Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of July 16th, 2026. Until further notice, Planning Commission meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 54953A as amended by Assembly Bill 2249, which allows the public to participate in person as well as a hybrid format. This meeting will be livestreamed on the City of San Diego's Public Hearing YouTube channel and on City TV. 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 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 2.6.2 of the Rules of Counsel, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time can only be ceded by speakers who are in the hearing room. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony.

Thank you, Chair Modane. 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 160-407-5570. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a 30 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.

I would now like to take roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Mazzari. Present. Commissioner Malbrough.

Present.

Commissioner Miyahara.

Present.

Commissioner Reeves.

Present.

Commissioner Renger. Present. Vice Chair Boomer. Present. Mr. Modena is present. Assistant Deputy Director from Development Services. Seth is supposed to be here, who is not here yet. So he is, right now he's absent. Shannon Eckmeyer, Deputy City Attorney. Eric Misalgo, Senior Civil Engineer, and our legislative staff. We will now start 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 would like to speak, please click on the raised hand icon on your screen. We do not have any non-agenda public speakers. We can move forward on our agenda. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? Okay. Is there a request to place any items on consent?

Yes, Madam Chair. I'd like to place item two on consent.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number two? Is there any commission or discussion on the consent, proposed consent item? No? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the items on consent? So moved. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion. We can go to a vote on the consent agenda. And that passes unanimously. Moving forward to meeting minutes, do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from June 18th, 2026? So moved.

I have a motion. Second.

And a second. Are there any public comments on the meeting minutes from June 18th, 2026? No? Okay. Then we can go to a vote. Meeting minutes pass unanimously. Are there any director's reports?

Yes, thank you, Chair Modane. The last planning commission hearing was held on June 18th. The commission heard three items, two wireless communications facilities, one on Division Street in Encanto and one on East Gate Mall in the University community. Additionally, a conditional use permit to amend the existing conditional use permit allowing for the continuation of the existing mining and operation use for an additional three-year period at 2499 Qualcomm Way in the Quarry Falls specific plan area of the Mission Valley Community Plan was heard by the Commission. All three items were unanimously approved with Chair Modane and Commissioner Renger absent. Additionally, on July 6 the City Council approved the Southwest Village specific plan, which the Planning Commission heard and recommended for approval at the May meeting. And on July 7 the City Council denied the appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission's decision to improve the Emerald Hills project, a 123 unit housing development project in the Encanto Neighborhoods Community Plan area.

That concludes my report.

Looks like we don't have a report from from planning department. Is there any on agenda Commission comment? Okay, then we can start our agenda with item number one. Whenever staff is ready. As staff gets ready to present item number one, I would like to announce that Seth Lichney from our planning department is now in attendance of our meeting.

Chair Modane, Planning Commissioners apologize for that. Phone-in testimony is now open. Please review the instructions provided on the screen. Phone-in testimony is now open. Please review instructions provided on the screen. Good morning, Chair Modane and Planning Commissioners, Javier Del Valle, Project Manager with Development Services, and the project before you is an appeal to the 1250 Grand Avenue project. The .14 acre site is located at 1250 Grand Avenue and is in the RM25 residential multiple unit zone and the non-appealable area of the coaster overlay zone within the Pacific Beach community plan area. The existing use consists of two one-story duplexes. The project site is located over half a mile east of the Pacific Ocean and is surrounded by residential development. There is no public view or coastal access from the project site as identified in the community plan. Also, the project site does not contain sensitive biological resources. The existing structures are more than 45 years old, requiring staff to evaluate the proposal and existing structure for historic significance. Staff determined that the property does not meet the local designation criteria as a significant historical resource. The proposed project includes demolishing the existing duplexes and constructing a new three-story 10,102 square foot multi-dwelling unit building to include 17 dwelling units of which two units will be affordable to very low income households at no more than 30% of 50% of the area median income for no fewer than 50 years, 55 years. The project was processed as an expedite program project for affordable infill housing and is eligible based on council policy and the San Diego Municipal Code. Also, since the project is processed per the complete community's housing regulations, the project is also eligible to utilize incentives to allow for the development of housing for all economic segments of the community and providing a balance of housing opportunities within the city. The applicant has requested and has allowed three incentives and two waivers for providing residential units for very low-income households. With the exception of these incentives and waivers, the project conforms with the development regulations of the underlying RM25 zone, including building height, which does not exceed the 30-foot height limit, site and rear setbacks, and floor area ratio that does not exceed the maximum allowed. Per the San Diego Municipal Code, a coastal development permit in the non-appealable area of the coastal overlay zone shall be made in accordance with the process due decision by the Development Services Department, and the decision is appealable to the Planning Commission. Regarding environmental review, the project was determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per the section that addresses infill development. This environmental determination was made on February the 23rd, 2026, and the opportunity to appeal this determination, and in March 9th, 2026, there were no appeals to this environmental determination. On April 16th, 2026, the Development Services Department issued a notice of decision approving the project. Regarding a recommendation from the community planning group, the applicant elected not to present the project to the Pacific Beach Community Planning Group for a recommendation. On April 30th, 2026, Yuri Buzalev, an interested party, filed the project appeal to the notice of decision citing factual error, conflict with other matters, and that findings cannot be supported. Per the San Diego Municipal Code, an appeal of a process to decision may be granted with evidence supporting one of the following findings, including when statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving the project were inaccurate, or when new information is available to the interested person that was not available through that person's reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision, or when a decision maker stated findings to approve the project are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker, or when the decision to approve the project is in conflict with the land use plan. City Council policy or municipal code. The Planning Commission can deny the appeal and uphold the project approval if none of these findings are supported by sufficient evidence or grant the appeal and deny the project approval if the Planning Commission finds that one of these findings is supported by sufficient evidence. The appeal issues are as follows appeal issue number one, that the determination that the project will not result in significant impacts to traffic parking and neighborhood conditions is not supported by substantial evidence. The proposed 17 unit development on a point 14 acre site will increase density and then already impacted Pacific beach area or parking and congestion are known concerns. The staff response to issue number one is that the project is presumed to have a less than significant vehicle miles traveled impact due to its estimated trip generation of 102 average daily trips or ADTs, which is under the 300 ADT trip generation screening criteria for small projects per the city's transportation manual. Also, as a small project with fewer than 1,000 ADTs and being consistent with the community plan and zoning designation, the project is not required to prepare a local mobility analysis. Also, the project is in a parking standards transit priority area and therefore has a no minimum parking requirement. The project is also required to provide transportation amenities. Per the complete community's regulations, the project will provide a way finding sign inside the property line. It will also pay a fee into the city's neighborhood enhancement fund for future infrastructure amenities. Also, the project applicant will provide one parking space for a van that is accessible for persons with disabilities and two parking spaces for electric vehicles. The project is entitled, also entitled to an incentive to waive the maximum permitted residential density of the land and use designation of the community plan. Density shall be limited by the allowable floor area ratio. And again, with the exception with the previous Previously mentioned incentives and waivers, the project conforms with the development regulations of the underlying R125 zone, including building height, side and rear setbacks, and floor area ratio. Therefore, the appeal does not provide any substantial evidence to support the claim that the project would result in significant impacts to traffic, parking, and congestion. The second appeal issue is that the finding that the project conforms to the Pacific Community Plan is not adequately supported. The scale and intensity of a three-story 17-unit building raises concerns regarding compatibility with surrounding development and neighborhood character. The staff response to issue number two is that the project supports the land use that is consistent with the community plan. The project is providing dwelling units restricted to very low income households in accordance with the complete community's regulations. The project also supports the community plan goal of promoting the development of a variety of housing types and styles in Pacific Beach to provide opportunities for housing that is affordable and accessible to achieve a balanced community. The project is also consistent with the community plan goals of implementing design standards for multi and single family development to ensure that properties reflect the neighborhood scale and character of the established neighborhood and enforcing bulk and scale standards and establish The project complies with these community plan goals by designing a project in which the architectural form and massing do not adversely impact the neighborhood character. The project incorporates articulated wall planes, varied roof lines, recessed entries, and offsetting facade planes to address bulk and scale. Design features include a variety of building materials such as stucco, horizontal lapping, and tile. The project maintains a residential scale consistent with the surrounding neighborhood through appropriate building proportions, roof modulation, and architectural detailing. Landscaping and enhanced exterior treatments soften the structure's visual massing and contribute to the neighborhood compatibility. Therefore, the project conforms with the community plan and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The third issue is that the reliance on this California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption for infill development fails to adequately address potential exceptions, including cumulative impacts and unusual circumstances in the dense coastal community. The staff response to the third appeal issue is that staff completed a review for exemption consistent with section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines. As previously mentioned, staff determined the project to be exempt from CEQA per the section that addresses infill development. The staff review also included determining the applicability of CEQA guideline sections that address cumulative impacts and significant effects. The environmental review found that the project impacts would be less than significant, that the project would not result in cumulative impacts, and that mitigation is not required. No substantial evidence was provided that a cumulative impact would occur. The environmental review also found that the project would not result in significant effects due to unusual circumstances. While the appellant asserts that the project location within a dense coastal community constitutes an unusual circumstance, the project is located within an established coastal neighborhood characterized by similar infill development, land uses, and densities. The project was found to be in conformance with the applicable zoning designation and the community plan. No substantial evidence was provided that a significant effect due to unusual circumstances would occur. The project has been reviewed in accordance with CEQA and appropriately determined to be exempt from CEQA based upon evidence in the record. Therefore, the appeal does not provide any substantial evidence to support the claim that the project would result in cumulative impacts or a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. Last issue, appeal issue number four is the conclusion that the project will not significantly impact public services, infrastructure, and circulation lacks sufficient supporting analysis. The staff response to issue number four is that the project would not adversely affect existing levels of public services to the area and would not require the construction of new or expanded governmental facilities. Additionally, the project does not impose service demands that exceed available capacity. The project is located within an urban neighborhood with existing infrastructure and through the city's review was determined that the existing infrastructure can accommodate the project and that no new expanded infrastructure is required. With respect to circulation, the staff response was discussed under appeal issue number one. As previously mentioned, based on the city's review, the project is presumed to have a less than significant vehicle miles traveled impact. The project will also be required to comply with all applicable city regulations and design requirements consistent with city standards. As previously mentioned, the project will provide transportation amenities and pay a fee into the city's neighborhood infrastructure fund for future infrastructure amenities. The project is also required to dedicate additional right-of-way along Grand Avenue, upgrade adjacent curb, gutter, and sidewalk to city standards. Therefore, the appeal does not provide any substantial evidence to support the claim that the project would result in significant impacts to public services, infrastructure, or circulation. In conclusion, staff has reviewed the proposed project, analyzed the appeal issues and determined that the project is in conformance with the regulations of the land development code and is consistent with the community plan and findings for the project can be made for the requested coastal development permit. The appellate does not have sufficient evidence to support any of the four findings that are grounds for appeal. Therefore staff recommends that the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the development services department decision to approve the project. This concludes staff's presentation. and staff and the applicant are available for any questions. And Chair McDane, staff would like to include in the record a memo that was sent out yesterday that addresses corrections and clarifications to the allowed incentives and waivers table that is included on the staff report, the and the resolution. The memo provides the correct code sections for the incentives and waivers for the project.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the Commission? OK. We can move on to public comment. Tim Golba. You'll have three minutes. Please turn on the mic. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, planning commissioners. We're representing the applicant on the project, and I'm basically just here for questions. We submitted an extensive report, which hopefully you've had a chance to review. And if there's any questions, we're here to respond.

Great. Thank you. Yuri Bozilev. You'll have three minutes. Please turn on the mic.

Good morning, Chair and Honorable Commissioners. My name is Yuri Buzalev, and I have lived on Grand Avenue for nearly 30 years, just steps away from the proposed development on 1250 Grand Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I respectfully ask the Commission to deny this project as currently proposed or require a substantial reduction in the scale before it moves forward. I'm not here because I oppose housing. I'm here because I believe this project asks far too much of a parcel. that is simply too small and because i believe its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood have been underestimated the central question before the commission is not simply whether 17 units can legally fit on point 14 acres the question is whether they should when i look at the surrounding block many nearby residential properties contain approximately four units this proposal is not asking to increase that to five or six it's asking for 17. that is more than four times the number of units found on many neighboring neighboring properties Every additional unit places additional demand on parking. Traffic delivers emergency access and neighborhood infrastructure. The parcel does not become larger simply because of more units are placed on it. Neither does the street. And my second concern is parking. Since paid parking was introduced on Garnett Avenue, many drivers who previously parked there have been shifted onto nearby residential streets like Grand Avenue. Those of us who live there have watched this happen. Parking has become increasingly difficult, residents circle the block looking for spaces, delivery drivers often have nowhere to legally stop. Service vehicles are frequently forced to block traffic because parking is unavailable. these are conditions we already live with every day additional 17 residential units will intensify an existing problem i respectfully question whether the parking analysis fully reflects the reality that resident residents experience today my third concern is compatibility the applicant had stated that the comparable developments already exist nearby if that is true i respectfully ask that those projects be identified by address parcel size and number of units so the commission and the public can fairly evaluate whether this proposal is truly compatible i have not seen evidence identifying another project with 17 residential units on the parcel this small Planning decisions should be supported by demonstrated facts. And finally, I want to speak about people who already live on the block. Before coming here today, I personally spoke with homeowners on the block. Every homeowner I spoke to expressed strong opposition to this project. Although each person had different experiences, their concerns were remarkably consistent. They believe this project is far too dense for this parcel. They're concerned about worsening parking shortages.

Thank you. I'm sorry, your time is up. Thank you. Do we have any online speakers?

We have one online speaker who's raised their hand, Jason Baldessari. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

My name is Jason ball, the salary and the owner at 1264 grand Avenue. While I only on this unit, I am speaking on behalf of my neighbors on the neighbors that go to to building 2 complexes to the east of me. And then also on the other side of where this is being developed as well to 2 units to the West. I agree with everything that Yuri just said. The parking here is already a problem. I think the rules that establish that parking studies wouldn't be required for development like this were put into place prior to there being meters on Garnett Avenue, which have put severe parking strains on our area. I also look to looking at the facts of and doing the research, finding out that nearly 50% of the units in San Diego County, 50% of the occupancy has vehicles and of those, most of them have two vehicles. So if we are talking about adding 17 units, that's you can fear doing the math extrapolated math at 17 parking spaces on the side of the side of the street that only has 20 existing parking spaces that services 90 residential units. How that how anyone found that 7, adding 7, potentially adding 17 cars to a space that service only has 20 spots and services 90 existing units. I don't see how that doesn't have an impact on what we're doing here. What are how are how we, what our day to day life is going to be like. Furthermore, backing up what Yuri said, everything's talked about being comparable. I don't think there's one single parcel of 0.14 acres in all of Pacific Beach, let alone San Diego, that at three stories accommodates 17 units. Um, the facts that were put together in this, in the staff in the initial reports, their conclusions, they're not facts. I misspoke when I said facts, their statements, but we have not seen any evidence or anything that has been put forward that actually supports anything that's being said there. And I think it's really problematic that this project did not go before the Pacific beach planning planning commission. um i think that anyone who had seen trying to replace four units with 17 on such a small parcel um know they know that this project would have gotten rejected and kicked back right out of the gate so i think as someone who's lived here since 2011 i'm not against development i'm not against redevelopment i'm just i'm i'm just against it when it's not at the correct scale for the neighborhood i also look at the builder's website here they have four other um they have four other planned developments the same way, the more that these continue to be approved, it's going to vastly change what our community looks like and how our community operates moving forward. So I look at this decision here as setting a precedent that potentially has the impact to completely change.

Thank you. Your time is concluded. Holly, please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Yes. Good morning. Thank you. Can everyone hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

Thank you. So while I'm generally supportive of thoughtful density and affordable housing, I respectfully request that you grant the appeal for 1250 Grand Avenue, because I do not believe the findings related to consistency with the Pacific Beach Community Plan, neighborhood compatibility, and Balkan scale are supported by substantial evidence. The staff response concludes that the project is compatible because the architectural form and massing do not adversely impact the neighborhood character, citing articulated wall planes, varied roof lines, recess entries, and offset facade planes. However, these architectural features alone do not demonstrate that the overall scale, intensity, and massing of a three-story, 17-unit building on a 0.14-acre parcel are compatible with the established neighborhood. The Pacific Beach Community Plan calls for development that reflect the scale and character of the established neighborhood, and for enforcing bulk and scale standards. Yet the record provides little comparative analysis, demonstrating how the project's height, massing, setbacks, and overall intensity relate to surrounding developments. First, the project uses an incentive to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to just seven. My review of the surrounding residential properties along Grand Avenue found that prevailing development pattern maintains a 20-foot front setback. It's not evident how the significant departure from the established streetscape remains consistent with the neighborhood context. Second, the staff response relies on varied roof lines and roof modulation to address bulk and scale, yet the elevations and renderings of the project appear to depict a continuous uppermost roof plane. If roof variation is being relied upon as evidence supporting the finding that bulk and scale have been addressed, the record should clarify how that conclusion was reached. Furthermore, my review of the developments throughout Pacific Beach found that the newer, higher-density multifamily projects generally occur on larger corner parcels, locations that more appropriately transition that scale of development. The proposed project presents a markedly different condition, a highly concentrated three-story, 17-unit building on a narrow parcel immediately adjacent to four-plex townhome-style developments. Lastly, consider the combined use of the three incentives, reducing the front setback, eliminating the requirements for common exterior open space, and eliminating the requirements for bicycle parking. While these incentives may be allowable, the City's Complete Communities program intends to provide more mobility choices and enhance opportunity for places to walk, bike, relax, and play. It's not evident how this combination of incentives advances those objectives or supports the broader goals of mobility, public realm, and neighborhood quality. Taken together, these examples raise a larger concern. If approved on the basis of these findings, the project can establish a precedence for redeveloping similarly narrow infill parcels with more density without a demonstrated analysis of neighborhood context, bulk, scale, or cumulative impacts on community infrastructure. Thank you.

Your time has concluded.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is Morwina Baldessari. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Can everyone hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

Perfect. My name is Marwena. I am respectfully asking that you grant this appeal because I do not believe the required findings for this project are supported by substantial evidence. I support the need for additional housing, including affordable housing. My concern today is not about whether housing should be built. It's whether the record before you contains sufficient evidence to support the findings required to approve this specific project. First, parking and neighborhood circulation. Through my own parking occupancy survey conducted over multiple evenings, I found approximately 20 parking spaces on the even side of Grand Avenue and 11 on the odd side, serving roughly 90 existing residential units on this block. Nearly every space was occupied and residents regularly have to park at least one to two blocks away from where they actually live. I documented parking occupancy on Tuesday, July 14th. Everett's had nine out of nine parking spots occupied. Fanuel had 16 out of 16 parking spots occupied, and Grand had 29 out of 31 parking spots occupied. As people have already stated today, the San Diego Union Tribune on May 27th, 2026 reported that Pacific Beach households generally contain two households per vehicle. Putting in a 17 unit complex does not support the amount of parking that we currently have available on Grand Avenue. The exemption from preparing a parking study was established before the city's recent expansion of parking meter policies along Garnett Avenue. As reported by the Beach and Bay Press and subsequent city actions, these parking changes have shifted parking demand into surrounding residential streets, yet the staff report contains no analysis of how those change conditions affect this neighborhood. Second, neighborhood compatibility. The report states that three-story apartment buildings are common along this corridor. There are four out of 10 three-story multifamily buildings on the north side of Grand, each containing four units. There are no comparable three-story apartment buildings on the south side of Grand.

That's zero out of 10.

All of the three-story buildings referenced are actually individual three-story townhomes or condominiums, not stacked apartment buildings. My field review did not identify a single comparable developments on either side of Grand Avenue consisting of a three-story apartment building with 17 dwelling units on a parcel approximately 0.14 acres. Third, cumulative impacts in neighborhood review. There are 90 existing residential units. This proposal would add 17 more units on one parcel alone on Grand Avenue. That's an increase of nearly 19% from a single development. Residents have also reported recurring sewer backups in surrounding neighborhoods. If the city concludes existing infrastructure can accommodate- Thank you.

That concludes your three minutes. Thank you. That concludes the speakers we have on this item who had raised their hands within the five minute period that was open for online public testimony.

Okay, that concludes the public comment. We can move on to commissioner comment, Vice Chair Boomhauer.

Thank you, Chair Modane. Look, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. This project's consistent with the municipal code. Staff has done a very thorough analysis of the project application before making their findings and then addressing the issues raised on appeal. We as a planning commission have limited grounds to grant an appeal, and I, for one, can't reach any of the required findings to support the appeal. So I will therefore make a motion to deny the appeal and support staff's initial recommendation. or approval.

Okay, we have a motion. Does your motion include the memo?

Of course it includes. Okay. But I saw her staring at me, city attorney. So I knew I should have had it.

Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, Chair Modane. I will second the motion. I will also just express to the appellant and supporters of the appeal that I recognize that Pacific Beach is super hard to get around. Parking is a challenge there. and the installation of new parking meters has created some additional pressure on surrounding streets. Recognizing that, I would encourage you to reach out to your council member and ask them to spend the parking meter revenue to bring back the beach bug or something similar that can help get people out of their cars and to transit. That's all I have.

Commissioner Mazzari.

I just have a question about the applicant deciding not to go to the community planning group for an official vote. I know their advisory and it's highly recommended that projects are presented to them, but I just wanna know, was there a specific reason that the applicant decided not to go there?

Commissioner, we'll have the applicant respond to that question.

Good question. We have a great relationship with PB Planning Group. I will not say a bad word about them on the record. We had a similar project, smaller, go to them that received a 7 to 5 approval. And they typically, when somebody votes against a project, go around and survey why they voted against it. of the five no votes all five said well it meets the codes but we don't like it and we don't like where this is going so we're going to vote against the project that to me unfortunately is not why a community planning group exists they're not there for their personal opinion they're there to review a project based on the current rules and regulations as such sneaking out with a 7-5 approval we did not think it was worth going back on a similar typology of building and we probably would have just been

if you will a sort of vote that's an opinion versus fact so that's why we skipped them on this particular project okay thank you Commissioner Marlborough uh thank you chair I'm uh in support of denying the the pill as well but I I just wanted to give the appellant a little advice um I heard a couple of public comments that had more information than you had in your written report And that's what I have to go by pretty much in making my decisions. You just can't make a claim and not have any supporting evidence. So I'm just giving you that. I feel your pain, but based on what has come across, I'm going to support staff's recommendation.

Okay. I don't think there's any further comments by Commission, so we can go to a vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. We can move on to item number three, staff whenever you're ready.

Not. me. Good morning, Chair Modane and Commissioners. I'm Sarah Osborne, the Development Project Manager for the 2020 SeaWorld Master Plan project. For members of the public who are viewing the hearing, the phone-in testimony period for item three is now open. To call in for public comment, please follow the directions presented on the screen here or in the preamble to the agenda. Before you today is project number 064-6353, which is an update to the SeaWorld Master Plan. SeaWorld is a marine animal theme park located on 189.4 acres of city land at 500 SeaWorld Drive in the Mission Bay Regional Park. SeaWorld San Diego has been leasing its waterfront site in Mission Bay Park from the City of San Diego since the early 60s. The update to the SeaWorld Master Plan is a Process 5 City Council decision. Additionally, the project is within the Coastal Commission's jurisdiction and approval of the Master Plan rests with the California Coastal Commission. The Mission Bay Park Master Plan functions both as the community plan and therefore part of the city's general plan and as the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan for Mission Bay Park. Because the SeaWorld Master Plan is incorporated by reference into the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, any updates to the SeaWorld Master Plan require corresponding amendments to the General Plan and to the Mission Bay Park Master Plan. Additionally, an addendum to the 2001 SeaWorld Master Plan Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project. As with the 2002 master plan, the 2020 master plan serves as a development plan described in the lease between SeaWorld and the City of San Diego and sets forth the long-range conceptual development program, development parameters, and project review procedures for SeaWorld. Although the leasehold has been largely developed since the 2002 master plan, the 2020 master plan update refreshes the comprehensive framework for long-term improvements, ensuring future development is consistent with current conditions, priorities, environmental responsibilities, and coastal regulatory requirements. There is no development or permits required at this time, and all future leasehold development is subject to review as established in Chapter 4 of the 2020 Master Plan. The key distinction of the 2020 master plan is to transition from a site specific development plan to an area specific development plan. That more closely matches sea world's future renovation needs and because the park is now mostly built out. The new plan replaces a tiered system with site specific projects and instead provides development criteria for each of the five planning areas, allowing new development to respond to changing conditions new technologies and evolving needs. The components of the master plan are organized by chapters. Chapter one is an introduction that sets the context for the 2020 SeaWorld Master Plan outlining purpose, history, and the need for this update. Chapter two defines the allowed land uses and development criteria for the entire leasehold. It includes the 2002 special projects guidance for general lease development and descriptions of the five planning areas that structure the future developments improvements. Chapter 3 provides design standards for buildings, landscaping, lighting, and signage to ensure consistent high-quality development throughout the SeaWorld leasehold. And Chapter 4 is a regulatory framework that explains how future projects will be reviewed and approved, including the City's determination of consistency process and Coastal Commission's permitting requirements. All development projects require approval by the California Coastal Commission. Chapter five sustainability is a new chapter and it describes sea world strategies to support energy efficiency water conservation waste reduction climate resiliency and marine life protection in alignment with city wide sustainability goals. Additionally, SeaWorld is proposing several updates that support alternative ways to get to and from the park. The master plan update identifies multimodal improvements, including new pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along SeaWorld Drive that will make walking and biking safer and more comfortable. There are plans to expand bicycle parking and plug-in stations for e-bikes and electric vehicles, improvements to bus shelter areas, and supporting alternative transportation for employees. The environmental analysis of the 2020 master plan concluded there are no new environmental impacts from what was identified in the previously certified 2001 SeaWorld master plan environmental impact report. And an addendum was prepared and mitigation for air quality, biological resources, energy, geology, neighborhood character, noise and water conservation were carried forward. On November 1, 2022, the Mission Bay Park Committee recommended approval of the SeaWorld Master Plan by a vote of 7-0-1. And on November 17, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval of the project by a vote of 9-0-1. Staff recommends to recommend to the City Council to approve the 2020 SeaWorld Master Plan and the amendments to the General Plan and the Mission Bay Park Master Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and recommends to adopt the Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This completes staff's presentation. Staff and the applicant are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any Commission clarifying questions? no okay we can go on to public comment um tyler carter looks like you have a few people seating time to you i need to make sure that they are present in the chambers or our hearing room actually maddie kilkenny caroline smith lindsay boyd scott greenberg thomas kelly Okay, you will have, well, technically 18 minutes, but we cap presentations at 15.

I only need six or seven. So even better. So good morning, chair and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Tyler Carter, and I have the privilege.

Sorry, there's also a PowerPoint presentation. Thank you.

do we see it oh there we go i got excited here we go um so my name is tyler carter and i have the privilege of serving as the park president for sea world san diego for more than 60 years sea world has been a part of the fabric of san diego we've welcomed over 185 million guests in that time families continue to create lifelong memories while supporting our local economy and hopefully learning more about how to take care of our oceans and not endanger wildlife Today, we employ more than 2,500 year-round team members and add an additional 700 seasonal employees during the summer, many of whom are student workers getting critical work experience and professional skills that will shape their careers forever. I don't know with the amount of people in this room, but a lot of people I meet in San Diego also started their career at SeaWorld, which is really exciting. I don't know if anyone in the room did, but pretty cool. We know that our impact also extends well beyond our gates. We're proud to be an economic engine for the region, a tourism destination, and the city's biggest lessee, generating millions of dollars every year for the city's general fund. We are a longstanding partner of the city, and we look forward to many more decades of collaboration. As your partner, I'd be remiss if I didn't highlight the incredible partnership from city staff to get us to this hearing today. We started the master plan in 2018 as an effort to update our existing document and move more holistically into planning for the future of our park. COVID did slow us down a bit, but here we are today and we appreciate staff's work and patience. As you can see on this slide in front of you, we presented to the Mission Bay Park Committee and Parks and Recreation Board before coming to you today. We were pleased to receive unanimous votes of approval from both groups, and I also want to take a moment to voice our appreciation for the community's engagement in this process. While we receive constant feedback from our guests every day about rides, attractions, traffic, and certainly the food, the master plan update process requires engagement with the city's community members. My predecessors started this process a few years ago by hosting a community outreach event at our park to kick off the one-on-one with interested parties and provide tours for several groups, including city staff, coastal commission staff, and elected officials. Is that perfect? As Sarah mentioned, the master plan before you is our long range development plan. It guides everything we do and how we do it. Given that the park has been mostly built out since the last master plan, the Coastal Commission urged us to update the plan to be more consistent with the built environment and to address topics such as mobility, climate and sustainability. As a result, the key difference between the previous master plan and the draft before you today is a shift from site specific projects to an area wide approach to better address upgrades, renovations, redevelopment, sustainability and more holistic planning. The world has changed a lot since our last update and we want to evolve with it. A few of the new features of this master plan are plug-in stations for bikes and cars, improving the nearby bus stop to better accommodate the growing population of bus riders and pedestrian and bike improvements along SeaWorld Drive. We want staff and visitors to know that they can access the park in any way that works for them. Gone are the days of cars only. We're here to accommodate everyone and hopefully create some cheaper, sustainable, and environmentally superior options. Another notable change in this master plan is our evolution in nighttime entertainment. This master plan reflects a deliberate step forward and builds on our longstanding commitment to explore innovative, environmentally responsible alternatives. Our collaboration with the Coastal Commission has led us on a path toward reimagining what nighttime experiences can be, including drone shows. The concept has been many years in the making. We are proud to have successfully started our drone show pilot in May of this year. And after receiving the Coastal Commission's first ever coastal drone permit approval, we received well over 300 support letters from residents, environmental groups, elected officials and others. Nightly shows are critical to park attendance and revenue. And while we still look forward to fireworks shows on traditional holidays like 4th and July and others, we were delighted to take a meaningful step forward toward drones as part of our future of nighttime entertainment. Many of the people here with me today have worked tirelessly on the master plan for many years. We're excited about it, but I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you what we're most excited about every day. The animals in our care, whether it's the ones that we rescue, rehabilitate, and return to the wild, and our efforts to lead on sustainability. We are much more than just an amusement park. Since SeaWorld joined the community in 1964, we've taken our responsibility seriously to protect and defend the nature and habitat around us. SeaWorld is proud of the rescue and rehabilitation work we do daily. Last year, SeaWorld rescued over 500 animals at the park in San Diego. From birds to sea lions to now beluga whales, we've helped them all. Since our opening, our rescue teams have cared for more than 23,000 marine animals right here in San Diego. Every rescue has one goal, rehabilitate the animal and return it to the wild wherever possible. Our veterinarians and animal care experts continue to pioneer new techniques from creating prosthetics for injured wildlife to developing specialized care for orphaned dolphins. It's really what makes us excited every day to do what we do. We are also committed to sustainability. Since our last master plan in 2002, SeaWorld opened San Diego's first and only saltwater restroom, saving over 1.5 million gallons of fresh water every year. In 2017, we eliminated all plastic bags and polyester in products well before the city's ban. We also recently started back up on monthly beach cleanups around Mission Bay. Dozens of our employees, past members, I have participated and picked up hundreds of pounds of trash. Our commitment to environmental stewardship and conservation is not static. We are constantly evolving and adding new goals. Lastly, we know that our commitment to San Diego extends beyond site improvements and policy changes. We want SeaWorld to be accessible to our educators and military and veteran communities. To that end, we continue to offer free tickets to active duty military veterans and teachers from Southern California and Arizona. We also make it our job to support organizations in the community. We donate thousands of tickets every year to organizations like the Blood Bank, Logan Heights CDC, SBCS, and others. We are also extremely proud to host the annual Perfect Attendance event for Senate District 39. This tradition started 12 years ago with former Senator Shirley Weber and is now extended to Dr. Akilah Weber in the last role. Last year, over 500 students and families made it to Perfect Attendance, and we were very happy to host them all at the park to celebrate their achievement. As we look ahead to the future of SeaWorld, our commitment is simple. Continue creating unforgettable experiences for families, continue supporting thousands of local jobs, continue investing in San Diego's economy, and continue leading in wildlife rescue, conservation, and education. We are proud to call San Diego home, and we look forward to partnering with the city to build the next chapter of SeaWorld's future. Thank you all for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Asha Blyer. Oh, sorry, you commented that you're just in support and you're available for questions. Thank you. Just reading into the record. Courtney Brown.

You'll have three minutes. Thank you. This is on. Great. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Courtney Brown. I'm a staff attorney with San Diego Coastkeeper. And I'm commenting on the master plan, SeaWorld's master plan update. We appreciate all of the hard work that went into this plan over the years. There's a lot of general improvements that we just heard about. And thank you to Steph and to Tyler for that presentation as well. But I am going to specifically be focusing on the fireworks section today in the drone section. Coastkeeper has been a leading voice on the issue of fireworks discharges in Mission Bay since the early 2000s. And we have seen a lot of progress since then, thanks in large part to the collaboration with SeaWorld and decision makers like this commission, the City Council and Coastal Commission. That progress has brought us to a critical turning point, and this master plan is our chance to build on that momentum. While this update is an improvement, it still authorizes up to 60 fireworks shows a year, which simply doesn't go far enough to protect coastal resources. coast keeper has documented hundreds if not thousands of pieces of chemical-laden plastic and cardboard debris landing directly in mission bay's waters after every single show the coastal act the city's rewild mission bay effort and mission bay mass mission bay park master plan all call for increased protections that minimize coastal impacts and locking in 60 shows a year for the next 20 years is hard to reconcile with these mandates especially when lower impact alternatives are already in active use, like we just heard about. SeaWorld currently holds a coastal development permit for a year-long drone light show pilot, allowing up to 110 shows this year, explicitly meant to help the park move away from fireworks. This is an improvement that we're all very excited about in the community. And drone shows have proven popular and viable, giving us every incentive to expand them and scale back fireworks. uh we therefore urge this commission to recommend approval of the master plan conditioned on a complete phase out of fireworks within five years thank you thank you we have no online speakers we can move on to commission comment vice chair boomhauer

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, staff and SeaWorld for that presentation and also Coastkeeper. I got to be perfectly honest with you, even before Coastkeeper sent their letter to us expressing their concerns, I was already thinking along the same lines. I mean, staff vis-a-vis fireworks. And I don't want to be the guy who gets talked about as the person who hates SeaWorld or hates fireworks. I don't hate SeaWorld. I like you guys a lot. I'm not crazy about fireworks. And I do think that When staff and the applicant both talk about the needs to adopt new technologies and to take positions to move forward, to be sustainable as an environmental organization, I just have a really hard time approving or recommending approval of a master plan that keeps using you know millennium old technology that we know is really bad um when there are other viable options so um i'm just gonna go ahead and ask the applicant is is sea world willing to do something along the lines of what coastkeeper is asking for and to put an actual hard phase out plan into this because I can get behind that. I don't know that I'm going to be able to vote to recommend keeping 60 fireworks shows a year for the next couple of decades.

Yeah, I think the piece I would start with is we're in the middle of testing the drone technology, which means we don't have all the data yet on how this is going to perform. So where we sit today, I believe we've come to a reasonable point with the information available to us now. This drone study is a total of 12 months ending in April of next year, and we're not even halfway through the pilot study period of shows. i think where we sit today is we are exploring because because we understand the the greater need in conversation but can't commit further today based on the information in front of us sorry i've done yeah

Good morning, everyone. I'm Samira Rao, Assistant Deputy Director with City Planning. I also want to note that currently SeaWorld has limited approval from the Coastal Commission to test out the drones. And I think the reason that language isn't there is also to kind of provide some backup in case that is not extended further. But we are happy to work with the applicant to add any language or work this further. But that is the main reason why, because they have limited approval from Coastal Commission at this time, and they're still working with the Coastal Commission to get that more permanent.

Okay, thank you. Because I was gonna ask you to weigh in on that anyway. So you saved you saved me some time. Okay. Um, look, I think SeaWorld is tremendously important as an asset for San Diego. You guys do great work in the community. I'm gonna actually defer to some of my fellow commissioners and hear what their thoughts are before I go any further. So thank you chair.

Thank you. Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I just step back and say I'm very supportive of this master plan update. I think it's a lot of really good work, many years in the making. And so congratulations to staff and to SeaWorld and all the consultants involved for doing a great job. overall highly supportive of the plan i'll echo my colleagues comments uh regarding fireworks also just note um the master plan does uh reference a table that doesn't exist to table two two which says maximum firework usage um then the table's not actually in the plan that was removed and so we'll have to um amend that language That brings up my first question. Why was the maximum firework usage table removed from the plan?

So the number of fireworks is in there. It's 60. But the table itself was removed.

The same limit exists elsewhere. It's just there's no table because why? It was redundant?

Yes.

I would also, not to use anyone's words against them, but the comment, the world has evolved and we're evolving along with it. I took that as a pretty significant statement and I think there's a lot of evidence supporting that SeaWorld has done that and it's continuing to do that. This is one area where I think there is work to be done. um in agreement that fireworks shows are outdated and dangerous and for a city and a partner to the city that's so focused on environmental stewardship it doesn't there's a disconnect for me that there's such a commitment to a technology that is harmful when there's such a push to evolve along with the world to eliminate harms to the environment so um I'm not going to sit here and dwell on this because I think there's been a lot of cases been made. My view is that this is obviously a decision for the city council. My leaning is to recommend to the city council that um you know approving the master plan with some sort of a phase out would be this body's preference um what that exact phase out looks like is up for debate i think that the uh uh miss rouse statement that there is limited duration on the permit for the drone shows is a good one and so something along the lines of if that if drone shows are able to continue Indefinitely that triggers some sort of a phase-out process for fireworks. That'd be my preference I'm happy to put some definition around that as a motion if that's i'm looking at i'm thinking i i may do that so let's go with supporting um staff recommendation which is to recommend approval of the master plan with the inclusion of a five-year phase-out that is triggered once the coastal commission is provides permission for a long-term use of drone shows i can second that

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Renger.

I just had a question for our legal counsel to understand what we are and are not able to put in, you know, as a clause or. And if, if Commissioner Reeves recommendation is viable, then

Um, if you could speak on that, yes, it is your recommending body to city council and you're giving your recommendation on this master plan to them. So. The language, I think commissioner Reeves did a good job of just, it would be adding into section E of the master plan and we'll all work with staff and making sure it's in the staff report for the, um, 5 year phase out of fireworks.

I conditioned on a permanent drone permit from the coastal Commission okay, thank you i'm in support of Commissioner reeves note in supporting the master plan.

um i would also concur with my fellow commissioners in the motion um i'd like to to see it phased out at least a good portion of those 60 you know days maybe you know certain holidays only um but i support the motion and having some language around you know should the coastal commission um permit the use of drone shows in the future that this would have a phase-out plan um oh commissioner miyahara

Thanks. Can we hear from the applicant about the drone shows? How are they going? This sounds like a new rollout. I'm just curious. Customer experience is very important to you. This is part of that experience. So I'm just interested to hear, how is it going?

Yeah, so we're about 40 days in of doing drones. I think reception from guests in the park, but also just public, I mean, a 10 minute storytelling show in the sky is extremely popular. Concerns that we have to be aware of on drone technology in general is the unknown future on the technology side. So there have been incidents around not just in the US of the globe where drones have struck people, buildings, other pieces. So when we think of we have not experienced any of that or else we would not be flying still. But those are as we think of the longer term use. It's also understanding what technology challenges could come up in the future of controlling a drone and dropping it intentionally in the area. And there's a lot of pieces on the FAA side that we work around to make sure that the public is safe, that people are safe. But from a guest experience side, they've definitely enjoyed it. But we're about halfway through. So July is typically our biggest month from a viewership of nighttime entertainment perspective. So we should know more this month.

So assuming the rollout continues to go well, do you see this as a good alternative long-term?

Yeah, I think, I mean, dating back to 2017, we've been exploring new ways to engage the public community with nighttime entertainment. So it started with our circle like Tariq show we ran from 2017 to 2019. We also do drones at a variety of our parks in our company. And so our Florida parks are on year two of drones where we're on the first year. And so as long as our guests and people enjoy it and it drives attendance to the park, that's our, obviously biggest focus we always are looking for what drives the highest attendance to the park and so drones can do that that makes us happy and with the drones you see this as being a

a viable alternative, like driving folks to your park?

As of now, yes. We are the first entity to do a nightly drone show in California and one of the few across the US. And so it is still a very new trending topic. If every single theme park starts doing drones at the exact same time, I think there's a lot of saturation that comes in. But I think where we sit in our position today, we are very unique in that being the only one in California doing a nightly drone show.

Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Marlborough.

Thank you, Chair. I'm in support of the motion that's been made as far as extending, utilizing the drones. You know, I'm a native San Diego, San Diegan rather, and SeaWorld has been a part of my life as well as my kids' life, who are now adults, and their children, my grandkids' life. And I don't want to see it go away, but I got to tell you, in looking at the documentation, you can do 60 shows and you fire for six minutes and you fire 250 rounds. That's 15,000 rounds. And I don't see how... over time you you have a robust method of trying to clean up as best as you can but i just don't see that really happening uh over time you're just not going to be able to do that and i don't want to destroy mission bay whatsoever uh so i i really would like to see you work very hard and seriously about phasing the fireworks out and utilizing the drones so that's pretty much all i had to say thank you vice chair boomhauer

Chair, I just like to ask the motion maker, and it's only based on the way the deputy city attorney phrased it. Are we suggesting drones as the alternative? Or are we suggesting drones or any other technology? Because I think we want to give them flexibility. You know, the park actually made a great point just now that drones are a relatively new technology. And five years from now, 10 years from now, there might actually be some other thing that allows them to stay out on the pointy end of the spear. And I'd hate for us to inadvertently paint them into another box.

I think that's a great point. I would be willing to amend the motion if an amendment is necessary to... open it up to drones or any future technology that is a sufficient replacement. Maybe not sufficient because that starts to get squishy, but so long as SeaWorld has approvals from the Coastal Commission to do some sort of a nightly entertainment using drones or other technology ongoing, then the phase-out would be triggered.

That'd be my preference. And I think that's a great point. And as the person who was the 2nd on the motion, I'm fine with that amendment. Just waiting for you to make sure that you've got the language. Dave Kuntz, sabrina's just happy you're typing it up so she doesn't have to.

Okay, phasing out fireworks condition on coastal Commission approval of coastal development permit to use drones or any other similar technology and other i'm sorry or any other.

um i think i said something along the lines of yeah something along the lines of some um drones or other future technology that provides nighttime entertainment okay future technology

I think, excuse me. Okay. I think you might want to add when you say any other that's not damaging to the environment.

Yeah.

Well, yeah. Okay. Agreed. So yeah.

More environmentally friendly technology or something along those lines.

Right. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

that is environmentally friendly I don't want to say more um well more than more than fireworks is what I meant okay phasing okay Facing out fireworks condition on coast and coastal commission approval of coastal development permit to use drones or any other future technology for enter for nighttime entertainment that is more environmentally friendly than fireworks.

i'm happy with that.

Chair, can we just ask staff and frankly the applicant arm that that seems like it's a reasonable and workable thing for them.

An alternative to I don't know, and this is the apple at the applicant or staff rather than saying that is more environmentally friendly that that is consistent with the NPDES permit requirement. Look to the staff and the applicant.

I'd have to defer. I'm okay.

We'll leave it as it is.

And it's just a recommendation. So you can go back and look into it.

Yes. And work on it before city council.

Does the applicant want to speak to the item?

Yeah, I think the only thing I'll say, for one, thank you all for trying to work through. I think I understand the position that you're all coming from. I think the pieces that we as we're making a decision like this, let's say drones get cut today for FAA reasons, for any other regulatory reason, I still have to have an alternative tomorrow. And so the permitting process, I think as we're thinking about a solution, it took me 18 months to get through the process for drones. I started in July of 2024. And that's not a bag on anyone. It's just finding a drone vendor, figuring out the studies, the right way to do biological studies, environmental studies, figure out with FAA what's allowed, how high you can fly. These processes typically are not quick. um and that was us working hand in hand with coastal from the start amazing collaboration 18 months um and and so i think as we're thinking of if something goes away it's how fast can alternative come and and as we're thinking of our future um having something every day over summer and i'm saying something um is extremely important and critical to us and so that's the only piece i would just make sure we're remembering is permit doesn't come overnight there's typically biological studies environmental studies all the variety of things we do in advance and setting up how to monitor and go so please factor that in as we're thinking about it how would the motion makers like to address that i mean i think emotion says should the coastal commission allow can you know continue to allow i think that creates cover but

Yeah, no, and I appreciate the comment, and I agree that we don't want to put SeaWorld in a position where just nothing can happen at night. That's not the intention. So that's why I think a five-year phase-out following some triggering event, which is long-term permit or long-term permission structure to do a nightly – entertainment using drones or other similar technology that's more environmentally supportive than fireworks. So I think that I feel good that that protects SeaWorld. Again, this is a recommendation to council. This can be refined. Council can put their stamp on this. So I feel good with it.

Okay, I modified it a little bit. Phasing out fireworks within five years should Coastal Commission permit the use of drones or any other future technology for nighttime entertainment that is more environmentally friendly than fireworks?

The only thing I would add is Coastal Commission and any other governing body because if the FAA says put a kibosh on that, then they don't have that cover.

phasing out fireworks within five years should coastal Commission and any other governmental body permit the use of drones or any other future technology for nighttime entertainment that is more environmentally friendly than fireworks.

motion maker good second motion maker i'm happy thanks i'm good with them okay. or any other Commission comments.

I will just put the caveat and I will work with staff on the environmentally friendly portion. That's something we might need to workshop a little bit with before the recommendation before City Council. But we will translate this as part of the recommendation.

Okay, I think we can go to a vote then with that modified motion. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. We can go on to item number four, staff, whenever you are ready.

Good morning, Chair Modane and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Megan Carubia, Senior Planner with the City Planning Department. Here with me today is Deputy Director Seth Lynchney. Item four before you is a request to initiate an amendment to both the Mission Valley Community Plan and the General Plan. The requested amendment initiation to the Mission Valley Community Plan and the General Plan seeks to redesignate a .7 acre parcel from Community Plan land use designation of right-of-way to office and visitor commercial with residential prohibited. This also includes the removal from the Community Plan implementation overlay zone specific plan subdistrict additionally the request includes a specific plan amendment to remove the site from the atlas specific plan there will be no redesignation of the general plan land use and will remain as commercial employment retail and services the proposed community plan amendment initiation for the 0.7 acre subject site is outlined in red and is located along hotel circle south the applicant for the initiation is steve abel The subject site contains a one-story vacant building along Hotel Circle South in the southern portion of the community plan area. In the Mission Valley Community Plan, the subject site is designated as right-of-way. Additionally, the Atlas-specific plan has a planned land use for the subject site as right-of-way for the reservation of the future Villa Las Cumbres Interstate 8 interchange. The initiation request is to redesignate the site to office and visitor commercial with residential prohibited, removal from the community plan implementation overlay zone-specific plan subdistrict, and removal of the subject site from the Atlas-specific plan. The subject site is within the Hillside and Specific Plan CPAS subdistricts within the community plan. The community plan amendment initiation request is to remove the site only from the Specific Plan subdistrict. The SANDAG data for housing and population shows that between the years 2010 and 2014, excuse me, 2010 and 2024, the number of homes in Mission Valley increased by 39%. The subject site is located in a high-resource area identified by the 2026 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. According to the San Diego Housing Commission, there are 731 deed-restricted affordable homes in the Mission Valley Community Plan area, which accounts for 5% of the total homes within the community compared to 5% citywide. The subject site is within the Atlas Pacific Plan area and is explicitly identified in the specific plan as part of Evelyn Terrace sub area. The Atlas Pacific Plan reserved the subject site within Evelyn Terrace for future dedication for off ramps associated with the future Interstate 8 via Las Cumbres interchange, which is identified as Riverwalk Street J in the Mission Valley Community Plan. The specific plan does not propose development for the subject site. The community plan land use designation is consistent with specific plan for the subject site. In 1988, an irrevocable offer of dedication of the 3.7 acre Evelyn Terrace site was made to the city of San Diego for the right of way for the future freeway interchange at Interstate 8. In 1991, in conjunction with parcel map number 16469, the city council rejected parcel 1, which is the subject site, parcel 3, and portions of parcel 2 and 4 marked as reserved for future streets. City staff has not found any documentation filed with the City or the County of San Diego that the City has accepted the IOD within the 25-year timeframe under state law. The community plan designates Riverwalk Street J as a future four-lane major street which would connect Friars Road to Hotel Circle South. The Riverwalk Street J connection will also facilitate a new interchange for I-8. The planned street would provide pedestrian and bicycle connections across Interstate 8 and the San Diego River to the planned Riverwalk Trolley Station. Hotel Circle South and North are planned as one-way couplets with cycle tracks. The community plan identifies the need to coordinate with Caltrans, Sandag, and property owners for the implementation of Ruach Street J Bridges, the interchange, and ramps at Interstate 8. Heinz, the property owner and developer of the Ruach-specific plan, is currently conducting a mobility analysis as a condition of approval for the Ruach development. The analysis includes analyzing the proposed one-way couplets along Hotel Circle North and South as well as Riverwalk Street J. The community plan amendment initiation provides an opportunity for city staff to work with the project applicant, the property owner of parcel 3, highlighted in blue, also known as 1975 Hotel Circle South, and the Riverwalk developer while the Riverwalk mobility analysis is underway. Because the mobility analysis includes the evaluation of the Riverwalk Street J connection, the ongoing planning efforts provide an opportunity to explore how the identified mobility improvements in the community plan could be implemented with any proposed development on the subject site in coordination with the Riverwalk specific plan. The proposed Community plan amendment initiation request meets the necessary three initiation criteria and the general plan. Under criteria one if the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the general planning Community plan, it would encourage further intensification of employment uses and support business development and employment opportunities. Under criteria number two, if the proposed amendment provides additional public benefit, the proposed redesignation of the subject site and removal from that specific plan would allow for the city to work with the property owner to identify the improvements to implement the community plans mobility network. This would include implementation actions IA 21 and IA 23, which identify the need to work with property owners as part of a planned street network extension and implementation of road walk street j and interchange with interstate 8 improvements identified in the community plan under criteria number three all necessary public services appear to be available if the initiation is approved an analysis of public services and facilities will need to be performed with the amendments review including but not limited to the plan street over interstate 8 and the interchange that are identified in the community plan and specific plan On May 6 of this year, the Mission Valley Community Planning Group approved the initiation. Next, there are several land use and urban design initiation issues that staff has identified in the staff report that would be studied as part of the community plan amendment should this initiation be approved. However, key issues to note are those related to mobility, which include The applicant will need to evaluate whether the plan amendment could incorporate the mobility improvements identified in the community plan, which includes extension of Riverwalk Street J to Hotel Circle South, future Interstate 8 interchange at Hotel Circle South and Riverwalk Street J. and bicycling facilities along Hotel Circle South. The applicant will also need to evaluate how the proposed community plan and specific plan amendments would affect the mobility network and if any additional environmental analysis is needed to address the changes to the mobility network. Lastly, the applicant will need to determine whether a mobility study is necessary for the Mission Valley community planning area and if the community plan amendment could affect the mobility network. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate the plan amendment process to the Mission Valley Community Plan and Atlas specific plan. This initiation request, if approved by the Planning Commission, would not constitute an endorsement of the plan amendment or project proposal. This concludes staff's presentation. We are available for questions. Thank you.

Are there any clarifying questions? Commissioner Reeves.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Can you just quickly pull up the map? I'm unclear where the interchange is proposed, the J Street crossing and the interchange is proposed to land. And I know that... this will all be evaluated after the amendment is initiated. So maybe the answer is we don't know yet, but it seems like parcel one and also parcel three, which is being studied for an amendment are right there.

I'm getting that right up with the help of Sabrina. Thank you.

Didn't really cause a bunch of trouble here. I have slide 14 up on my computer and I'm looking at it. So if that's what you're bringing up, I'm just, it's not, there's not a lot of detail as far as where J Street's supposed to come over across 8 and land there.

So I would like for, let's see, for 14, you can also refer to slide 13. If you see Street J, it's like in a dark green color. It's going all the way down to the outline pink one-way couplet. So that Street J that's shooting right down, it is connecting to the parcel outline in red on the left-hand side.

So in other words, it's sort of like J Street comes down and splits the difference between Parcel 1 and Parcel 3.

So Street J will facilitate that future freeway interchange. And the parcel outline in red is one of the parcels of Evelyn Terrace that supports the freeway interchange.

Okay. So that will all have to be studied to see if that interchange is even possible if these are redeveloped. Correct.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions? Okay. We can move on to public comment. Brittany Ruggles-Wallace.

You'll have three minutes. Thank you, Commission Chair Modena, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brittany Rebels-Wallace with KLR Planning. I'm joined today by Steve Abo, who is the applicant and property owner, as well as Karen Rebels with KLR Planning. Commissioner Reeves, to address your question a little bit more to start before I launch into my very brief comments, and I have to appreciate Megan here before all of you. Her staff report was so thorough that I actually scrapped my entire PowerPoint presentation. thank you very much for your time on this the study is not necessarily a study of the if the street j crossing is possible with redevelopment on the south side of the freeway it's really to study if it's possible at all because there has been redevelopment on the north side of the freeway as well as you know there's new multifamily there and so it's something that the analysis that's part of the the riverwalk conditions of approval is ready to see can we do this and how it goes so although there's a line drawn for street j we have no idea what the engineering would be what the size would be and all that so that's what that study is doing and to the best of our knowledge and coordinating with Heinz is that they're still in the stage of figuring out between the city and Caltrans who's even paying for that study or who do they bill to. So that's in the very, very preliminary stages. But this is a good opportunity to remind you that this is a community plan amendment initiation. This is just a chance to study putting a land use on the site. As Seth mentioned, it's not approval of the land use, it's not approval of the future project or future development on the site. It's just a chance to see, could we do this and bring that forward? I'd like to also remind you, this is a process five action ultimately. so this will go back before you guys this will come before city council and so this is we're at the very beginning of a long process but we're also very excited to bring some uses to the site that we aren't able to do now without a land use that would be community serving that would serve not only the residences in the area and the businesses but also the surrounding motorists we're at a really great location served by transit but also very easy freeway access and we look forward to being able to study bringing forward a development that would allow that to come forward and just check my notes because megan was so thorough Um, yeah, and we do understand the needs to look into the constraints, not only of street J, but also of the one way couplet along hotel circle and how development on our project site would be able to not only preclude that, but also potentially support that in the future with different sort of mechanisms on the site. So we appreciate your time. We are available for questions and we hope you support this community plan amendment initiation. Thank you.

Thank you. Just reading into the record that Karen Ruggles is in favor and same with Steve Abbo. Don't want to speak. Are there any online speakers?

We have one person with their hand raised. Zoom user, please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

All right.

Could you put the map back on the screen on the TV?

Please state your name for the record, sir.

uh hector gomez could could you put that map back on the screen on the tv screen because i'm trying to figure out where this is i live in mission valley up from the hill from that fires where the fires were that would be great it's by del mesa liquor store and it's going to go all the way to the south of highway 8. So that road, you'll be able to ride your bike from all over there and get back on the bike lane to the beach, like in Ocean Beach. That bike lane on the south side of Highway 8, all the way from Friars Road through the golf course. Does it go kind of through the golf course there?

They're building all those apartments there now.

That would be great, man. Yeah, so Friars Road, that's where Del Mesa Liquor is, Villa Las Cumbres on Friars Road. But J Street is where they're doing all those new apartments, Riverwalk. And does it go actually through the golf course or right next to it where Hotel Circle is? The other side of the golf course where the river is? That would be great, man. If it actually can do it, it's hard to explain. I'm just looking at the map now. I'm trying to figure out where it is, but I live in the neighborhood, and I ride my bike to the beach. We need more bike lanes and a way to get over to the South Hotel Circle or even the North Hotel Circle along the freeway. I don't know if it goes under the freeway or over. but that would be, I'm all for studying it.

You have one minute left, please.

Okay, I'm all just trying to figure out exactly what it is, but I'm all for doing that. That'd be a great thing, and I was trying to get into Zoom. I'm talking on SeaWorld, but it took me about 20 minutes. Anyway, you know, SeaWorld is owned by the communists. It's a communist company that owns SeaWorld. Thank you.

If you could please. Okay, that sounds good. Go ahead. Comments to this item. Okay. Thank you for your comments. That concludes the speakers we have.

We'll move on to commission comment. Is there any?

Commissioner Reeves? Yeah, recognizing this is an initiation, I'll go ahead and move approval. Second.

He beat you to it. We have a motion and a second. It's like the Jeopardy button. Any other commission comments? Any feedback we'd like to give the applicant?

I'll just throw in, and I think KLR knows this. have fun studying this site um there's there's a lot going on here and i i think it's going to be um i i think there's certainly potential it's certainly worth doing the initiation but there's there's going to be a lot um that's going to need to go into this i think before it comes back to the commission at some point in the future i won't be here but i'm sure that my fellow commissioners will um very much care about how this is gonna work within the the mobility element within that community plan and the riverwalk development specific plan so um it's it's not without challenge but it certainly is an underutilized parcel right now so um it'd be nice to see it turn into something okay if there's no more comments and we can go to a vote we have a motion in a second

And that passes unanimously. Thank you, everybody. And that concludes our meeting for today.