plan provides clear phasing thresholds for requires future development to pay school impact fees to support new educational facilities.

Joint use park opportunities are encouraged so that school recreation areas can serve the broader community during non school hours helping integrate schools into the village's public space and recreation network. Finally, the closest fire stations serving the specific plan area include fire station twenty nine and fire station forty three. Additionally, fire station forty nine is planned approximately three quarters of a mile north of the specific plan area just west of Caliente Avenue along Otay Mesa Road. The specific plan establishes supplemental development regulations that tailor or expand upon the San Diego municipal code and base zone regulations to guide future development within the village. These regulations address key design and development elements including building setbacks, height, mixed use standards, grading, walls and fences, brush management, trails, and transportation facilities to ensure a cohesive village form.

They also include standards for wildlife crossing, recreation requirements, and allowable alternative land uses providing flexibility while maintaining consistency with the plan's overall vision. Together, these regulations function as the implementation framework that ensures future projects align with the specific plan's land use, mobility, environmental, and community design goals. The specific plan also includes a comprehensive rezone of approximately 890 acres for both properties within and partially within the plan area to apply new base zones that directly implement the land uses within the specific plan's land use framework. As part of the specific plan, properties would be rezoned from the AR 11 to the RMX1, RM37, RM25, RM13, OR12, OP11, and OC11 base zones. The rezones introduce opportunities for a mix of residential densities, mixed use areas, schools, parks, and open space.

The Southwest Village specific plan includes a coordinated phasing program to ensure that infrastructure, utilities, drainage systems, and circulation improvements are delivered in step with new development. Improvements to roads, water and sewer systems, storm water facilities, and other essential infrastructure would be constructed as each planning area moves forward aligning upgrades with actual growth. A phasing summary outlines the anticipated sequence of land uses over time while still allowing flexibility in how individual development projects proceed. The first phase includes a vesting tentative map for nine twenty homes, including 92 affordable homes, setting the foundation for early infrastructure and community facilities.

As noted on the previous slide, phase one includes planning areas eight through 14. The vesting tentative map includes seven lots and proposes the construction of 920 homes, including 92 affordable homes. A subsequent environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program were prepared in accordance with CEQA. In addition, CEQA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations have been prepared. As noted on this slide, significant and unavoidable impacts to land use, air quality, historical resources, human health, noise, traffic, utilities and tribal cultural resources.

On 06/18/2025, the Otay Mesa Community Planning Group voted eight zero to one to recommend approval of the project. Staff recommends approval of the Southwest Village specific plan project. This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the commissioners before we move to public comment? Seeing none, we will move to public comment. We are going to start with speakers in favor. Alan Kashani.

I have speaker seating time. By the way, we're gonna, limit public comment to two minutes per speaker because of the number of slips we have. If you can raise your hand when I call your name just so we can get the record show have the record show you're here. I have Michelle Staples, seating time. Thank you.

Molly Ryan. Thank you. Elizabeth Hanson, Yara Fisher, Justin Rossis, Michael Titus, Doug Nichols, thank you, Julia Hill, Brooke Peterson, Makia Vang, Mike Taylor. Is that enough?

Yes. I

I I'm like, I gotta be past. I'm sorry. I thought you were counting. Okay. You will have if we

do Fifteen.

Fifteen minutes.

Do I need a clicker?

Need a second to share the screen.

Your time will start once the presentation's up. These are separate. Yes.

Okay. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Alan Kashani. I'm director of land entitlements at Tri Pointe Homes. I'm joined here by a team of experts from our team that can help answer questions. Our division president, Mike Taylor, is here as well. Can you speak louder? Sure. This has been a a long journey for us. If we could go to the next slide.

And by the way, the staff presentation was very thorough. I'm gonna try and skip slides that might be redundant. Oh, this is a PDF, so I'm not sure the clicker. You able to scroll to

the next?

Just a little bit about Tri Point Homes. We're formerly party homes we've been building in San Diego more than seventy five years in various districts. Most notably, Oceanview Hills, which is the community to the north, is a master plan community that TriPoint homes built just north of 905, and it was a little over 3,500 homes. And the things we do are not just homes. We also do public facilities.

We built community parks, fire stations, etcetera. Oscar, can we go down to the next slide? I'm gonna I'm gonna actually skip this slide and the next slide, which I think Oscar covered very well. On the ownership, I just wanted to say that there are so many owners, more than 70 others, that it's difficult to for everyone to be happy as part of this process. We tried our best.

If if we could go to the next slide, and I'll get into that. A little bit about our planning effort. I've been involved in this project since 2003, and we've been planning really ever since. But most notably, we submitted for a specific plan in 2016. We've been working heavily with wildlife agencies.

I'm gonna show you a little bit about that. We also created a subcommittee that was formed by the Otay Mesa Community Planning Group. We had over 20 meet meet meetings and involved stakeholders in that process. And we we also had a a action by the planning group in June 2025 and I'm sorry. Yeah.

June 2025. There's no no opposition. No and we had unanimous approval there. We created a website specifically for our outreach program, and we answered every single inquiry as part of that process. Those are a few things I just wanted to note.

And we've been working with various agencies, county, school district, etcetera. If we could go to the next slide, this just shows some quantitative information about all the outreach that we did in terms of 20 subcommittee meetings, etcetera. So I'll move on to keep going. And here, I think this is an important slide to share regarding constraints. Basically, the yellow area is a landslide area.

That was originally development in the community plan. The Orange area was originally Mesa Top area that was housing in the community plan. That, within that area, Tri Pointe had to give up 33 acres for this specific plan to be able to move forward. And we're doing a vernal pool restoration project, a 33 acre vernal pool project there. Also, there's some complication where two green parcels were acquired for 100% conservation That also caused some constraints that we had to deal with.

So that's what I wanted to share on this slide. We can skip this slide. On top of that, basically, the project is off to the right on this slide, the specific plan, but Buyer Road is a a key element with providing a secondary roadway to serve the Mesa. And, the orange and the green areas are wildlife conservation banks. They were completely depleted and used for development projects, and the wildlife agencies, have a conservation easement protecting those lands.

And we had to go through a robust process to try and put a road through those lands. Buyer Boulevard has been in the community plant since 1981, and somehow these conservation banks were done after that date, and this project proposes to reconcile that so that Bayer can proceed. If we can go to the next slide. We had over 27 meetings with the wildlife agencies, and this just gives you a little bit of all the, all the steps we took to try and get through that process. And we even went to Sacramento, US Fish and Wildlife Sacramento, when we had disagreement.

So I thought that was worth sharing. Oscar, we can move on. And then what we had to do with Bayer going through 100% conserve lands, basically, we had it started out as a four lane road, was a community plan with and we necked it down to two lanes with a a narrow four lane or a four foot wide median, put a trail on one side of the road only, and and tried to reduce the impacts. But as a part of that, the wildlife agencies wanted 9.8 acres conserved up to a 75% conservation level, so still allowing development of one unit. And and they wanted that in this planning Area 23 area.

And this in this slide, I'd also just showing that they also wanted a 100 acres from Tri Point Lands to be conserved as well to a 100% conservation. And as a part of that review process, we added this EVA access, which was incorporated to allow some development activity so that we can have some ability to carry and move infrastructure forward on the project. Next slide. Planning Area 23 is was an area that I just described, and the Yellow Area is was before the wildlife agency process originally proposed as residential development. But during the wildlife agency review process, there were two, 100 conserved, city owned parcels that were acquired with vernal pool resources, and that drove the wildlife agencies to, their request of, 75% conservation level there.

So the Yellow area can be developed with one unit per parcel, and there are 10 remaining parcels there that are just under an acre. And what the specific plan proposes is an o r one two zone, which is functionally similar to the a r one one zone that is on those parcels today. So they you could build a home on on each parcel, but it would have to be in the 25% least develop least sensitive area of the parcel. By the way, this these one acre parcels were subdivided in 1910 in the county, and then in 1984, the city incorporated the area. Currently, there's no utilities or infrastructure to the area, but Southwest Village, as part of implementation of the specific plan, would bring facilities and utilities in order to be able to build a home on each of those parcels.

Next slide. I just wanted to show you one more slide, please. Phase one, what's proposed is 920 units in the areas colored in pink and orange. And, we included buyer in that because, buyer is a, not just important for circulation, but also provides all the gravity sewer to the Mesa. And also, city, public utilities required a water a secondary water connection at 800 units.

Right now, there's two water lines that that, the candlelight project under construction to the north is bringing to Southwest Village, but those are both in the same street, and public utilities wanted a second source from a from Otay Mesa Road to the West. So, we also have some area analyzed for, borrow material, into, phase one. Next slide. Just a little information that the North 400 is 420 homes. The South is 500 homes, and and it's a mix of detached homes, paired homes, and townhomes proposed.

One more Oscar, please. This slide, think, was important to share in that the first bullet is on Beyer Boulevard. It's is required prior to the seven hundredth unit in phase one, and it's over 50,000,000. It's a one mile road, and, it includes a wildlife bridge and wildlife crossings, storm drain basins, and and other things. It also provides the ultimate gravity sewer with 15 inch and 18 inch mains, and and it required a 100 acres from Tri Pointe.

And then additionally, the water additional the redundant water source is required. But we also have to do a CDFW conservation easement vacation, a Vernal Pool major amendment, and right of way dedication. And we went to the EIFD board early January and were able to get design and cons design funds allocated in the EIFD to help us move forward after this hearing. Once the or once the EIR is certified, our intention is to go secure the rest of the funding and move forward with, final engineering for Bayer. Some other project benefits, include we we're we're delivering over 300 acres of open space to the city as part of this project.

And Park and Rec said that's too much to take without a long term funding source. So we've made a commitment to to move that forward for the city. It's it's tech it's not required, but it's it seemed like a responsible way to move forward with the project. There's over 30,000,000 in in backbone roads and utilities that we'd be providing that benefits others. There's 4,000,000 of off-site traffic improvements in Caltrans and city right away, and then four miles of trails.

And then the implementation of phase one would also contribute about 50,000,000 in fees to the city. Next slide. So that was the financial component, but the land component, we we are basically 500 acres, TRI Pointe's ownership. And 340 acres is open space. That includes a 33 acre vernal pool preserve that we had to give up.

And then also a 100 acres is offset for letting the wildlife agencies let, let us move buyer through 100% conserve lands. And then, about two and a half miles of Backbone Streets, sewer and water. And then we we put the 6.2 acre primary school on our property. We sited it on our our property in order to help that move forward. And then also at a 10 and a half acre public park is located on our property.

And then an 8.9 acre secondary optional school, we located seven acres of that on our property as well. I'm almost done. Next slide, Oscar. Just a little bit about the homes. What's currently shown is is about seven it's it's all condo, 142 detached homes and 778 either paired townhomes or row townhomes is is what we're showing.

And there's just some elevations just to give you a sense. And one more slide. Just recapping the community benefits. Moving forward would help us resolve the Beyer Boulevard matter through a 100% conserve lands. It's it's housing up to about 5,000 units responsibly providing affordable housing.

It's incorporated parks, trails, and open space, schools, contributes fees, fosters economic growth. And basically, no one can move forward with without a specific plan. It with a for a development of project beyond one unit. And

then

it reconciles all the zoning that was required as part of the wildlife agency review. That concludes our presentation.

Thank you. Next speaker, Chrisara Abrams. You have two minutes.

Hi. My name is Chris Ari Abrams. My address is 3268 Governor Drive in San Diego. My family owns the Southwind property, which is adjacent to the Southwest Village, and I'm here in full support. Our consultant, Jim Wayland, had to miss the hearing due to a surgical procedure, so he asked to share his comments by video. So if Sabrina could play them, I will sit down. Thank you.

Good morning. This is Jim Whelan from Jay Whelan Associates. I used to be one of you folks on the planning commission, and I wanna first thank you for your service. I'm sorry I couldn't be here in person today, but I wanted to provide comment on the Southwest Village specific plan item that's before you know. I've represented a number of clients and have years of experience as a consultant in Otay Mesa.

We represent the Abrams family, owner of the adjacent Southwind property. Par d Homes, now Tri Point, has a long history of doing large planned communities. They're an experienced builder and responsible for thousands of homes in San Diego such as those in Carmel Valley, Pacific Islands Ranch, Ocean View Hills, and more. I've worked with them for over thirty five years. Reaching concurrence with the wildlife agencies is critical to some projects' ability to proceed.

I have been doing these negotiations since the nineteen nineties. While not everyone will be happy with every land use or zoning designation across multiple ownerships, the overall plan is what's best for the region and village as a whole. This has been a complex, multiyear effort involving numerous stakeholders, agencies, and property owners. The Southwest Village has remained vacant and undeveloped for far too long. The benefits these projects will bring are extensive, and I encourage the commission to recommend approval to the city council of the plan today. Thank you very much.

Good And then a final in person speaker in favor, Paul Benton. You've marked that you're in favor, but you don't need to speak. Is that true? Or k. Thank you. Are there online speakers? Yeah. Oh, sorry. Staying in chambers. Speakers in opposition.

First up, we'll have Juan Gonzalez. Juan Gonzalez. You have two minutes.

What's

What's this? This?

Can

can you speak into the microphone, please? So

My

name is Juan Gonzalez, and I'm owns a couple of, properties in the area. K. So Environmental studies, the objective of which should be preserved land situated in canyons or in continuous open space, whether federal or state owned, whether wildlife can thrive, are not a negative thing. In fact, they are a positive one. But to negatively alter the land use of subdivision, question, where is the law that established the city of San Diego has the right to modify the land use of an already existing subdivision, specifically by designated as an open it as an open space or for mitigation purposes.

Okay. That that's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Gonzalez. Next up, I have, Michael Shoemaker, and you have two speakers seating time to you. Noel Rufo, could you raise your hand, please? Is Noel Rufo here? Oh, there you are. Okay. And Stefan Shoemaker. Thank you. You'll have six minutes.

Thank you. Is it on, or do I press it? It's on. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for your time and and your service this morning. My name is Michael Schumacher, and I represent BDM twenty LLC. We're a small family business that owns 20 acres in the Southwest Village Planning Area 21. References the Handler Trust in the earlier map. My grandfather, doctor Gerald Handler, purchased the parcel in the nineteen sixties and has been patiently waiting to proceed with an entitlement application for many years.

We're very upset by the infrastructure phasing in the specific plan because it places undue economic hardship on all other 60 property owners to benefit the applicant Tri Pointe Homes. The Southwest Village specific plan creates an allocation of 700 units before buyer Boulevard West must be built, and Tri Pointe is simultaneously taking that 700 unit allocation in the vesting tentative map being concurrently processed in the application before you today. Accordingly, every other owner in the Southwest Village specific plan area will need to wait for two things before proceeding with projects. One, Tri Point Homes to build 700 units and two, Byr West to be built. This is a de facto moratorium that is being placed on all other property owners without technical justification to demonstrate that property owners on the other side of the specific plan area, namely East Of Caliente Avenue, will generate impacts that require Buyer West.

We have unsuccessfully attempted to work with Tri Point for clarification in the specific plan that other owners may have the opportunity to study their projects' impacts and need for Buyer West at a project level. Buyer West is an extremely costly and biologically impactful road because it goes through 100% conserved areas. Cost estimates have grown to $60,000,000 for approximately one mile of road. Biological mitigation measures account for a great portion of the cost. There's a serious likelihood that Buyer West will never be built because of the the cost and the biological impact.

If that happens, all other Southwest Village Pacific plant owners will never be able to proceed with projects, and the City of San Diego will benefit from less than 15% of the total 5,130 planned units. Buyer Boulevard West should be built when demand warrants it. However, the city and the applicant have not provided technical justification for the 700 unit thresholds. That failure provides Tri Point with an appalling degree of market and price control over the Southwest Village for the foreseeable future, while owners that have not been shown to need Buyer West must wait to proceed with projects until Buyer West is built. While we support the development in the while we support development in the Southwest Village, we have no choice but to oppose the specific plan recommendation before you.

We respectfully ask you to reject the staff recommendation. We ask the city to serve as an honest broker and the lead agency that leads all property owners to a resolution. If not, we and others will have been left no other options but to seek recourse from other arenas. We thank you for your time and consideration this morning.

Thank you. Next, we have, Bill Spurgeon, and you have people sitting time to you. Antonio Lizarraga, thank you, and Denise Shoemaker. Thank you. You will have six minutes.

Thank you, sir. Commissioners, good morning. My name is Bill Spurgeon, and I represent the Bachman family who are the second largest property owner in Southwark Village. They own a 160 acres, but 120 of those acres have been designated as open space or MHP land. When I began to figure out what to say today, I was reminded of a same an ancestor of mine said many years ago.

Charles h Spurgeon in 1876 said, through patience and perseverance, even the snail reached the ark. And, I wanted to thank the applicant and staff, particularly Michael Prince, for their persistence and hard work. But, unfortunately, I'm afraid we're not quite ready to allow the ark to allow the snail to board our ark. And the reason being is we need some facts for you to make an informed decision. What we are lacking here is an analysis on two provisions in this phasing plan that I would like you to think very carefully about.

The first provision is the trigger requiring Buyer Boulevard to be extended west of 699 units. We asked the applicant on what basis and what facts determined this threshold. We learned that it was simply pulled out of the air. I submit it's very difficult for you to make an informed decision with an opinion that's pulled out of the air. Our second need is to determine whether or not buyer is actually needed by the property owners East Of Caliente.

We ask that question to the applicant in May. We ask it five times through February. We've never gotten an answer. I think you need an answer to make an informed decision. I submit that we think that there is no need for Byer Road for traffic circulation, for wildfire evacuation, and we certainly can work with the applicant and city staff regarding infrastructure needs.

I don't need to tell you the economic hardship, the detrimental impact to the property owners who have to wait for road they may not need. I want you to think about that. I believe that the factual analysis can easily prove the 699 units is just minor. I think with proper analysis, much more can be built, especially on the East. This is important missing pieces.

The facts I think will show you that we can create much more housing much sooner in Southwest Village. All we need to do is determine the facts for you to make an informed decision to allow this to happen and modify the phasing plan. I would like to emphasize again that the way to get affordability in housing is through competition. What is structured here today gives TriPoint Homes an edge, a control. They have a monopoly right now and they're good people.

I enjoy talking to them or trying to work things out. But my god, it makes more sense to open this up to others. And I think that the restrictions placed on the specific plan and the phasing plan are not workable and need to be changed, and it can be done very quickly. So the goal here is to agree on a modification of the specific plan, then create a framework and a process for implementation. In the end, result will be more housing production for Southwest Village, more abilities to fund infrastructure, and it can easily move forward.

When it happens, I would be more than happy to welcome the snail above the arc and move this thing forward. So I thank you for your time and, appreciate your, interest. And if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Next speaker, we have, Antonio Blas, and

you have a number of people seating time to you as well. If you're here, please raise your hand when I call. Your name, Ramon Castro, Juan Garcia, Juan Romero, Carlos Garcia, Antonio Blas. Okay. I got you twice. Tony Blas? That's all.

That's me. That's me. Okay. They know me as Tony Blas. My name is Tony Blas. Okay. So Before my time starts, I'd like to ask you might Hang on one second. Change it for two minutes rather than three just because you got too many people opposing? Then Or just because you're running out of time for today?

Sir, you have ten minutes. Your time starts now.

Sir, why you change it to two minutes? That's my question to you before my time starts. I've been on many, many meetings at city council, planning department, and others, and it's always been three minutes. Well, many but you already know my name. I don't have to waste my time. Many owners are not happy. Since June on June 20, there was no opposition. None of the owners were notified of anything. On the past, there used to be a notification because we are right on the proximity to any project. And you guys decide not to be notifying people unless people request it.

That is unfair. There were many meetings from 2020 to 2025, and all of a sudden, not another set of lots of our subdivision is marked as open space. The applicant doesn't own that property. I have found evidence that indicates that the applicant and the city work together probably behind cross door because we were never notified to redesignate the land of your subdivision on many of our properties from residential to open space. That's negative.

We will never be able to build on those properties. We didn't buy it to be an open space or mitigation land. Yeah. They're gonna destroy some sensitive land when they put Bayer Boulevard if they ever put it. But to exchange with property or offer our property on the subdivision as a mitigation is not right.

They don't own those properties. Environmental studies are good and to keep all the canyons like one of the other persons was saying that it's good a good thing. I started 1980, nineties, and then 2 thousands since I owned the property, and I've been following up. The MSCP back on those days were saying the same thing as this man were saying To preserve the canyons and connectivity for the wildlife is good. But to get flat land, especially on our case, there is already an accepted subdivision.

I don't care if it was accepted in 1910, but it still is. The county accepted with public roads. You call them paper roads. It still belong to you, not to us. And for us to be told that they're gonna be changed to open a space, we're never gonna be able to build on a property. Yeah. Allan Desani mentioned that we can use 25%. No. Didn't we need buy just to donate 75% to open a space and then build something on 25% of our lot. Our lot is already an approved subdivision.

To alter the subdivision, I need to know. I have a question. Where is the law that established that the city of San Diego or the developer has the right to modify the land use on an already in existing subdivision, especially as open space? We already got the horse out of the barn on a bunch of lots that they were marked for open space before. From 2018 to 2019, yes. We had 19 meetings with party homes. From day one, we questioned the city officially was present why they were marking all of those lots as open space. Oh, we get back to you. We get back to you. It's all the answer we got.

And yet, back on 2025, we find out that from '20 to '25, many of the lots were purchased by the city. I find out something else. One single realtor or this couple sold it to the city for $986,000 dollars each. Our properties are worth the potential is 6 to $800,000, and I encourage to any of our property owners not to sell any of the lots to open the space because they're gonna tell you. As a realtor, I can tell you they're gonna tell you that, oh, it doesn't the market doesn't support any price higher than.

What are they gonna offer you? I have letters that the city has been offering $50,000 for a lot. I have many letters that've been offering that ridiculous amount of money where we some of the property owners pay even more for that. But the potential for us and the reason we purchased those properties is to have homes. Yeah. You can change the zoning to a higher density, and I understand that. But to put it down and put it as open space or use it as mitigation is wrong, totally wrong. On the developer part, because it's a big developer, they have money, and they can do it. And the city is playing a role with them because it's good for them. Good for the city, good for the coffers of the city, but it's no respect to us.

I believe that CEQA law was enacted about forty years ago, and I've been involved that long to protect wildlife, but also and the law says that they need to follow certain rules and protect the people with the people. Us, we are minority on the most part of the property owners here, and I feel like this is unfair. Jose I wasn't gonna start speaking Spanish. Sorry. I I get excited and that makes it comes back come back to me.

I still got four minutes. I understand there is a subdivision act. If I already have a zone r one, one house per acre, and a public road by the county as was accepted by the county on the past. By the way, when they put the high school, and I believe that's also part of what it used to be, part of their homes, they blocked our entry to their subdivision. We're right now, we are landlocked because we had an easement that it was part of the receptiveness of that subdivision in 1910.

Arbitrarily, the city told us one time, oh, we will request the high school to put a gate, and they did, to appease us. You think the city is gone the city school the school is gonna let us go in and out through the school, through the back gate just to have access to our properties? No. That was a joke against us. The other question is why this is creating burden of pulls.

I noticed on a report from Recon for Try Homes Now that is suggesting the inoculation of some of those lots that are now the city owns is to create a vernal pool of the same quality as the ones that they're gonna destroy to put Bay Area Boulevard. I've been doing my research, and I don't think it's right. Recon can make all the recommendations, but the applicant in the city to offer to fish fish and wildlife on a good faith, it says on the document, for mitigation. Islam, they they don't own. Area 23 used to be to the east of our subdivision back when we had the 19 meetings or 20 meetings that they were from 2038 and 2019.

All of a sudden, something happened on closed doors. I mentioned it before. They don't know the land, but they wanna use it to mitigate. Well, pay us. But pay us fairly what is the potential value of that land. I don't mind selling to them if they wanna go forward with their project. They got the money. I don't have the money. Changing the zoning? Yeah.

That's fine. It used to be 15 10 to 15 lots per acre when I started playing with trying to put a development up there to do a precise plan. We try it right before they try to put the airport up there, and then they put ten years of moratorium. Well, when I got united with the property owners, we had 435 lots on a proposed specific plan. Everything went to pieces.

We lost our money because they put the moratorium. Now we have a developer who is trying to bring the services claiming that we all need it. Yeah. We need it, but not our expenses. We can sit on those lots and be there another ten or twenty years, forty years. Many of the property owners that you see right here are the daughters and sons of the previous owners that I met. Today, I'm 75 years old. I bought it when I was 35, and I've been paying taxes for nothing. I'm running out of time. Where is the law?

And I insist, where is the law where the city has the right with the developer to change and down zone our properties? That is not right. I go for development. Yeah. We need housing, but not this way. If they need to modify it, Area 23 used to be on their side. Area 29 is the one we fought before. And like I say, the horse is out of the barn.

Thank you, sir. Next up, we have Marcella Escobar. Mhmm. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chairman Boomhauer and chairman excuse me, and members of the commission. My name is Marcella Escobar, CEO of the Atlantis Group, and I'm here representing the Handler family. Unfortunately, with the way that the specific plan is currently written, we will never see about 4400 units in that specific plan ever get built. There is a de facto monopoly being created for party with zero incentive to build by a boulevard.

They can hold that monopoly for basically the length of our lifetimes, and all you will ever see is 700 units built out there. We're asking for a very simple thing, and we've been asking for this for years is don't hold us hostage. You have a letter that's been provided in your packet as well as all the backup material from Park and Villalos, and we're asking for some simple language to be added to the specific plan. What we would like is the opportunity to be able to come in at the project level to make the arguments on a project level about traffic, about fire safety, and about whether or not all of the infrastructure that has only been analyzed at the plan level, whether or not that will actually be needed at the project level. I understand the importance of fire safety in my spare time.

I spent time raising money for the fire department to make sure that their needs are met. We understand the importance of traffic. I know, commissioners, you do too because of your backgrounds. We have a very simple ask. Please incorporate the language from that letter into the specific plan. Allow the other property owners to have the opportunity to have their projects analyzed at a project level so that the monopoly will not continue to exist out there. Thank you very much for your time. And if if you're not able to make that decision today, then we ask that you continue this project so that the it can be properly analyzed. But we do believe that staff has looked at this language and was comfortable with it before. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Sal Salazar. You have two minutes.

Mister chairman, members of the, planning commission, my name is, Salvador Salazar. I am a property owner within, Planning Area 23. A lot has been said by all of the other speakers. My, specific issue is you know, I wanna start by saying that I I do support development within the Southwest, Villa Shi specific plan. Understand the time that, you know, Tri Point and, party have, put into it.

However, my land, which is, with I'm squeezed between the two parcels of land that the city acquired. My land is now pretty much taken for mitigation for something that, is not even related to my, development of my parcel. The city has, done this on their own. I have asked, the city through, Public Records Act request as to who initiated the, the sun change. Many people have asked what law authorizes the rezoning of properties, based on information from our city staff.

There's only two people that cannot request sun changes. One is the property owner. Second one is the city. I requested the city since, February 28 through, several public records request. To this date, the city, every ten, business days, has requested an extension to not respond to my question.

If a simple decision like that takes three months or more, can you imagine the level of intellect that would go into the specific plan, understanding whether the, the land is needed for mitigation or not. I mean, if something simple cannot be answered, how can you trust something that is, really complicated as to whether Buyer, Boulevard is required or not? But, again, if my land has been used for mitigation, it's just a matter of, waiting for, whether the issue is ripe for another party to deal with it, the court system. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Cesar Javier. You have two minutes.

Two minutes, Cesar and Purita. We just would like to emphasize to you that we have now some kind of awareness.

Sir, need to keep your comments limited to the item that's before us right now. Oh, sorry, sir. You need to limit your comments to the item that is before us right now.

Yes, sir. It's a en route to the item one.

K.

This is an introductory because I see similar faces, especially that lady who was a business I do not know if she's a never mind. But she was with the city before, and now he's in not in favor of this. I am in favor of this. But at this point in time, this should be hung it there and studied further. Engineering, lesson learned.

We need water. We need to build some kind of a rule that every shelter should have a bucket to save the wealth of rain. Number two, we must have a choice of waste disposal, landfill or incinerator. Very basic. On something that cannot be physically described is honestly, we have to abide with the honest EIR.

Who gives the EIR? Who builds the EIR? APCD of mayor Gloria or environmental Lacaba before or now, mister Rivera, who is campaigning to be a mayor? These are all on shelter. Urban planning, shelter.

Yes. But are we doing it honestly along with the rest of elements like environment, society, mobility circulation? How do we dig on those elements? Remember, this is all about our decent home and suitable surrounding, which means we have to protect our shell. We have to protect the human beings. What is a home when no one is there? What is a home when they are sick and dying like the victims of Tijuana River? Let's have the priority, my friend, planners, thinkers. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Next up, we have Sofia Sanchez. And you'll have two minutes.

Hi. Thank you for your patience with the youngest member in this meeting. I'm here my name is Sofia Sanchez. I'm here to represent my father, Roberto Sanchez. Oh my gosh. He is one of the so sorry. He is one of the 60 owners. He bought the property forty years ago with the hopes to plant seeds for generational wealth. Yeah. I'm good.

With our family for our I'm so sorry. So like I said, he bought the property forty years ago with the hopes to plant seeds of generational wealth for our family. He's waited very patiently to be able to develop this land, despite previous efforts of trying to do so. While I'm watching the presentation by Tri Pointe, I noticed that there's 5,100 homes that they're hoping to build. I think it's really sad that San Diego natives are being pushed out and aren't able to even build one home for for their families, let alone 5,100 for people to come to San Diego, and make it even more competitive.

Right. Sorry. For us natives to be here, I think it's really important that you see the faces of the people being affected. Yeah. Like, my dad built this and bought it years ago just like a lot of the other men here with hopes that their families would be able to stay in San Diego because it's a beautiful city. And, unfortunately, due to development, you know, we're all getting pushed out. And it sounds like they really care about the quality of life for people living in that area.

It is just sad that the

people that have been there waiting for forty years, paying taxes, contributing to the culture and commute sorry. The culture and community here in San Diego are just getting pushed out in the name of, like, environmental protection. But, like, there's other places that they could use to protect the environment without disinheriting so many people. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And a good job juggling. Okay. And our final in person speaker is, James Reinholz. James sorry. James Reinholz.

Good morning, and thank you all for being here. I'm here because I bought a piece of land, r one, for my daughter and my friends' two daughters and my other friends' two sons. So eventually, in a some future date, not too far away, that we could build homes for them all on the same property. I understand trip on trip on on's needs, you know, and they have their desires, but they're a big corporation. I'm just a regular dad that saw the foresight to buy land on R 1, and I knew that everything was already set up.

Now everybody wants to change it, and they wanna change a lot of the land to vacancy, you know, to open line open space. Excuse me. And I don't think that's fair for the people who bought it based on what it was for. You're all of a sudden gonna change it and then offer nothing for the property. That's not fair. So that's my big objection to it is that I purchased the property for a purpose, and that purpose is for my children, my friend's children to build a home on there that they could live. I wanna thank you for your time, and you'll make the right decision.

Thank you. That concludes in person testimony. We're now going to move to online speakers, mister Prince.

We currently have four raised hands in the queue, and we will start the five minute timer for, other individuals online to raise their hands to request to speak. We will begin with Alejandra. Please unmute yourself. You will have two minutes.

Yes. Good morning. My name is Alejandra Meriterran. I'm the executive director for the Otanesa Chamber of Commerce. I had the privilege of serving in the Southwest Village subcommittee and seeing firsthand the comprehensive efforts made to develop a balanced community. The project is well situated in the Western Side Of Otay Mesa, meaning not adjacent to the industrial areas of Otay Mesa. It provides much needed housing opportunities for our South Bay region and important economic development impacts to our region. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Victoria Yunt. Please unmute yourself. You have two minutes.

Good morning, honorable chair and commissioners. My name is Victoria Yunt from the environmental law firm, the Zoduri, speaking on behalf of supporters alliance for environmental responsibility or SAFR. SAFR respectfully request that the commission not certify the final subsequent EIR for the project and instead direct staff to recirculate a revised draft SEIR. The SEIR fails as an informational document, fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures, and fails to adequately respond to comments on the draft SEIR. First, the SEIR improperly concludes that the project's greenhouse gas emissions impacts are less than significant.

The analysis conflicts with CARB's 2022 scoping plan and the city's 2022 climate action plan. Because the project conflicts with these plans, it has a significant GHG impact that must be analyzed and mitigated in a revised EIR. Additionally, the SEIR lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the project will not result in significant GHG impacts. The previous EIR for the 2014 Otay Mesa Community Plan from which this SEIR tiers found that the project would have significant and unavoidable GHG impacts. The SEIR provides no justification for its new less than significant impact inclusion nor does it provide mitigation to reduce GHG emissions.

Second, the SEIR fails to include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the project's VMT impacts. Instead, it only requires payment of an active transportation in lieu fee. Because the project's BMT impact remains significant and unavoidable even with the mitigation fee, the city must require all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to the extent possible before approving the project. There are several additional reduction measures that could be applied to this project. For example, requiring use of all electric appliances without any natural gas connections.

Finally, SAFR adopts by reference the expert comments submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, which identifies significant and inadequately analyzed and unmitigated impacts to biological resources, GHGs, BMT, land use, and cumulative impacts. For these reasons, SAFR urges the commission to decline certification and direct staff to

Thank you. Your time is up. I'm Francis Park. Please unmute yourself. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Francis Park from the law firm of Park and Vallaos. I am a land use attorney with over thirty years of experience, and I'm an expert in CEQUA. I represent two affected families, the handlers and abutments, two of the largest landowners. We submitted four comment letters, and the city has failed to provide adequate responses. We have a very flawed specific plan, an EIR. Unfortunately, the process has also been flawed. It has been neither transparent or collaborative. The specific plan is currently drafted to benefit a single party, TRI Pointe. This would be fine if it only pertained to TRI Pointe's 240 acres, but this also affects over 70 other landowners across 250 acres.

This is not how the process is supposed to work, and we urge your help in riding the ship. I want you to focus on your our key concern, which is the 700 unit trigger for buyer. We have made repeated requests asking for the facts and technical basis. It turns out there are no such facts. Given this lack of clarity, we hired technical experts in fire, traffic, and CEQUA, and they confirmed that the trigger was arbitrary and should not apply to the other planning areas.

These expert reports are included in our February 20 letter. Our May 4 letter includes a request to clarify this trigger to ensure that you are not prematurely burdening the other planning areas with unproven infrastructure obligations. While we understand TRI Pointe, may want to move forward quickly here, there are still significant issues that should not be overlooked. This project is extremely important for TRI Pointe. We get it.

But it's also equally important to the 70 other affected landowners. And it is important that this project and process be done right in a collaborative and transparent way. We're hoping in good faith that we can avoid having to litigate our differences in court, and we're asking for your help in this regard. Thank you for your consideration.

Our final speaker is Jennifer Erickson. Please unmute yourself. You will have two minutes.

Hi there. I was asked to read the testimony submitted by Terry Shibuya. My parents, Yoshindo and Betty Shibuya, purchased two one acre parcels in the Eilander Tract area in 1959. My father moved to the Chula Vista area after serving in the US Navy as a dentist. He was the second dentist of Japanese ancestry to practice in the Chula Vista area.

Prior to dental school and service in the Navy, he was incarcerated in Manzanar, California during World War two for being of Japanese ancestry. Despite being a born US citizen and despite serving in the navy, he and his family lost all their possessions and property during World War two due to alien land laws. Unfortunately, despite years of progress, my family is once again experiencing the similar results from the city. The properties that have been owned by my family since 1959 are attempting to be rezoned and reduced in value despite paying property taxes for sixty seven years. There has been no recourse for my family.

No one from the city or public has reached out to my family other than by mailing standard notifications. The representatives that have been elected to protect public interests and serve their local citizens have failed many owners and families for whom they serve and who elected them. I have great concern that the city officials have targeted an area of landowners of foreign nationalities with potentially reduced means and are attempting to rezone the area. They strategically would target this group of landowners as they would have reduced resistance and could be more easily manipulated. Would there be this attempt at rezoning in La Jolla, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Coronado?

And if not, then we need to ask the city why. Let's be honest. Is this done here because there are a bunch of immigrant owners by ancestry who have reduced means? Thank you.

That concludes,

public testimony on this item. Question for the commission. Do we want to dive into commission comment, or would you like to take a break? Break. Alright. We're gonna take a ten minute break. It is 10:33. We will resume the hearing at 10:43. Thank you.

If everybody could please take your seats, we're gonna get started in one minute. Please take your seats.

Thank you. If you can quietly finish taking your seats, we're going to move on to the commission comment portion of today's agenda. Okay. So somebody needs to get on the lights. Commissioner Ranger.

I hardly ever go first, but I'm gonna go first today. I'm gonna stick my neck out there. As always, thank you to staff and everyone who's shown up here from, you know, both the developer and the public. I have to admit that, quite honestly, I was a little bit caught off guard when I walked in this morning because we had very little indication that there was a lot of opposition to this specific plan. And so when I walked in, I was like, oh, who do these people represent?

And it seems like there's half in support of and half in half in opposition of in this room. Generally speaking, I wanna say that I'm supportive of this specific plan in concept, but only in concept. But there are certain aspects of the proposed phasing plan and rezone that I have questions about, And I also have some comments and concerns. And I'll start with the question first. I'm curious.

How many homes have been developed in this area in the past twenty years? Do you have the answer to that? I don't know.

With the can you clarify within the specific plan area?

Correct. Excuse me. Within the specific plan area.

Sean, if you can address that, please. It's undeveloped planned.

Completely. Right? Okay. And without the infrastructure improvements, does the existing infrastructure support the number of properties that can be improved within the specific plan area with the current zoning.

Do you mean

There's no improvements right now, like sewage, water.

Correct. Right.

And so I wanted to specifically address How many properties have been rezoned open space, which exclude development as we've heard from mister Bloss, please?

Might be helpful to pull up the figure in the presentation.

I was gonna

pull up the when use just to illustrate this. Yeah. So the planning areas that are in green are the open space. I don't have the exact number of properties, but I defer to the applicant team for that.

And and I would add. So there are if you have the rezone map, we can probably show this a little bit as well. There are the OS 11 zone, which are the conserved areas that are primarily owned by Tri Pointe. Those are the larger properties. There are smaller properties that are being proposed for the OR 12 zone, which is an open space zone that does allow for residential development.

And that is yeah. I don't know, Sean, if you can zoom in on that map. It's a smaller one acre lots.

I think it would have been helpful to have this map enlarged so that we can actually see the effect of the rezone as it relates to properties outside of the Tri Point development.

Currently, those properties within the whole specific plan area are zone AR 11, which is an agricultural residential zone. The OR zone would still allow for one unit per lot.

And it's approximately a 160 acres that are being rezoned from the AR 11 to the OR one two.

So it does not preclude them from development then?

It does not preclude it, although the MHPA, as was mentioned, does limit it to the least sensitive impact on 25% of the lot. But it still wouldn't allow for at least one dwelling unit.

I guess, you know, related to that, it's it's one thing for Tri Pointe to concede, you know, 300 plus acres for open space and you know? But they still have the ability to develop 200 plus acres, whereas it does seem in scale more impactful to the single property owners. So and I'm curious. How has the phasing plan been determined? Like, what what was the kind of process by which?

I'd ask Alan Kashani with the applicant to address that.

Can

we pull up the the phasing plan graphic, Oscar? Might be helpful. Well, TRI Pointe was we put ourselves in phase one because we were advancing the specific plan. We've spent, $15,000,000 on our project and the specific plan moving it forward. So we obviously needed to be able to, put our, units in the early part.

So all that orange is phase one. And, and then the yellow was, continuing in phase two, which is tri points. And then and then I I think, the next phase this doesn't act oh, here. It shows in, lime color. You can see the lime color is phase three, which is the Bachmann ownership, and and then it moves towards the purple at the end.

Just to give you a sense, the purple is the mixed use area, and that was a planning principle where all the density was put in the center. And it's difficult to develop mixed use without rooftops in the vicinity to support the community. So just to give you a sense, phase that the reason the purple is phase seven is because that is the more intense area where you need development around it to to support that. But there's also language in the specific plan chapter seven that says this phasing can prove proceed in other arrangements. There's flexibility actually built in for any project to submit and, and assess the infrastructure that's been installed with any phase already and and determine, what type of thresholds they need to go forward.

So did that help, commissioner Ringer?

It did. And and it makes sense. Right? It makes sense that you're the one who initiated the specific specific plan and, advocating for your own development and improvement to get there. I for me, the other question that I had and I just want to recognize that I appreciate that for decades you've been working with the agencies for wildlife protection and everything to make sure that the improvements that you're making on Bayer are sensitive.

And I appreciate also that there are improvements through Caliente that seem to make more sense because it's improved and you're not going through sensitive lands. So so that's where I've got this sort of the the dichotomy of this development and and, you know, support of the concept and everything comes because, on the one hand, you have taken the initiative to move forward with a specific plan. Right? And it affects a lot of other landowners, including Handler and, you know, Bakken. I'm wondering how many others who own property in this area, the larger landowners who own property in this area, are ready to move forward or have development in plan.

Do you does anybody have that answer?

Commissioner, if I may, on behalf of the handlers, I do know for a fact that the handlers and the Bachmans are ready to move forward, which is why we're asking for the opportunity to be able to do the analysis at a project level. That language is not currently in the specific plan. And the other owners that are being down zoned, they had the ability to have multiple units on their site. They're being down zoned to now only be able to have one unit on their site. I don't know what their state is, but speaking for the handler and the Bachmans, we are ready to move forward and want the ability to be able to do the analysis at the project level. Thank you so much.

I'll I'll let the other commit I've I've got other questions, but I'll let the other commissioners.

Just to respond to your first question, it's 24 properties.

That are affected?

Yes. By the open space.

Okay.

Okay. I have one more question, and this this one is kind of more broad. I know that when there's a develop a development that's being proposed, there's a certain area of, you know, notification that you have to send out. Is that still true for a specific plan such as this one?

Yes. That's true.

And how do you respond to those who say they've not been notified of this at all? Or what I don't know. What's the reason? I don't

I can interject here for a second. I would just say that, one, there is the basic municipal code requirements of notifying property owners of a planned land use action that will go before a decision maker. All of the noticing requirements have been followed throughout this process. The specific plan was initiated back in approximately 2018, and there were previous efforts as part of the plan update to an excuse me, the Otay Mesa community plan update to engage property owners across Otay Mesa on future development and future plans for, residential and mixed use development within the entire community as well as the plans for the specific plan area. So early in that process, of, like, around 2018, the city and the applicant, engaged property owners in the community with multiple meetings and workshops to identify potential land use changes with the coming specific plan.

So there were multiple workshops early on as well as meetings with the community planning group, online website, as well as, the standard noticing requirements.

Were they well attended, these workshops?

So speaking as the one as the community planner in my role at that time attending those meetings, the, that was my sort of role in 2018, 2019. There were a handful of property owners who were there. I think the applicant can speak to sort of provide background as it relates to meeting notes or more detailed information, but I do recall a number of property owners being there. Was every property owner there? I wouldn't say so, but I believe they were, relatively well attended. Yes.

I'll, I'll rest for now and let the other commissioners, if they have comments, to ask comment.

Okay. Commissioner Marlborough.

Thank you, chair. And, staff, thank you for your report. And I do appreciate all the public comments that we've had, especially the young lady who had to multitask with the child. She did a great job on that. I too was kinda surprised of the public comments against us because we didn't see anything at all in our packages on that except for the letter. That was the only thing that I recall seeing. And I just wanna reverify that the landowners were all notified back in 02/2017 about this process. Correct?

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. Alright. Because I hear a lot about them saying, well, we weren't in we weren't really able to engage. We weren't we didn't get any weren't able to have feedback, and I I just I'm concerned about that. I don't know who to ask ask that question to.

Is that accurate? That, because all of a sudden, we're seeing in the letter I'll use the letter. Been doing this since 2017, and I see three requests, '24 2024, 2025, and 2026. And I'm wondering why did it take so long for them to respond or have concerns about this. I'm just confused by that. I don't know if you can answer that. That's just really a statement.

And I I would ask the if the applicant can come up and talk about the outreach process they used. I would say that, I believe it was in in 2018 that there was a workshop with the planning commission, which gave the applicant the opportunity to present what they're proposing with the specific plan. Issues were brought up by the planning commission in terms of the, like, the landslide areas and availability to maximize the lane use in terms of the number of units that were identified in the community plan for the area, as well as looking at opportunities for shared park resources with potential school site. The there was a subcommittee that was formed with the Otay Mesa Community Planning Group, and there were a number of of meetings to go over the planning process. So it has been a long process, but I would certainly welcome the applicant team to come up and if they wanna provide any more information in terms of the outreach process that they've used to engage property owners throughout this.

Thank you.

Forgive me, but I did cover our outreach earlier in the slide. I'll just, reiterate the the subcommittee meeting. The subcommittee meetings, the scoping, the whole environmental process all followed the notification requirements. In the in the subcommittee meetings, there were between a dozen to two dozen attendees, and we had about 20 meetings. It was a very robust, thorough process.

And and we have been meeting with these parties who you see today. We we've had meetings with them and tried to work whatever was within our means out. I'll I'll I'll add, for example, mister Tony Boss asked us to come to a property owners meeting that we had at the Otay Mesa Nestor Library in July 2024, and we brought all the vigils and explained everything that happened with the wildlife agencies and and explained planning area 23. And and at the time, it it was what what what we sensed was what can we do to help, And then we went all the way through to planning board approval on June 2025, approximately a year later, had unanimous approval with no no opposition. Nothing voiced.

K. And and lately there's been, you know, that you you see something a little bit different. And so we we tried, we notified, we tried. We don't we don't think we don't we don't think they're happy with the result, and that's the issue. But but we we try to, explain what happened.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead. Commissioner? Oh.

Commissioners, I'd like to clarify. The noticing is not an individual noticing. It's a noticing that's done in the paper. So for the property owners that are not present or read the transcript on a regular basis, the notice is done in the paper. So I'd like to clarify that point. Secondly, this meeting in 2024 was the first time that they revealed that Planning Area 23 was no longer medium high density residential. The first meetings that were held in 2017, Planning Area 20 excuse me. Planning Area 23 was shown as medium high density residential. And it was years, years. So there may have been a lot of meetings, but no information was conveyed.

So it was not until that meeting in 2024 that it was the first time that the property owners became aware of what had changed during those six years. So I just wanna make sure that just because they're checking the box on number of meetings does not mean that there was disclosure, does not mean that there was genuine and open conversation. And the noticing was done properly, but I wanna make sure that the commissioners understand it is a notice in the paper. Thank you so much.

I'd like to add a clarification, specifically for development services department. We are required to send a mail notice, to property owners, tenants, and the community planning group within 300 feet of the project site or specific plan area that occurred when the after the application was deemed complete on 09/13/2018. That also occurred, as part of the historical resources board meeting that occurred sorry. 03/26/2026 as part of this meeting and assuming this project does go to city council who also, occur to that. Thank you.

I'll take one more, then I gotta move on because I'm gonna get

Sorry. Elizabeth Hansen. We handled the outreach for the applicant. And in advance of the subcommittee meetings, we did a mailer, mailer, and we pulled all the property APNs and the associated addresses with them. So I just wanted to clarify that we did do mailings, and we also had a website in response with the in follow-up to the mailer that had the website on it.

Okay. Thank you. I'm convinced that you did do your due diligence in trying to reach out. So I'm gonna move on to Byer Boulevard West. I feel like there's many people that just don't want it, and I don't quite understand that. Being a retired firefighter, I've been in that area, and I can't imagine it not having an access or an additional evacuation act ways to get out of that area if it if you do have a fire. And I'm happy to see that there are some firefighters here. And, again, if it's okay, chair, I would like for them to tell us come up and talk about those evacuation routes and access.

Sure. Do you have specific questions? I just

Well, I just want them to explain how important that is for development like this.

K. Is someone from the fire department Thank you. Take that? Yeah. Excuse me. Or all three of you?

Deputy chief Dasca.

They're they're traveling in a pack.

You got it.

Good morning. Thank you. My name's Daniel Hipes. I'm the assistant fire marshal with the San Diego Fire Rescue Department. So we've been involved in this project for many years now and and to speak to commissioner Marlborough's point. And so we, you know, we we look at access as well as evacuation, and the water supply is kind of a lot of our main concern. So with the development like this, we have requirements. We wanna have redundancy for access is is important for us. So we look at we have requirements in the California fire code as well as the newly adopted wildland urban interface code. And so we have thresholds or triggers based on the size of the development.

For commercial, we look at square footage. For residential, we look at number of units, and we have thresholds that will trigger a secondary, access, which also serves as a secondary egress, when we are looking at fire hazard severity zone. So for us and and I've looked at the phasing plan, and I kind of see how they are proposing to, you know, to create those as development progresses. And so I think I agree that that Beyer Boulevard as, you know, providing us a secondary access to get in as well as as secondary egress for people to get out would be very important from from a fire standpoint. Also, infrastructure, for water, that's another thing.

That infrastructure is not developed down there. I know there are water mains at Beyer Boulevard as well as Caliente, which would provide for a looped system to have a a more robust water supply. So is there any other No.

That's specific questions? No. That's good. I'm gonna move on. And just I just have one more question. I always get confused by this, but, for new development for residential, does it have to be all electric? Yeah. It's not electric. Okay. I'm glad you you thank you because I I thought I was right about this.

So in your report, all it says is that SDG and E is responsible for providing electrical power and natural gas. It says that in there. Now my question to you is that's the proposal of 5,130 electric homes. Shouldn't there have been an analysis to see if SDG and E has the ability to provide that power to them? And the reason why I'm asking this is if it's not, that would mean they would have to have additional infrastructure, which could slow down this development project.

So can anybody give me an answer on that? Because you didn't have it. It just all it just says is is this a a small paragraph or a sentence saying provide electrical and natural gas. That's it. No analysis was done.

Commissioner, we'll have to get back to you on that question. I apologize.

Okay. Alright. I'm overall, I'm a little concerned about some of the smaller, property owners, but still, I'm kinda in favor in moving this forward. But I'm gonna wait to make a motion to see listen to everybody else. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Miyahara.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I too was a little bit caught off guard with today's attendance and reading through the staff report and seeing that the subcommittee approved this, that this went eight o with one abstention at the community planning group. But, so I'm curious. Can city staff explain the process and the criteria used to determine when a private developer is selected to lead the preparation and negotiation of a specific plan?

So I I'll go ahead and address that. Just kind of by way of background, the OTAMAC community plan historically has been developed with precise plans, which, you know, going back a number of years. So as developments come in, the precise plan process is allowed for either one or multiple property owners to do more detailed planning than would be typically done at a community plan level. When the community plan this this current community plan was updated in 2014, it identified two potential areas for development, this Central Village and then this the Southwest Village area. The plan had a requirement that that the area be planned comprehensively rather than incrementally with individual property owners coming in.

Similar to this planning or the specific plan area, the Central Village also had both a few large property owners and multiple smaller property owners. That specific plan was adopted primarily or was prepared, I should say, by one property owner, but it was really just like this case with Tri with Party and then Tri Point coming forward as one of the larger property owners starting this process. They took that upon themselves in terms of moving forward. That's why we brought it when they first proposed a specific plan in 2018 to the planning commission for your your input and review of their commissioners at the time. So it was not a selection process by where the city selected a developer or property owner to proceed with that.

It was really up to the property owners to work collectively to identify a specific plan and bring that forward through the development process.

So when you say work collectively, can you kind of elaborate on that? Like, how does that how does that happen? Because what I'm hearing today is that there that that may not have happened with some of the property owners.

So the process that we worked with the with party at the time then Tri Point was through the planning group and to establish a subcommittee with the planning group and provide noticing and meetings public meetings where property owners could be aware of the process and attend and provide input.

So all the property owners were noticed?

I would have to defer to TriPoint in terms of the what noticing was done if every my understanding is that they did make every attempt to contact property owners in terms of mailed noticing and through the website. But beyond that, I'd certainly would you know, if they wanna provide any more information.

And and what I'm really asking is specifically for the the subcommittee, the noticing for that, and try to engage property owners.

Sure. As I mentioned, we did we tacked on to the city noticing, and we pulled APNs and property ownership from the assessor's office and sent out mailers to invite people for to the subcommittee as well as advertise it through the planning group. Party the rep at Party then had good relationships with the Handlers and the Bachmans and engaged with the representatives at that time throughout the process. In fact, doctor Handler and his grandson, as well as representatives for the Bachmans attended the subcommittee meetings. So we feel very confident that we had engaged all that time.

I have no doubt that that the city has processes in place, you know, to make sure that there are safeguards, ensuring that the the process, is fair and balanced. I'm gonna hold any more comments for now.

Public comments closed right now. So unless we're specifically asking a question

Content of what was shown in 2017 and '18 is very different than what was shown in 2024. That is Okay.

Hang Hang on. Hang on. Deputy city attorney. Can I do do I need should we allow

If you have a specific question that you would like addressed, you can call somebody up?

K. Forgive me. I'm forgetting your name. So go ahead and

so

come mister Shoemaker, come back up to the podium and then say your name for the record. And I want you to limit your comments. And, sir, I'll get to you as well. Limit your comments just to responding to whether or not you feel it was a collaborative process or you were given an opportunity to weigh in. Please.

I feel thank you for the question. I'll limit the comments. I thank you for your consideration at the degree of detail and and depth that you are today. The the the the meetings that we were involved in in 2017, '18, 1920, the scoping meetings had a very different map. No phasing plan for buyer, and it was 2024 at the sub at the when all of that was presented to everybody, as Alan mentioned previously. So there was notification, but the content of what was being noticed has changed in this part of the process. Years went by, and that's why you have everybody here today.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Do you want to add something different than that, or is that materially what you were going to say as well? And please state your name again for the record.

Yes. Again, my name is Antonio Blas. On the first two years, yes, we were notified. But I was told by mister Galves that it works for the city that you are not required anymore to send the notices even though we are within the first 300 feet of the project. I was told that only if we request it. We are, like, 67 owners or more, and none of them have been receiving it, but I have not been missing any of the meetings. Mister Dasani was lying when he say he notified every one of them. They didn't. On the first '18 and '19, yes, they did. And then after '20 to the twenty sixth, on the twenty fifth, we were not even aware of that meeting.

It passed with green colors because we were not aware. That was it.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So back to commission comment. Thank you, commissioner Mihara. I am going to move on to commissioner Mazari.

Well, I wanna thank the staff for all their efforts, but I'm gonna have a transportation related question on Bayer Boulevard. Is it a circulation element road? Is it in the community plan?

Yes. That's correct.

Okay. And as part of the traffic study for this project, is it needed? Is it gonna carry an, you know, substantial amount of their traffic?

Yes. So based on the local mobility analysis that was provided for the project, the extension prior to the 700 dwelling unit, was based on Sandex regional travel trip distribution for the proposed phase one.

Okay. And without it, are there other roads that could carry this traffic?

So that was not analyzed. The project analyzed up to, excuse me, 699 units on Caliente and then the remainder on Buyer Boulevard West.

Okay. So you And then, I guess, as the rest of the commissioners, I was surprised that so many people are here saying they weren't notified or participated in the process. But the EIR, did you receive a lot of comments about these specific issues in the in the EIR that that are being raised today as far as Buyer Boulevard, traffic, zoning?

Yes. We did, and we provided responses to that.

And you provided responses. And was it from this same or similar property owners?

Some of the comment letters were. Yes.

Okay.

If if I can ask staff from EAS to if they would like to add anything additional to that.

Hi. This is Donna, with environmental service section of DSD.

Can you say your last name, please, for the record?

Donna Marshall. We did receive comment letters regarding Buyer Boulevard for the environmental impact report during the public review period. So we did receive comment letters from Park and Vallejo's, which was representing some of the property owners that are here today. We did have questions regarding the construction of Buyer Boulevard and the timing of that. Does that answer the question?

Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to know if, you know, the the EIR was distributed and the public was aware of the project.

So we have as a part of our process, we did provide response to comments to those comments that were provided during public review. Those are included in the final EIR, which is posted online and available prior to this hearing today. And we did also notify those who commented that those are available for review. Okay.

Thank you. That gentleman raised his hand from the behind. I don't know if he you want him to respond or you don't. Okay. Okay.

I know this is a difficult process and emotional for all the people involved, but that that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Mazari. Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, chair. This is why I try to go first. Well, now I'm just more confused than from where I was at the beginning. Okay. Of course, always just wanna recognize staff's time.

Thank you for all the work that's gone into this over the years and and the applicant, as well as the community for coming out. It's, it's important to always recognize that. So thank you. I've learned a lot in this meeting because, as many of my colleagues have noted, there was very little of this opposition shown in the packet or in the staff report and in the public comment that we receive ahead of time. So in preparation for this, this looked like a very different project than it does here in the meeting.

So, you know, it does cause us to, you know, shift on the fly, and and, hopefully, we're prepared to do that. So I'm just gonna start with a few questions of staff and of the applicant, and then I'll go from there. Let's zero in on the planning area 23 and the the zoning changes there. So, specifically, the o r one two, is that really equivalent to an a r one one zoning? And I recognize that there's one dwelling unit allowed per parcel for both of those designations.

But is it not the case that a r one one allows for more productive use of the land? The there's other things that can be done on AR zone property that OR does not allow for other than dwelling unit purposes. And and, specifically, there's a reduction in the use of the lot. 25% of the lot has to be or 75% has has to be preserved. Right? So 25% of the lot can be developed with the house. I'm thinking ADUs, other things that can be built on an AR zoned lot that an OR does not permit. Can you speak to that?

I would defer to take Outlet.

Yeah. Let me interject here for a second. So I don't we we the a r one one zones and the o r one one zones have slightly different purposes and intent. The proposed specific plan identified the OR one two zone to allow open space with limited private residential development and to implement the MHPA. So the process of identifying the appropriate open space land use designation and an appropriate zone for the properties were to address, the overarching goals of our general plan and our MSCP conservation plan.

And I can certainly defer to Dan Monroe and our MH MSCP staff to explain further. But fundamentally, the allowance of private residential development is permitted requiring that they follow the specific regulations identified in the OR 1 two zone. So without I I I hesitate to provide a specific comparison to those because individual development applicants would need to come in and propose something that is in conformance with the regulations to ensure that, a project could be permitted on those sites.

Thank you, mister Prince. I I I recognize that. I'm I I guess my maybe to be more specific, my question was the the change the proposed changes to, you know, address MH the the multiple habitat planning area requirements for the specific plan. Right? I I understand that. But the without that change, absent the change, those property owners would be be able to make more useful development of their property. Is that not the case?

I I actually so let me just clarify one thing. This is that accessory dwelling units and single dwelling unit residential development are permitted, provided conformance with all applicable regulations in both the A R 11 and the 0 R 12 zone.

So so the 0 R 12 does permit, accessory dwelling units as well?

That's correct. It is identified as a limited use. So provided conformance with all of the applicable regulations, an accessory dwelling unit would be permitted in an o r one two zone lot. With the same

number of bonus units and everything?

So, again, yes. The I I can't speak to all hypothetical scenarios, but they would be treated the same. Correct. Okay.

Thank you for that. Okay. And then if and I don't know this to be the case. But if the city were looking to purchase some of these OR zone lots to preserve, open space, is it I mean, arguably, the value of an OR zone lot is less than that of an AR zone lot. Is that fair, or is that not accurate?

It would be difficult to speculate on what the value of the lot would be. The zoning is just one component in consideration. And so we All things equal. So, again, I wouldn't be able to Okay. I would have to defer to our real estate staff to determine value lot value.

Yeah. Absent, you know, affirmative answer on that, I think that it's relatively logical to assume that an OR zone lot is less valuable than an AR zone lot. I'm just curious. Maybe this is a question with the applicant. I'm not sure. Is why was Planning Area 23 changed at the you know, in the in recent years from medium high residential to open space?

Like, MSCP staff to please address that first.

Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. Good morning. Dan Monroe, principal planner with city planning department overseeing the MSCP and VPHCP programs. When the project was first submitted and staff reviewed, we identified the residential use over Planning Area 23.

We indicated to the applicant staff that two of those parcels within Planning Area 23 had been purchased for conservation purposes, one in 2011 and one in 2017. To address that potential inconsistency with the conservation and residential, the land use designation in Planning Area 23 was revised to open space. Subsequent to that, as indicated in the applicant's presentation, we've had numerous meetings with both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Through those numerous meetings and discussions, the impacts that Beyer Boulevard would have on a 100% conserved lands. The wildlife agencies indicated that they wanted replacement lands, specifically Mesa top type of landforms.

Planning Area 23, given that the conservation of the two city owned parcels, fulfilled that need. So in addition to being designated as open space, the multihabitat planning area overlay was also applied to Planning Area 23.

Got it. That's helpful context. Thank you. Was it I don't know if you can answer this as well, but was it the intent since well, first of all, when you say parcels were acquired, they're acquired by the city. Correct. Right. Was it the intent that the city would pursue, you know, acquiring the remaining parcels in Planning Area 23, or was that not the intent when that change was made?

It wasn't the specific intent. I know early on, such as the the parcel that was purchased in 2011, the city was attempting to purchase parcels throughout Otay Mesa for vernal pool resources. The purchase in this graphic, the darker green upper left parcel, that was the purse parcel purchased in 2011, within Planning Area 23, And the lower parcel of Planning Area 23 was purchased in late twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen. The specific change to open space in MHPA is not intended specifically for the city to try to pursue those parcels. That is an option in the future.

However, it wasn't specifically, for the city to try to acquire.

Okay. Thank you. Bear with me. I'm zooming in to try to see this on the the presentation we provided. Okay.

I I'm gonna move on. I think I've I recognize your hand. Thank you. I'm gonna move on. I I think I've got enough of a perspective on that. I I wanna move on to the buyer road questions. So there was a claim multiple claims made that there's a world in which the applicant never builds Buyer West. Build 699 units, reach that threshold, and then not build the road. Is that I mean, can you speak to the the logic behind that claim? Is that something is that a real concern from staff's perspective?

I can't speak to the logic. I can confirm that it is a permit condition within the site development permit, prior to the seven hundredth unit.

Right. Okay. What's is is there a recourse if they only build 699 units and that's it and we don't ever see Buyer West built?

There's no specific condition that sort of requires a maximum number of units to be built. The vesting tentative map allows for up to 920 lots to be built and for Buyer Boulevard to be constructed and operational prior to the issuance of the seven hundredth dwelling unit.

So to pursue sort of down this logical path, would the other property owners be precluded from developing their land if buyer less is never built?

There's no preclude for another property owner within the specific plan area, again, assuming adoption of the plan as proposed from submitting a development application that identifies all the required technical analysis, and fire and mobility access requirements sufficient to ensure the entitlement of their land.

I would also just, direct the commission to the memo that was provided on May 6 from, Oscar Galves on, second page, the proposed language, last paragraph to page one seventy four, section seven thirteen g, that specifically talks about the requirement for VTM one for the 700 unit, and then other planning areas will be subject to future project level analysis, including as it relates to Buyer Boulevard West for necessary infrastructure, comma, public facilities, comma, and emergency access as required by each phase of the development. And, again, that's in the memo that was provided to you.

That's the May 4 letter, not the May 6 letter. Correct?

That's correct.

That's correct. Yes. And it was also included in the May 6 as well.

Okay. Commissioner Rees, not to derail you, but can I ask a follow-up question on that? Yes. Please do. So that language I I just wanna make sure we're we're being super clear on this.

So the language in the revised memo clarifying that other planning areas would be subject to further project level analysis, That's consistent with any project citywide. Yes? If if you're if you're proposing something that's not allowable by as a ministerial project, then a discretionary applicant would have to go through that same level of technical analysis, would have to come up with the same amount of mitigation if there are things that are identified as problems underneath their project EIRs. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Just

And a good clarification.

For those of you who don't play land use attorney, you know, in your free time.

So, here's a question for Tri Point. The I got the impression. I don't know if this was explicitly stated, so so just correct me if this is a misunderstanding on my part. It sounded like, in the presentation that was provided today on the record that Bio West would be built. It would not wait until the six hundred and ninety ninth or seven hundredth unit that Buyer West would be built prior to that as just a matter of development in the area.

That's our intention. Right. Tripoint owns about somewhere between $1,415,100 units worth of owners of homes in the specific plan. And so we have more that we need to go after. So our intention is after after the EIR is certified to start final engineering Beyer Boulevard, we have a lot of work to do with the wildlife agencies and do a major amendment, which is a significant task, and we're up to the task.

But the first step is to get the EIR certified and then go to the EIFD board and work with the city on funding sources. That's what brings everything together. And it might be helpful to mention Bayer is it's a million cubic yards of cut material that would conveniently be disposed of in our subdivision. So if everything works out with the funding, it will help us keep the cost of buyer low and and dispose of it within our project. So that's our intention.

And then also, because of we have 14 to 1,500 units, sewer is an important component. It's all the gravity sewer. We don't wanna build a lift station that goes that that many units. And we also think it's a responsible thing for the other property owners for us to pursue buyer. Right now there's no infrastructure to this specific plan, no sewer. And and and so the funding is what really brings it all together. And it's our intention. I mean, I started with the slide that we built master plan communities in the city. I started with that to to to let you know, like, we're committed to doing something that benefits everybody. We have to do it in a way in a way that works, but

I'll stop. No. Thank you. I mean, stay there, please. I have one more thing for you while while you're up there. I don't wanna get you've already had to go back and forth so many times. Save you a trip. Okay. So with all of that said, why build in this 700 unit trigger, then why not just proceed with buyer west as part of the first phase anyways? Why why are we building in this this allowance for 700 units before building that?

Yeah. What it it it's really to get some homes sales going so we can have revenue to keep going. It's really to be able to get, the project green lighted, the subdivision product project. If if we had funding today for buyer, we would be able to do that. So it's it's really a step to be able to proceed with putting in the infrastructures to is to say we have some homes that can help carry that in the beginning.

I get that. What's the total cost of the Buyer Boulevard West?

It it's somewhere between 50 and 60,000,000. We just had an estimate done, and it

was I mean, that's a heavy lift. Right? I mean, I I understand that you don't wanna take that on without any, you know, any revenue coming in. Was there any discussion with the other property owners of sharing the cost of that in order to facilitate Buyer West being built right off the bat?

I think we we we have started some discussions with the two of the property owners. Our attorney could speak to that. I really can't. But we we've talked about sharing, but, really, it's the the EIFD that, is currently an ad valorem tax, so it doesn't add, it doesn't add fees to anyone else. And it's what used to be facilities financing staff has told us that that's the optimal funding source for for Buyer Boulevard.

Got it.

Buyer used to be in the FBA, and then when the city went to a citywide program, it was orphaned. And we asked why oh, sorry. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Samira Rao, assistant deputy director with city planning department. My team oversees the reimbursement agreements, for the city, so we have been working very closely with the applicant. Right now, $2,200,000 in EAFD funds have been allocated to this Buyer Boulevard project. We will also be working with the applicant to identify credits, based on the project around 900 units.

The fees for local Otay Mesa local mobility fee that the applicant will owe the city would be around 10,000,000. This is an estimate. Numbers change, with fiscal years and, various other factors, unit sizes and all of that. So there is a fee component that they would be required to, pay. We could also work with the applicant through a reimbursement agreement to issue credits, thereby diverting that money to go towards the Bayer Boulevard project.

We're also working with Department of Finance and the EIFD board, to kind of look for other EIFD bonds for this project specifically. It's all underway. We're gonna be meeting with Department of Finance sometime in June to kind of there's a lot of studies that's going on to identify which projects need to be prioritized for bonding and all of that. So we'll have more information in June.

Thank you for that. Appreciate that. Not to belabor, so I'm gonna move on, but I appreciate all of that context. That's helpful. There's a lot to like about this this plan in general.

You know, I I there's been a huge investment from a private entity to, you know, try to benefit as, you know, a large area of San Diego, and, you know, that includes the development of public open space, of schools, mitigation, and lots and lots of homes, including affordable housing. All of that is really good, and I appreciate, you know, the work that's gone into it to try to bring something that's, you know, valuable and beneficial to our you know, the for the South, you know, area of city of the city of San Diego. Also, I like the concessions to protect wildlife. I think that's super important. With the development of Buyer West, I understand that, you know, a lot has gone into that and a lot of, you know, expert time to to develop a plan.

Overall, my my concerns remain, though, that there you know, we're looking at you know, I wouldn't go as far as saying a taking of private property in terms of the redesignation of the the AR parcels to 0 R 12, but it does, in my opinion, reduce the value of that land and the the the usefulness of it to some degree. I leave it to, you know, more experts than than I and to figure out what that reduction of value is, but it just follows logic that it does reduce the value. The, you know, the preemption of develop the development rights for the other property owners until something goes forward that is out of their control is problematic to me. I recognize TRI Pointe took a huge financial risk to bring this specific plan forward, and, therefore, it, you know, it does make sense to me that TRI Pointe gets first stab at building some homes and getting some revenue off of it. I I don't that does does not give me any heartburn, but it should not allow them to control the destiny of the other property owners in the specific plan.

And I don't you know, it's unless somebody can explain to me how it doesn't, it does feel like that's what's happening here to some degree. So I think we can do better. I'd like to see more discussion. And I'm you know, I if there are proposals on how to solve those those concerns, then I'm wide open to hearing them and and proceeding accordingly. But until then, I'm I'm I have concerns, and I'm I don't feel like they've been fully addressed.

Commissioner Rees? Yes, sir. My name is Michael Titus. I'm an attorney for Tri Point Homes. Can I respond to your question about the 700 unit limitation?

I I guess it was a question that I asked earlier, so we might as well hear the answer to it, please. Go ahead. Thanks. Okay.

So there are two large property owners that showed up today. Bill Spurgeon represented one, Michael Schumacher the other. Both their lawyers were testifying. And they made some statements, and they had a consultant from Atlanta's group talking about a monopoly. I think it's a misunderstanding of what that 700 means.

The originally specific plan said that when people build, that they have to show that there's that Buyer Boulevard is built to go past 700 units. However, CipPlan specifically says that if somebody comes in and shows that it's not needed for their project, they can go forward. So you can have a specific plan amendment. And as for the consult consultation, we met with the two large property owners and their lawyer on April 1, and they told us their only concern that the 700 units should not be on the entire specific plan, but just on our property. And we said, okay.

Well, we'll do that if you'll withdraw your objection. We sent the language that both of us approved on to city staff. City staff said, hey. They'll keep us. Then they did a one eighty.

Now it's not the fact that it's 700 units. What they really wanna do, if you look at their May 4 letter, third paragraph, but six lines down there, you'll see what they really want is this commission now and staff now to say that Buyer Boulevard West is not something they have to participate in payment for. In other words, they don't wanna pay for their fair share. And that's so if what we said was, look, if everybody pays their fair share, it's not a problem. 700 unit limitation doesn't prevent somebody, including ourselves, to go back and show that that particular threshold is unnecessary for all the fire and everything else.

But that being said, as we've already told you, we have it's not 15,000,000. We have 50,000,000 so far into this project, and we're building a road that's over $50,000,000. And to do that, we're gonna take cut from buyer to fill our project. We are going to do it. The misrepresentations you hear about what they want is different.

Read their letter. They want the staff and the the clinic commission to make a determination now that they don't have to pay for Byer Road. Staff is correct. That determination comes in for their fair share when they make an application, and there's nothing to vent them from making an application today, yesterday, three months ago. What they really want is for a free ride, and it's not fair. So if you have any other questions or anything else, I'd be happy to answer it. And, we're here. Thank you.

Okay.

I can I can I

respond to that, please?

I will give you a very limited opportunity.

That, sir, very much. Please state your name for the record. Bill Spurgeon representing the Bachman family. What mister Tye has said is not at all accurate. K? We wanna work with them to solve the problem. The simple matter of fact here is a buyer is a nice to have road, and it should be built. We're not opposing to that. And it should be built when demand warrants it. Our issue is is that the governor that is put on this that we have to examine, we don't have the facts to base it on.

We can get much more housing beyond what the 700 units that they want and move buyer forward with a lot more assessment. So what he's saying is not at all accurate. Okay? We want buyer built, we want the specific plan to go forward, but we want it to be done in such a way that there is more development out there, not less. And we want to be able to move this thing forward so we can pay for Bayer. Is that enough?

Thank you. You bet, Ben.

Okay.

Commissioner Reeves, are you yielding the floor, or do you have I

guess I'll yield for

now. Okay. Commissioner Miyahara, I see you and recognize you, but give me two seconds to throw out a couple of administrative clarification things. First off, just for the record, because I saw a couple people perk up when commissioner Mazari said something, which I don't I I think was being taken as in a way she did not mean it to be. So just for the record, the full planning commission has received and has had the opportunity to review the EIR and all the comments and responses. I think her question was just specifically trying to clarify some things for the record. She's nodding her head.

Thank you for that. Yes.

K. Also and because I have been asked to ask this question, would the, city attorney's office like to weigh in on the standard for a taking as it relates to land use designations?

Yes. Thank you. I would ask deputy city attorney Jean McKinnon to, provide that standard. In addition, I would also defer to city staff on the policy decision for that rezone change as it relates to the city's police powers.

Yes. Thank you. Jean McKinnon speaking. A, regulatory taking or otherwise known as inverse condemnation does not occur when economically viable uses of a property remain. And the city's authority to zone or rezone property derives from and is a valid exercise of its constitutional police powers.

K. And then which staff did you want to address the

If if staff wanted to, address why those, properties are proposed to be rezoned.

Sure. I think Dan Monroe did address this before of and and Dan, you can certainly come up and maybe add to this. And I just say that just perhaps explaining the MHPA and the vernal pool and the context of these properties would be helpful.

Sure thing. So the the project does include an MHPA boundary line adjustment. The project also impacts a 100% conserved land that was identified through the Vernal Pool habitat conservation plan. So as replacement for those impacts, there are numerous areas within the specific plan that are being offered as exchange lands. Planning Area 23 is included as part of the, exchange lands for impacts to the 100% conserve lands.

They will have an MHPA overlay on those. The appropriate zone to implement MHPA lands is the OR 12 zone. And so as a consistency determination by staff, make sure that our zoning implements the land use as well as the multi habitat planning area, The OR 12 zone is identified as the, appropriate zone.

And, Dan, can you just explain maybe from a citywide perspective just the, policy perspective for open space conservation as it relates to the general plan and then to the overall MHPA program?

Yes. The the MHPA program, within it's part of the multiple species conservation program, our sub area plan specific to the city of San Diego. Within that plan, we have an identified conservation goal of habitat throughout the city. That goal is roughly just under 53,000 acres. And so through our community plan update project, programs, through private development projects, we look for opportunities to add MHPA.

So some of the recent mini plan updates you have seen, a number of those have added significant amounts of MHPA designated lands, through development projects. If they include MHPA as part of the process, we will either require a covenant of easement to cover those MHPA areas, or there's option for those lands to be dedicated and fee title to the city.

And I would just add that, you know, from a citywide policy perspective and the general plan, we do identify the open space and the protection of open space as a citywide goal. And so through the lane use planning process, when we do opt to identify opportunities for both jobs, homes, transportation facilities. We also look at open space and look at the trade offs in terms of, where we can, allow for development and where we are protecting open space as a matter of citywide policy. The MHPA program in itself and the designation of the MHPA doesn't preclude development from happening. And, Dan, can you just explain in terms of if property is designated MHPA?

Is it still able to be developed?

Yes. It is. The the MHPA does allow limited development potential if a property is wholly located within the MHPA. 25% of the least sensitive habitat areas on the site may be developed. The other 75% would be set aside for conservation.

Okay. You for that clarification. I think you can sit down. Miss McKinnon, I wanna come back to you for half a second. Thank you for the the taking standard. Can you just clarify for the benefit of the commission and the record that everything that planning was just talking about for implementing citywide land use and the MHPA and everything falls under that police power standard and is is under that same kinda takings regime or not.

Yes. Vice chair Boomhauer, that is correct. The power derives from the state constitution, police powers, the California government code, and our own city charter.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Back to you, commissioner Mayo.

Just a quick question. And excuse me if this is already stated in the staff report, but based on today's discussion, I think it's important for the record to reflect. Does city staff know, if they don't, I'd like to ask the applicant, what is the estimated total residential yield for the 239 acres that Tri Point owns within the proposed specific plan?

So if staff can I think there's probably two parts of the question, and I think the applicant's coming up? But then the best tentative map, can you address as part of the first phase how much that would allow?

The vesting tentative mapping proposes the construction of 920 dwelling units, including 92 affordable dwelling units.

And then I would ask Tri Point to come up. They do, I believe, have property outside of the first best tentative map.

Right. We don't know the exact number because we we don't have a map drafted, but it's somewhere between 1,400 to 1,500. So there's $9.20, and then the balance bring would bring the total to somewhere between 14 and 1,500.

Thank you. Yeah. I mean, so you essentially have a vested interest in seeing West Byron Boulevard built out. So I'm just trying to establish that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, commissioner Miyahara. Back to commissioner Reeves.

I just have a question, but you haven't had a chance yet, chair. So

Y'all y'all have covered everything I was thinking about talking about. You've done excellent work.

I'm I'm just gonna ask one question. Was there consideration as to rezoning other planning areas instead of 23 to to achieve the MHPA goals.

I'd ask Dan if he can come back and address that.

The the topography and Planning Area 23, the Mesa top development, is a landform that is characteristic of vernal pool and vernal pool resources. That was one of the reasons why the wildlife agencies had looked to Planning Area 23 to be included in the MHPA. The open space surrounding this the actual BTM areas and other development areas, those those are already being rezoned. OR one two or the other open space zones that are proposed because of their characteristics. To my knowledge, there weren't any additional areas within the the specific plan or VTM one areas that were targeted as potential open space zones.

I think the ownership of city parcels within planning planning Area 23 also led wildlife agencies to to look at 23 being added to the MHPA.

And, Dan, just to clarify, it was the wildlife agencies that initiated this request for the for looking at, designating this area for the remote vulnerable, conservation?

I'm sorry. The wildlife agencies specifically requested 23 or specifically requested more MHPA?

The wildlife agencies looked to 23 to be added because of the impacts to the 100% conserve plans. And through our negotiations with them and the conservation strategy that was presented, it's included in the SEIR for the vernal pool major amendment. 23 is a, component of that conservation strategy that the wildlife agencies have agreed to.

Is, Planning Area 18 insufficient from, like, a vernal pool establishment perspective or other reasons why 18 would be insufficient for providing the same protections instead of 23, which are owned by small property owners.

And if we have a figure, I'd I apologize. I don't know Planning Area 23 off the top of my head.

Slide 10.

Apologize. Even with glasses, I can't see the numbers.

Yeah. Maybe.

That's the reference.

Yeah. I apologize. But offhand, I I I can't tell if the vernal pool resources, it could be existing vegetation, tomography that may not be sufficient for vernal pools.

Okay. Just You good?

I see you. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, and thank you, staff. And I just I I will take my cherished prerogative and throw out a couple of very general comments. First of all, thank you, staff. You guys were more than thoroughly prepared, which I always expect, but we don't always get to see it. And that's everybody, not just those of you at the table, but the the rest of staff that's been participating in this. Also, I do wanna thank the public for all of, your comments and feedback and for allowing us to kinda run this somewhat efficiently, and and still give us the ability to get this information. Alright. So here is my problem as I sit here today as the acting chair. We gotta take some kind of action.

We got a staff recommendation. We've got some alternatives, and I got nothing on the floor. Commissioner Marlborough.

Thank you, chair. This has been tough. I came here ready to to roll, but a lot of good information has been passed on. So I'm actually prepared to, support staff's recommendation. I'll make that motion.

K. We have a motion to support staff's recommendation. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Before we move on, is there any additional commission comment on that motion?

I'd like to know if there is a means by which the phasing plan could be looked at or proposed in a different way than it is currently shown in the specific plan.

Just for clarity to try to give staff the ability to answer your question, are you asking if it's graven in stone in its current form or if there's flexibility. Okay.

So correct. In the event that another applicant comes forward, you know, in the next however many years, do they have to wait in line for phases one through seven to be completed before phase eight could be developed? Or if another applicant comes forward before phases one through seven are completed, is there a way in which there would be an adapt adoption of a new phasing plan?

Miss Galvez, do you wanna take that, or do you want mister Prince to?

No. I can handle it. I'd like to direct your attention to the correction memo, specifically attachment number seven seven thirteen b. It states, the phasing summary provides the targeted land use assumptions in chronological order. It does not dictate the exact sequence in which development may occur.

I'm giving you a second to read that, but then I need you to tell me if that answers your question or not.

It does. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Reeves, did you

Yeah. I mean, we we were provided, by one of the property owners that or, an attorney from one of the property owners potential replacement language for section 7.13 g. I'd love for staff to respond to the language that was offered as sort of a compromise or as what I view as a compromise?

Sure. So staff received both. There there's two sets of language edits, one that is proposed with the memo and one that was provided, as shown on the screen here, which, one could argue simplifies the requirements for future project level analysis. Staff added that internally with all the appropriate review disciplines and determined that memo language is the most appropriate recommendation to take forward to city council, providing director to direction to both, Tri Point as well as future potential project applicants of what needs to specifically be analyzed as part of a future application to ensure conformance with all applicable regulations and policies that would apply to that development. Essentially, what I've said is that we wanna provide a little bit more clarity and specificity as what needs to be provided if a development project is not going to be phased exactly in the manner that was identified in the specific plan.

And just for clarity, does the city attorney's office agree with that position? Yes. Okay. Thanks.

Was this the correction memo I didn't see any response to this correction memo language by the other property owners. Is this is this been circulated widely, or is this the first time everybody's seeing it other than in the other than in the packet?

The the correction memo was provided on May 4, which was distributed to the sorry. Oscar can chime in.

The correction memo was submitted on May 1, and included this language that's shown on the screen on the bottom left and included in the agenda as

well. Yeah.

And it's been revised, apologize, to add corrections that I referenced at the beginning of the page but did not change this particular item. Essentially, the

language in the correction memo is what staff is recommending. The property owners, who have objected to that wanted to see fewer words, essentially, and to just focus it on the need for project level analysis. Staff determined that the appropriate thing to do was to identify what specific analyses will need to be provided to ensure, sufficient access requirements are being met, as well as, necessary infrastructure to permit a development in accordance with our regulations.

Thank you. I I need to read it. I I I'm squinting, so give me a second.

You got a copy of it. It's

Is it in this?

It's in the packet that was circulated or

Correction memo includes attachment. It would be the last page of the correction memo.

And that's the same document that got circulated.

It was electronic. Thank you for pointing that out.

I do want to know I just well, while you were looking at that, commissioner Reeves, commissioner Marble, are you still good on time?

Yes. I made some arrangements. Thank you. K.

Commissioner Reeves, are you good with that language? Sorry. I'm asking you to speed read.

Yeah. I've got it here. And I should have said this much earlier. I'm not an attorney, so any statements up here from a nonlegal layman perspective? And it does seem to achieve the intent of what the property owners requested. So I'm okay with it.

Okay. I'm not seeing anybody else on the lights with comments on this motion. So we have a motion and a second. Are you guys ready for me to call for a vote? Looks like yes.

Alright. Then we will call for a vote. Okay. And that passes with five yeas, one nay by commissioner Reeves, and chair Modena is absent. That is the last item on our agenda for today, so we are adjourned now. Thank you.