Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Morning and welcome to the planning commission meeting for December 4th, 2025. Until further notice, planning commission meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of government code section 54953A as amended by Assembly Bill 2249, which allows the public to participate in person as well as via a hybrid format. This meeting will be livereamed 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 the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes. The virtual queue will close 5 minutes after in-person testimony ends. Also, per section 2.6.2A and B of the rules of council, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time can only be seated by speakers who are present in the chambers. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony.

Thank you, Vice Chair Boomhower. 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 web page. or you may dial 1-669-254-5252. The webinar ID is 160 944367. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a 30- secondond 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'll now uh like to take roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Malro,

present. Commissioner Mia, present. Commissioner Reeves, present. Commissioner Ranger, present.

Vice Chair Boomhower is present and acting as chair. Chair Modí is absent, as is Commissioner Mazzari. Staff me members present with us today are Michael Prince, assistant deputy director for development services, Marlon Pangalinan, program coordinator with the city planning department. I threw an extra syllable in there, but it was so close I almost stuck it. Eric Moso, senior civil engineer with the engineering division and legislative staff. Uh, I need to scroll down. We'll now begin uh we'll now start our agenda with public comment for non-aggenda 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 to provide testimony. If you'd like to speak, please kick on the raised hand icon on your screen. Anybody? No speakers in person. Okay, we have no speakers in person or online. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? No. Okay. Uh, is there a request to play? No, we're not going to put anything on consent. Ah. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the November 20th, 2025 planning commission hearing?

So move. Is there a second? Second. Second. Second by comissioner Reeves. Uh, we can go to a vote. That passes unanimously. Uh, are there any directors?

Yes. Thank you, chair. The last planning commission hearing was held on November 20th. At the com at the hearing, the commission heard three items. The first item, the T-Mobile Prescidial Park project is a conditional use permit, site development permit, and neighborhood development permit to modify an existing wireless communication facility uh designed as an existing 56- ft athletic field light supporting six p uh panel antennas, six radios, and six amplifiers concealed within a new 16 ft antenna shroud. The project is in the Oldtown Community Plan area and was approved unanimously on consent. The 4577 La Hoya Village Drive project is a tenative map to convert one lot into 10 lots. The 12.88 acre site is in the university community planning area and the project was approved unanimously by the planning commission at the hearing. And finally, the Emerald Hills project was heard by the planning commission at the November 20th meeting, and it consisted of a neighborhood development permit, site development permit, neighborhood use permit, investing tenative map for the demolition of an existing broadcasting facility, including broadcasting towers and out buildings, and the subdivision of the property into 130 lots consisting of 123 lots for single dwelling units, including 13 affordable units. seven private open space lots, development of public streets for internal circulation, and associated public and private improvements. The 31.18 acre project site is located at 5702 Old Memory Lane in the Encanto neighborhoods community planning area. The project was approved by the planning commission by a unanimous vote. As a reminder, the development services department has been recently been made aware of impostor emails being sent to city building customers as part of a fishing scam requesting either a

response back or some kind of submitted payment related to projects. Despite using language commonly found in city documents, these are not official city communications and customers are advised not to follow their directions. Please note that the city never asks for wire transfers. And then finally, as a reminder, the state updates the California building standards code every three years. The current 2022 code uh California code of regulations uh is what is in effect today. The new 2022 California Building Standards Code will go into effect on January 1st. All project applications submitted on or after that date must conform to the new regulations. We expect that application submitt volumes may increase in the coming weeks. This means that applications submitted toward the end of 2025 may not be reviewed for accuracy and deemed complete by intake and setup staff until after January 1st, 2026. However, the city will honor the current 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code for project applications submitted before January 1st, 2026, as long as staff determines that they substantially conform to all of the submittal requirements. Please be advised that projects with applications currently in their fourth and final extensction extension may have to comply with the new 2025 regulations regardless of when the determination is made. For more information about the code changes, please visit dgs.ca.gov/bsc. That concludes my report.

Thank you. Planning. Good morning, commissioners. I would like to report that the college area and community plan updates are scheduled for the Tuesday, December 16th city council hearing during the afternoon session beginning at 1 p.m. That concludes my report. College and area. Yeah, college area and Claremont. Did I say something? I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. Um, are there any um any director or sorry, those were director reports. Commission comment? No. All right, we can move on to item number one. Staff, we can begin whenever you are ready.

Um, before I begin, I'd like to read a memo that was sent to the planning commission. You should have received it, but I'd like to read it for the record. Um, please note that the project plans attachment 12 in the staff report will be updated to include the top of wall elevations for retaining walls within the front setback at proposed lots number two, three, and four. The following sheets to replace the previous version within the project plans grading and drainage sheets C3, C4, and C5. Side plan sheets 0000 A00.0 0 A 002 A 003 A 004 and floor plan sheets A 208, A209, 8 to 10, 8 to 11, 8 to 12, A 213, and A214. The plans were attached to the memo and will be incorporated in the plan set. Okay. Um, for anyone who would like to participate remotely, the phone testimony period is now open for the 8303 La Hoyo Forest Drive project. Uh, when prompted, please use ID number 160944367 and uh, this information will appear at the end of the presentation as well. Good morning, commissioners and um members of the public. I'm Veronica Davidson, project manager with the development services department. The item before you is the 83 8303 La Hoya Shores Drive, project number 1085883.

The project scope uh includes a consolidation of three parcels into a single lot for subdivision into six residential lots and one designated private access road to the PL public right ofway. Demolition of an existing 5,958 square foot single dwelling unit with an attached garage and construction of a single dwelling unit at each new lot ranging from 11,729 square ft to 16,270 square ft plus an accessory dwelling unit on lot six only. The 4.45 45 acre site is in the La Hoya shores plan district single family zone coastal overlay zone nonappealable area 2 and coastal height limits overlay zone within the La Hoya community plan. The required approvals are a process 4 tentative map for land subdivision creating five or more parcels. A process three site development permit for the development of a major project in the La Hoya Shores Plan District. a process two coastal development permit for the increase in density and demolition of an existing single dwelling unit. The project is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act or SQUA. An addendum was prepared to program environmental impact report or PEIRIR number 920199 for the La Hoya and Pacific Beach Community Plan and local coastal program land use updates in accordance with section 15164 of the SQA state guidelines. Based upon a review of the current project, staff determined that there are no new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous PEIR and found no substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project. Public review of this addendum is not required per sequ. The project site is located appro in

within an urbanized area approximately half a mile east of the Pacific Ocean and is not between the first public roadway and the ocean. The previously developed site is accessible via Cay Frescot westward to La Hoya Shores Drive. The project site does not contain any sensitive riparian habitat or other identified sensitive biological resources or special flood hazard areas. The project site comprises three parcels. Parcel one is developed with a single dwelling unit and an attached garage proposed for demolition. The existing structure is older than 45 years and requires historic evaluation. City staff determined that the property does not meet the local designation criteria as an individually significant resource under any adopted historical resources board criteria. The proposed tentative map will consolidate the existing three parcels into a single lot for subdivision into six number lots and uh one letter lot uh designated as a private access road to the public right ofway. City staff reviewed and accepted a geotechnical study for the project which concluded that the site is uh suitable for the construction of the proposed residential subdivision and associated improvements and the geological conditions potentially affecting the proposal have been adequately addressed. The project site is surrounded by one and twotory single dwelling units with site amenities including tennis courts and swimming pools. The proposed development includes construction of a single dwelling unit at each lot with pool, spa facilities, and landscape related improvements. The La Hoya Shores plan district ordinance requires all buildings and setbacks to be in general conformity with those in the vicinity. The applicant provided a survey

containing lot sizes, lot coverage, and setback dimensions for building structures within 300 uh within a 300t radius of the project site. The proposed lot sizes, lot coverage, and building setbacks are consistent to the survey. The proposal aligns with the community character of the surrounding neighborhood, providing varied u massing and articulation styles. Built uh bulk will be minimized at the front facade by maximizing front setbacks and building mass articulation. Site design for each lot utilizes the natural terrain to create landscape areas incorporating terrace planting and water features that are unique to each lot. The project was designed to comply with all the development standards required by the base zone including density, building setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and the 30 foot maximum structure height allowed in the coastal limitation overlay zone. Lot one. The proposed construction at lot 1 is a two-story 8,870q ft single dwelling unit with an attached threecar garage, outdoor dining, a detached gym, pool house, and green roof terraces. The design includes flat roofs and awnings, covered patios, stepped planting areas, and water features. Natural finishes include white stuckco, natural stone veneer, wood trim and awnings, and heavy timber trellis. The uh shown above is the west elevation for lot one. The proposed maximum building height is 28 feet 6 in. Lot two. The proposed construction is a two-story 9,600 um I'm sorry 9,60 9,68 square foot single dwelling unit with a

basement three level um a basement level threec car garage storage gym a game room and a terrace on the main floor and a covered balcony on the second floor. The proposed design features a wide stucco exterior with clean edged vertical massing, a flat roof, uh step facads, terrace garden areas with low walls, and a water feature. Uh shown above is the south elevation for lot two. The proposed maximum building height is 28t 7 in. The proposed construction at lot three is a two-story 14,332 square foot single dwelling unit with a basement that includes golf cart storage and a batting cage, an attached threecar garage, outdoor dining and a second floor partly covered patio. The building design includes slow sloping roofs, um covered patio areas, and large segmented windows. The shown above is the north elevation of lot three. The proposed maximum building height is 29 ft 3 in. Lot four. The proposed construction of lot 4 is a two-story 10,54 ft single dwelling unit with a detached office space and a detached threecar garage. The building design consists of lowprofile horizontal massing with flat roofs. It provides roof cutouts for indooroutdoor areas and light filtering brakes. Exterior finishes include white sucker walls and green grass roofs. Shown above is the south elevation for lot four. The proposed maximum building height is 25 ft 6 in. Uh lot five. The proposed construction is a two-story 9,287 square ft single dwelling unit with a detached gym, outdoor dining, workshop,

office, and game room at the ground level and an attached threecar garage and partly covered patios at the main level. The building design is a lowprofile uh front facade with flat roofs and awnings. The rear of the lot includes terrace landscape areas and water features. Natural finishes include white stock, natural storm veneer, and wood trim and awnings. The south elevation for lot 5 shows a proposed maximum building height of 29 ft 2 in. Um the proposed construction on lot 6 is a two-story 13,264t single dwelling unit with an attached threecar garage, a lower level game room, and a covered patio. The proposal includes a detached accessory dwelling unit with a fourcar garage and vehicular access from Caya Frescott. The building design involves flat roofs and awnings, material blocking and a connecting bridge. Exterior finishes include white stuckco and wood siding and shown above is the north elevation for lot six. The proposed maximum building height is 29 ft 9 in. uh community planning group. Uh on January 9, 2025, the La Hoya Community Planning Association voted seven to four with one abstension to recommend approval of the project without conditions. The project was presented to the La Hoya Shores Plan District Advisory Board on July 17, 2024, continued to August 21, 2024, and was presented again on April 16, 2025. The board voted five to zero to recommend denial of the project. The public concerns during the this meeting centered on inconsistencies with neighborhoods character including F building height and setbacks. The board's concluding comments including concerns about grading and retaining

walls as well as non-conformance with the neighborhood's character in relation to second story articulation. The board also questioned whether the project should require a planned development permit and the lack of a SQA document. As previously mentioned, the project aligns with the community character of the surrounding neighborhood and conforms with the 300 foot radius survey, including lot sizes, lot coverage, and building setbacks. The project has been thoroughly reviewed for conformance with the land development code, including the following. The maximum height of walls within required setbacks does not trigger any deviations including for street frontage. Therefore, plan development permit um is not required. Preliminary grading and drainage plans to comply with sending municipal code regulations and standards. The project is conditioned to process a bonded grading permit for the site's proposed grading. Neighborhood character and second story articulation issues have been evaluated for each site, concluding that bulk at the front facade is minimized by conforming to setback ranges within the vicinity and incorporating step backs, balconies, and penetration. After review of the entire project, uh the environmental section found no significant or substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project. Uh project opposition. A letter dated November 28, 2025 was sent to the planning commission by Phil Mertin stating 11 areas where the project is not in compliance with the La Hoya Shores Glenn District Ordinance and the San Diego Municipal Code, including the extent of the proposed grading and removal of mature trees, location of swimming pools within setbacks, street frontage requirements, general conformity with proposed setbacks, retaining wall height and location allowances, plum line structure height,

and environmental analysis requirements. Staff responds to the uh opposition grading. The proposed um the previously disturbed uh site does not contain environmental sensitive lands or natural hill sites. The project complies with the grading regulations of the land development code. A grading permit requires approval by the city engineer prior to the issuance of any construction permits. The applicant must also submit a drainage study and geotechnical study to support their findings and demonstrate compliance regarding the 72 mature trees. The proposed project includes um including all existing trees is entirely on private property. The removal of existing trees and proposed replacement vegetation conforms with city landscape regulations. Swimming pools as um all proposed swimming pools are great. The regulation reference is applicable to swimming pools that project three feet or more above grade. Street frontage. The street frontage requirements uh section uh referenced addresses uh regulations to determine if a lot is legal and established prior to March 4th, 1972. All lots in the proposed development were reviewed for compliance with the La Hoya plan district single family zone. Uh proposed setbacks. All the proposed building setbacks fall within the range of existing setbacks for similar range uh similar single family residences in the vicinity as shown on the 300 ft radius map contained within the project plans. Retaining walls within the La Hoya Shores plan district single family zone. There are no quantifiable setbacks. Instead, the retaining wall setbacks um were addressed to be in general conformity with other similar structures in the vicinity. The proposed heights of

the wall proposed height of the walls was determined to be consistent with the La Hoya Shor's general design regulations. The retaining walls are similar in similar in scale and type to other structures in the vicinity and are not substantially different from them. It has been determined that the proposed walls are not disruptive and will not disrupt the architectural unity of the area. Structure height. The elevations provided in the letter are outdated. The project plans include a revised sheet A404 dated April 28, 2025, which shows the proposed building height is in conformance with the 30-foot height limitation. Environmental analysis. As previously noted, staff prepared an addendum to P number uh 920199 which was posted to the city's website on August 28, 2025 consistent with SQA requirements. SQUA guidelines section 15164 allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a final environmental impact report if such addendum meets the requirement of the section and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred as stated the addendum based on upon a review of the current project none of the situations described in section 15162 apply no changes Interesting circumstances have occurred and no new information of substantial importance has manifested which would result in a new significant um or substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project. Staff has reviewed the proposal including all issues identified during the review process and determined that all project issues have been addressed. The project aligns with the community plan and the adopted city council

policies and regulations of the land development code without deviations. Staff recommends the approval of coastal development permit number 3213964, site development permit number 3213965, tentative map number 3213966 and the adoption of addendum number PRJ1085883 to PIR number 920199. This concludes the staff presentation. City staff and the applicants team are available to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you staff. Are there any clarifying questions from the commission?

Okay. I have one. Um and I believe this was addressed by the memo. I just want to confirm this. the uh in the Phil Merton letter from November 28th, item 7, he raises a concern about obstructed driveway visibility areas um and it's for specifically for the driveways for lot two and lot three. Did transportation staff and engineering review that and is staff confident that the project conforms with the municipal code and the street design manual?

Uh yes, transportation uh development uh reviewed the the plans. The plans do note um compliance with the visibility triangles. However, they requested additional spot elevations to to show that clearly on the drawings and that's why we uh we pro provided the memo in the updated sheets. Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. All right. Um if there are there Oh, Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, Chair. Uh just one clarifying question for staff regarding the retaining wall height and location. Um I'm just a little unclear. Are they in compliance? Are they in general conformance with the vicinity or are there allowance um allowances being made? Um I understand there are no allowances. They comply um comply as the height and yes and setbacks. Thank you, Commissioner Ringer.

I have a clarifying question about the height of the structure. Um again referencing the letter by uh Philip Merton Merson. Um the you said that sheet 404 has been updated. Is that accurate? Uh yes, that's correct. And and that wasn't necessarily a part of the memorandum that

No, it so during the review the the comments uh from Mr. Merin referred to an older version of the plan and so the plan that you have in the report with the uh that elevation sheet shows a correct u height which is in in conformance. So it is not above the 30 ft. It is not no none of the structures uh exceed the 30. Okay, that's all I needed to to know. Thank you.

Okay, any further clarifying questions? Okay, we'll move on to public comment. Uh speakers will be limited to three minutes. Uh we'll start with uh uh Robin Madafer. You'll have three minutes.

How about now? Robin Mafer, 1625th Avenue. I represent Lynn Shank. Lynn Shank is a neighbor immediately south of lot three. Uh Lynn has has been very concerned about this project um throughout the time we've met with the applicants team uh several times and I'm happy to say that in the last 24 hours um I think we've got some sort of a compromise uh settlement that that Lyn is is happy with. Um, so for the record, the applicant has agreed to move the pool uh to the other side, so it's not right on the boundary line, property boundary line. Um, and he sent me a sheet showing that. Uh, two, they've agreed to some uh limited construction hours for uh exterior work, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no weekends or holidays. interior work is fine uh at the times that the city allows. And then lastly, the wall uh on the south side of lot three, which is the north side of uh Miss Shakes's property, we would like that to be some sort of a sound attenuation um wall, and we can work with the applicant to come up with what the right material is and and how to do that. Um so that's what we've agreed to for the record. I would like that uh you know to be reflected in an approval if you're so inclined. Um other than that, thank you.

Thank you. Um we have a organized presentation from the applicant. Um there's a number of people seating time. So, I'm I'm understanding that Chandra Slavin and Andy F probably butchered that, sorry, are going to be speaking. Is that correct? And then I have I need you to just raise your hands to show me that you're here. Uh people seating time include uh Raphael Roof, Brian Will, Queenie Loan, Dan. Sorry, some of this writing is terrible. Looks like mine. Uh Daniel Valdez and Lee Andolan. Okay, perfect. You'll have Uh that's 15 minutes, right? Yeah. So you'll have 15 minutes for your presentation. You don't have to use it all.

Uh good morning chair and commissioners. Uh my name is Shandra Slavven. I'm here on behalf of the applicant team. I want to quickly introduce everyone. Um we'll start going with Lee Andelin. He is our council. Uh Andy Fouch who is our lead architect. Brian Will also our architect. Dan uh Valdez who is our civil engineer. And then on the phone we have Melissa Bugsby who is our biologist and she's available for questions. Um and with that you said 15 minutes. All right. I'm going to turn it over to Andy and then I'll I'll wrap it up. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning everyone. Andy Foch here. Um we have a presentation if it's coming up quickly here. Um I don't know that we need all 15 minutes but just wanted to touch on a few items that have been brought up quite a bit throughout the process. So the first item while it's coming here I'll just go for it is uh there's been a lot of conversation about grading. Uh we've done our best to really work towards a balanced site. The site right now is uh total has 545 cubic yards of export. Uh so go ahead. I think it's yeah next slide. One more please. Oh, sorry. One more. Yeah. So, the total site right now, our net export is 545 cubic yards of dirt. Just to put that in perspective, that's if you were to spread that out over the entire 4 and 1/2 acre site, that's 9 in. So, it's less than an inch, almost a rounding air at this point with the conceptual grading plans we have. So, we're going to continue to work as we go through our rough grading permit and individual uh precise grading permits on each lot to really try and tighten that. Simply put, we're cutting on the eastern three lots and filling on the western three lots. So, that just kind of gives you an idea of the grading for neighbor outreach. We've done an extensive amount of neighbor outreach on this project and just really want to emphasize that starting all the way back in 2023, we've had seven community planning meetings um in addition to many other meetings both at our office at neighbors homes over Zoom. And so I just put a list together here of like all of the actual meetings we've had, not to mention extensive phone calls, emails, letters, etc. So we'll go to the next page. Just some other high points here. over 14 hours of present presenting this specific project at community planning meetings. We've had over 20 additional

hours of actual meetings with neighbors. Uh the city itself has noticed this project three times, two of which were initiated at our request. Additionally, our firm also sent out a mailing specifically about this project with the renderings, giving all of the neighbors in the 300t radius access to our emails, office number, everything, and ask them to reach out with any questions. Uh, additionally, we've gained uh eight over eight letters of support for this project. Uh, and the main reason we're just engaging in this dialogue is that the project, not that the project falls short of the city's standards, but we're really doing this to seek harmony with the neighbors. This project uh had a developer looking to develop this site about eight years ago who had a bit of a different tone uh that we really did not want to we didn't want to have. These are all uh these are all people who have coming together to build their dream home. They're all members of the community and we really wanted to make sure we connected with the neighbors. Uh just really quickly, we have made a lot of design concessions. We've lowered the ridge on lot three resulting in less bulk and scale. We've reduced window sizes on lot three. We've removed pickle ball courts. We've put stuckle walls around all HVAC equipment located in very private locations. We've talked about the stuckle wall for privacy and sound attenuation at the south of lot three. And there's been conversations between the adjacent property owner to the southeast and lot three about keeping an existing fence uh that is encroaching but for access to the benefit of that neighbor. And last thing just for fun, a lot of them can't be here but they asked me to do this. So getting to know your neighbors just they asked me to include some family photos of all of these families. These are local families building their dream homes here in La Hoya. So, I guess I'm I'm here to introduce them to all of you. With that,

I will go ahead and turn this over to Shandra. Thank you.

Hello. Uh Shandra Slavven. Um if we could pull up the next slide. I'm going to go briefly through this. Um originally the purpose was to respond to letters from both Lynn Shink and Phil Merin. However, due to the fact that we seem to have come to an agreement with Lynn Shank and her council, I'm going to spare you all and we will skip those slides. Um, so if you can move on to the next slide, please. Again, just really want to emphasize that these are six single family homes, very conventional residential homes, yards, patios, pools, and all have been designed to meet the Municipal Code and the Coastal Act standards. Next slide. We're gonna skip that one. Skip that one. Okay. Let's go into Phil Martin, who I'm sure you're all hopefully uh familiar with. Um in your record, you have two detailed response letters from Anastad Andelin and Korn dated November 27th and December 3rd. These letters walk through his claims one by one and demonstrate that many of the them are simply wrong as a matter of fact and others confuse ministerial plan check with your discretionary role on grading. For example, he inflates export volumes by focusing on gross cut numbers and ignoring fill and compaction. When the grading plans are read correctly, as staff and the project civil engineer have done, the net export is modest and well within the certified EIR and addendum already evaluated. Next slide. On wall, walls, heights, and other dimensional details. He misapplies the municipal code by stringing separate walls together and misreading how height is measured. where there are small

discrepancies between civil and architectural sheets. Those are exactly the kind of items that every project resolves at grading and building permit. The city will not issue permits until final plans comply with all objectable standards and we are fully prepared to accept conditions of approval to that effect. Next slide. on SQA. He attempts to reopen environmental review that the case law and your city attorney have already confirmed is adequate. The existing EIR and addendum studied a six lot subdivision and grading for future single family homes. There is no significant impact that would trigger additional SQA review. In short, Mr. Merin's letter should not be given weight in your findings. The technical and legal responses from council and staff are unrebuted in the record. Next slide. Let me uh speak briefly about outreach. For a single lot single six lot single family project. The level of outreach has been exceptional. Over the last two years, we have held numerous small groupoup meetings neighbors homes, including multiple meetings with the at the vulkar residence and meetings at the leits. Sorry if I said that wrong at on Cali Friscata. We met directly with Miss Shank and her representative on several occasions, including at her home to hear her concerns and discuss fire safety and lot three in detail. And again, it appears that we have um found a resolution to her concerns. In addition, we have prepare we have sorry appeared repeatedly uh before the La Hoya Shores Plan District Advisory Board, the La Hoya Shores Permit review committee and the La Hoya Community Planning Association. Ultimately, the plan

community planning group recommended approval of the project. This is well beyond the typical level of outreach of a project of this size. We have listened carefully and we have made good faith refinements where feasible within the framework of the municipal code. To close, this project complies with the La Hoya Shores plan district ordinance, the underlying zoning, the city's noise ordinance, and the coastal act policies. Any remaining minor uh plan check details will be resolved at the grading and building permit levels under clear conditions of approval just like any other project. We respect that change is difficult and we respect our neighbors. But no single neighbor should have veto power over lawful housing for families where the project meets the city's standards for SQA and the municipal code. For those reasons, I respectfully request that you adopt staff's recommendations, apply the law as written, and approve the project today. And I'd also like to add briefly that I just want to thank staff personally. They have been amazing. Um, this has not been an easy project over the course of the last couple years, but we've had a great PM take the lead, and all staff have just been exemplary, and I just want to thank them all for sticking it out with us. So, thank you again for your time and like I said earlier, we're all available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Uh, I believe that's all the speakers in person. We'll move to online speakers.

We currently have four people with their hands raised. It is 9:43 a.m. So, we will start the 5minut timer for those wishing to speak. Uh, first we have Philip Merin. Uh, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes. Mr. Mertin, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes to speak. Um, ladies and gentlemen, for those people who are not familiar with me, uh, I've been a licensed California architect for 55 years. I've been, uh, designing custom homes in the city of San Diego for 49 years. Uh I was a uh an elected trustee of La Hoya Community Plan for uh 12 years and I've served as chairman of the uh planning associations La Hoya Shores permit review committee for four years as well as chairman of of the coastal development permit committee. I say this because I uh I know of what I speak. Um the uh staff has said the project is in compliance with with the municipal code. Nothing could be further from the truth. Uh a clear example of that is the citywide fence and retaining wall regulations are applicable within the La Hoya Shores plan district ordinance within plan district area. Um if you uh look at the um one of the exhibits that was presented to you, it

showed a street view of the proposed house on lot number three. Uh the the drawing showed uh two walls uh of being 4 feet in height. The municipal code says that within a front yard set front yard setback, you're only permitted a maximum of two walls, each wall not more than 3 feet in height. However, the plans show on lot number three four retaining walls within the 10- ft front yard setback. uh all of which are three feet in height, four walls, twice the number allowed by the municipal code. Um on lot number four, there's a retaining wall immediately adjacent the southern boundary line of lot number four. The municipal code says that the maximum height of a retaining wall in a sideyard setback is six feet. Uh and you can have a maximum of two retaining walls of six feet. However, the the drawings clearly show a retaining wall which varies in height from 12 feet at its western end to 9 ft in height at the midpoint of the wall. Uh clearly more than twice the allowed height for retaining walls.

Thank you. Uh that that concludes your time. Uh, Kavanaaugh, a speaker named Kavanaaugh. Please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes. Hi. Um, this is Lena K. We live at the end of Cay Prisc. Oh, excuse me one second ma'am. Can you please mute your uh audio um for your listening device? I'm not sure how

if you turn off the speakers on your uh on on your computer or TV or tablet um and then you can just speak into the microphone uh that would be that that will remove the echo. So, you can unmute the microphone, but you can mute your speakers.

Okay, I'm on the phone and not on my computer. That That's better. Please proceed. If you could speak up a little louder, please it's difficult to hear you.

I I'm sorry. It it it's very difficult for us in the um in the room to hear you. If you could speak a little louder, please or move closer to your microphone that would help.

Okay. Is it better if I talk over here? Uh yeah, please proceed.

Hello. Can you guys hear me? Yes, very clearly. Thank you.

Hi, this is Arty Kavanagh. That's my wife, Lynn. Um, we live at the end of the street and we had our lawyer submit a letter in objection and we would like that to make sure that that was in the record. There are many issues that have not been resolved. I was actually we're a little bit offended by the happy talk of reaching out to the neighbors because none of that has actually happened. We have a ba major concern with unresolved easement and right of way in terms of the consent of those to developers to essentially do whatever they think they're going to want to do in the in in the idea that they can cause quotation marks improvements without consent of the other neighbors of which they've had no consent from the neighbors on that private road. Uh we can talk about that at great length, but there's a limited amount of time. There are major issues with the drainage system that have never been addressed nor resolved. So the previous plans um had some mechanism by which the un the water could be raised and then put out onto La Hoya Shores Drive. There's no provision that we have seen in the materials nor has our lawyers seen that addresses this currently. So that's a major issue which is going to have a profound effect on ourselves and also on our neighbors on La Hoya Shores Drive when invariably we have drainage and flooding. There's no mention of the maintenance. We assume that this will be through the HOA but there's no mention of that. In fact, it says that this is raised basically a private road. Um, and uh we there needs to be some provision for this large underground pipe that needs to be maintained or there obviously disasters will happen. If it is not and there will

be absolutely no drainage which would affect all of us downstream as happens very frequently with large storms. Um there was uh material written in there about taking out our hedges, which our hedges are adjacent to the road to get access to the sewer. Well, the city has access to the sewer and has worked on the sewer multiple times without destroying the hedges. So, we would like that addressed as well. So, our lawyer um from the Higs Law Firm has sent this. We would want to make sure that this is included in the record uh of the meeting and that these things really need to be considered ahead of any approval of this project and they have not been we have not been reached out to in well over a year. So just to give the facts on that. So thank you for paying attention.

Thank you. Uh we have uh Andy Fch. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes. I know that's whoever is named Andy Foch on the Zoom has raised their hand and uh will unmute theirel. Got it. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Can you please state your name for the record? Hello. My name is three minutes.

My name is Charlie Race. I'm I'm part of lot five of the proposed um community. Uh very nice to meet you all. My wife and Charlene and I are extremely uh grateful to live in La Hoya Shores. On the picture that was shown earlier, we're the one with the cute white little dog in the top left hand corner. And that's Charlene and our two sons. Uh Josh who's 20 and Brandon who's 10 who attends Tory Pines Elementary. Um I've heard repeatedly that during this process that we're developers. I want to assure everybody we're not developers. Uh this isn't a project for us. In fact, it's the first time any of us have ventured to to try and build a house. And trust me, it's going to be the last one as well. I think um if I've got any hair left by the end of this. Uh we we love this community. You know, we're hoping to build our forever home, not just for ourselves, but also we want to bring Charlene's parents close to us and have three generations living here. Um we we love the area. Brandon is is a budding marine biologist. Um he he's out to save the oceans. We're members of Birch Aquarium and the Scripps marine biology conservation efforts in La Hoya, part of the museum, contemporary art, the beach and tennis club. And I say that not because these aren't just memberships, they reflect the way that we engage with the community. And when the opportunity came up three years ago to work alongside other families with the same intention to build homes, not projects, we were we were excited and deeply hopeful. and we understand concerns about aesthetics and fit and we care about those things, too. I mean, we're going to be living here hopefully for for decades. So, we want a home that reflects the beauty and character of the community. And I hope that you've seen in the in the renderings that we've all worked very hard to to provide something that's that is in character of the community and isn't the derelict wasteland that it currently is. Um, so we're very excited. I just want to uh reiterate we we're a family that wants to to build its future in La Hoya

Shores. Uh and I sincerely thank you all for your time and for considering all the families here um and and the future that we want to bring to the community. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one final uh caller online with their ra with their hand raised. If you could please unmute yourself and state your name for the record, you will have three minutes. Hi there. Um, Natasha Alos here. My husband Christian Alos is also on the uh Zoom here. Um, we are San Diego natives. I am probably the fourth generation in my family of San Diego natives originally from Elcohone, my husband and I both. and we have worked tremendously hard to get ourselves and our three boys into La Hoya, which has been a dream of ours since we can remember. Um, we currently live on the same street that will be um part of this community. We live across the street from Charlie and Charlene and their wonderful family who just spoke. And um we have tremendous respect for our neighbors. We are heavily involved with volunteering with a lot of different sports and and uh coaching and schools and church and everything in our community. And that's something that we're very proud of. Um we are entrepreneurs and the goal of this project is to live in a community at the end of our street with other really wonderful families. Everybody is relatively the same age on our street that we're trying to to build. They all have families. The notion of this being a development to sell or we're developers, I don't know how that ever came out because nobody had um taken the time to meet us and and ask us that question. But we are neighbors. We want to enjoy this and this is something that we're looking

forward to and and that will happen. and we've done everything to in our power to um you know reach out to the neighbors that are on the other side of the fence that have issues and that have raised concerns and we've found them to be lovely people and we'd like to have the same relationship with them eventually that we do with our current neighbors. So that's the kind of people that all of us with this project that's the kind of people that we are. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. That concludes uh our online testimony. And I do want to clarify that the uh letters received, all um correspondence received regarding this project is available for the public record. It has been provided to the commissioners and it is posted on the planning commission's web page and is part of the record. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to commission comment. And I don't do this very often, but there were two number ones. So, uh, all right, we're going to start with Commissioner Malro because Commissioner Reeves is pointing at you.

Thank you, Chair and staff. Thank you for your report and also the public comment from from everyone. I do appreciate that very much. Uh, staff, you did a really great job. you took away about five questions that I had regarding the uh Merin report. Uh but I do have I would like before I make any other comments if someone from staff and the applicant can address the uh letters about the uh drainage system and the easement issues.

I can uh start out. Well, we also have uh the applicants engineer uh in the audience and our city review staff uh that can add to my comments. But with regard to the drainage issue, just a little bit of a background on that. In existing conditions, um the runoff from this project site, the undeveloped project site drains to Kai Frescod and it it drains to that location as as sheet flow. It's somewhat uncontrolled, just runs to the street. Uh with development of the project, they will implement two um peak flow attenuation basins. Those double as water quality uh treatment facilities. Um but the peak flow attenuation component will reduce the post-development peak flows below the pre-development um peak flow levels. So it'll be it'll be uh less than it is right now. And in addition the proposal is to control that that runoff in a storm drain pipe. Um so so it is a from just purely a hydraulic standpoint it is uh somewhat of an improvement because the flows reduce and also the flow is controlled. There's not that surface runoff um to cay frisco. So, those are my comments and then certainly if uh the applicants engineer wants to add to that or our city review staff that would be good. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity. We'd like to clarify that from more of a legal standpoint. So, I'm going to ask that our attorney come up to discuss that. Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners. Lee And of K. I'm the attorney for the applicant. Um I want to address the the property rights issue related to that. So uh Cay Frisco is a private drive. It's owned jointly by all of the adjacent Oh, I think I'm good. Um, so, so it's it's a private drive owned by each of the adjacent property owners, including uh my client. Um, and there is an easement over it for uh ingress, egress, and utilities. And the entire purpose of an easement is um especially a utility easement is you can go and bury a pipe uh without having to knock on the door of each of your neighbors and get uh their permission. That's what this easement was established for. Um when the um uh when Kaif Frisco was granted to each of the the neighbors um we provided this document in the record and it reserved an easement and the language of the easement says subject to the right of each and every grantee in this deed and their successors and assigns to use all of the above described property for road and street purposes and also to use said property for the installation, repair and replacement of public utility. ities. All we're proposing to do is to bury a um storm water uh pipe under the road. Um there was a a comment about um you know removing hedges or something. Um I don't know where that comes from. That may be from an older version of the grading plans, but there's certainly nothing in the current grading plans about doing that. We're literally just

burying a pipe, which is something that the um uh the easement allows. And it is a public improvement. It's capturing water not just from this specific property but uh from surrounding properties. It's collecting it. It's capturing it. It's controlling the peak flow as was explained by the city of engineer. Um and then put into this pipe and directed to the uh public storm water system. So it's it's part of the overall public storm water system of the neighborhood. It is a public improvement. Um we uh cited case law in my my letter uh establishing that the city has the right to approve this kind of thing. Um whatever the city approves is a a public improvement. Um there are some details about uh um you know access and um to to the um to the public right of way and returning the the pavement to uh the previous or better condition. Those are all things that will be worked out um in the in the grading permit and we're already in communication with uh the city engineer. Um Dan, do you have anything to uh to say from an engineering perspective?

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Just a a clarifying remark about the uh the hedge situation. Can you just state your name for

Oh, sure. Dan Valdez, Coffee Engineering and Civil Engineer. Uh there is a note on sheet C1 with regard to uh removing hedges. Um that note, I think it's important to point out that it uh applies to a section of sewer that is uh maintained by the city of San Diego. It's not a proposed section of sewer. Um we'll be connecting into this point, but it is a city of San Diego easement currently. Um, and I see this all the time where city of San Diego water and sewer staff um, want to ensure that they'll be able to access the public facilities and oftentimes they say, you know, if we need to go in there and remove hedges, um, that is their right to do so. So, yes, there is a note about removing hedges, but it applies to a publicly maintained section of the main and nothing that we're proposing. And that's it. Next,

uh, thank you for your answers and your honesty in this. Um, city at deputy city attorney, do you have anything to add with this?

Uh, I don't I would like staff to clarify or put on the record that they think there is sufficient evidence establishing that the construction storm drain and everything else is on the applicant's property and that you can process this project with the information that you have. Um, engineering stuff. Tariq, would you like to come to the front? Hello. Um, good morning, commissioners. I don't have um, you know, sufficient evidence to say that, um, that portion of the easement belongs only, um, to this property owner. I believe it's a fifth um of the easement is owned.

No, I mean that the applicant you can process this. You have the information to process this on behalf of the applicant that this is property that they have title to. It's an easement. It's a private easement. Yes. Yes. That's my question. Yes. Do you want a further response? No. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Um, so I appreciate all the answers. That makes me feel a lot more comfortable with this. Uh the only other comment that I would have is uh there was a mention of concern about neighborhood character and um you know I did a what I guess you can call it a ver virtual walk through the area and one of the things that I came back with on this is that the diversity of the homes in the area is the high point for those for that community. And I think that uh this particular project will will just add to that. So I'm comfortable with it and I'm willing to make the motion to approve the project

including the memo that came out with additional information. Thank you for bringing that up. We have a motion. Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you. Uh acting chair Boomer. Uh, I I'm sorry to belabor something here, but I got I'm I'm I'm still sort of unclear um based on the responses received. I appreciate the the applicant's attorney coming out. I feel like his uh explanation made a lot of sense. I'm not myself an attorney, so I'm looking to our deputy city attorney just to um either clarify or confirm um the legal basis for this. This is regarding um that easement. It's owned um by tenants in common. Um and my understanding of property rights uh non-legal understanding is that precisely what was said an easement is um dedicated and um is for the purpose of allowing the uh you know work to be done in the right of way that is not either approved or consented by all co-owners of the property. Is that a fair assessment or can you provide more? So the actual language of the deed is a private matter in dispute between the applicant and the neighbors and the terms of that easement and that that's why I asked staff to put on the record typically if they are proing processing any project that comes forward what they look for and they believe they do have the sufficient information on the easement that where this the storm water drain is being constructed that they can approve the permit or that you all can approve it because there are enough property rights or there are property rights for the the project to proceed in terms of consent and um the language in the actual deed that is um not for the city to interpret.

Thank you for that that and and um I feel like we've gotten that answer sufficiently from staff that that it is something that can be processed. One last thing here um regarding the the contention that um the utilities serving a private project don't constitute a public utility. Is that something you can speak to? I mean, is this a public utility or is it a private utility or or does it make a difference for the use of this easement? Again, that's that between private parties. Yes, unders. Thank you.

Um that's all I have for clarifying question. I I'm um I'll just note I appreciate the outreach that was done on this. Um I understand that not all the property owners um that are adjacent to this project feel that it was sufficient but you know you you really don't have to do any public outreach and you did. So, I think that's great and and I hope that you continue to engage um as long as this project is in process that you continue to engage with with the community um and work uh to sort out these differences. I think the fact that Miss Shank and her representatives seem satisfied is a testament to that. So, um I I appreciate that makes our job a little easier. um understanding the difference between discret discre our discretionary responsibilities here and those of you know ministerial duties of processing building and grading permits we're here to dis to approve um or weigh in on a discretionary project not the what happens after the fact so with that in mind I'm I'm happy to second the motion

okay we have a motion and a second you may have noticed if you were up here on the dis that uh Our fancy tablets have decided to stop working, so I have to fly blind a little bit. Are there any other commissioners that would like to I totally understand. This is literally the universe making this harder for me because I don't do this that often. Yeah, totally. But thank you for pointing that out for the record. Um uh so I'll just go uh just Commissioner Ranger, Commissioner Mahara, anything you want to add on this? Okay, then we I don't have any additional comments. I think my fellow commissioners have addressed everything that I would have said. Uh so I believe we are ready to go for a vote. We are not Oh yes, we are going to be able to do it with the tablet. Check that out. It's a safe assumption. Okay, that uh that item passes unanimously. I promise. I just saw it. It just went away. Okay, I promise it passed unanimously. Do we need Do we need to just revote by hand? Yeah, the the the motion was approved 5-0 with uh chair mod and commissioner Mazari absent. Okay, perfect. So, thank you all. That is our only item of business for the commission today. So, we are adjourned.