Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you Thank you. Bye.

Good morning, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for December 4, 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 live streamed on the city's website. Members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter 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 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 Boomhauer. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip if you wish to speak. In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins. Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link, which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the Planning Commission's webpage. Or you may dial 1-669-254-5252. The webinar ID is 160-944-0367. 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.

Now I'd like to take roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Marlborough. Present. Commissioner Miyahara.

Present.

Commissioner Reeves. Present. Commissioner Renger. Present. Vice Chair Boomhauer is present and acting as chair. Chair Modane is absent, as is Commissioner Mazzari. Staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, Assistant Deputy Director for Development Services, Marlon Pangilinan, program coordinator with the city planning department. I threw an extra syllable in there, but it was so close. I almost stuck it. Eric Maslachow, 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 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, we'll 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. Is there a request to play? No, we're not going to put anything on consent. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes for the November 20th, 2025 planning commission hearing. So move sir. Second, second, second by commissioner Reeves. Uh, we can go to a vote. that passes unanimously, are there any director

Yes, thank you, Chair. The last Planning Commission hearing was held on November 20th. At the hearing, the Commission heard three items. The first item, the T-Mobile Presidio Park project, is a conditional use permit, site development permit, and neighborhood development permit to modify an existing wireless communication facility designed as an existing 56-foot athletic field light supporting six panel antennas six radios and six amplifiers concealed within a new 16-foot antenna shroud. The project is in the Old Town Community Plan area and was approved unanimously on consent. The 4577 La Jolla Village Drive project is a tentative 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 tentative map for the demolition of an existing broadcasting facility, including broadcasting towers and outbuildings, 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 recently been made aware of imposter emails being sent to city building customers as part of a phishing 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, California Code of Regulations, is what is in effect today. The new 2025 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 submittal 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 1, 2026. However, the City will honor the current 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code for project applications submitted before January 1, 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 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 slash 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 16 City Council hearing during the afternoon session beginning at 1pm that concludes my report. College area yeah college area in Claremont did I say something.

Okay, thank you um. Are there any? Any director or sorry, those were direct reports commission comment? No. All right, we can move on to item number one staff, we can begin whenever you're ready.

Miriam Lord, And 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. Miriam Lord, Please note that the project plans attachment 12 in their staff report will be updated to include the top of wall elevations for retaining walls within the front set back at proposed lots number two, three and four. The following sheets will replace the previous version within the project plans. Grading and drainage sheets C3, C4, and C5. Site plan sheets 000A, 000.0, A002, A003, A004. and floor plan sheets A208, A209, A210, A211, A212, A213, and A214. The plans were attached to the memo and will be incorporated in the plan set. Okay. For anyone who would like to participate remotely, the phone-in testimony period is now open for the 8303 La Jolla Shores Drive project. When prompted, please use ID number 1609440367, and this information will appear at the end of the presentation as well. Veronica Davison, Project Manager, Good morning Commissioners and members of the public. I'm Veronica Davison, Project Manager with the Development Services Department. The item before you is the 8303 La Jolla Shores Drive, project number 1085883. The project scope includes the consolidation of three parcels into a single lot for subdivision into six residential lots and one designated private access road to the public right of way. 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 feet to 16,270 square feet plus an accessory dwelling unit on lot 6 only. The 4.45-acre site is in the La Jolla Shores Plan District Single Family Zone, Coastal Overlay Zone Non-Appealable Area 2, and Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone within the La Jolla Community Plan. The required approvals are a Process 4 tentative map for land subdivision creating five or more parcels, a Process 3 site development permit for the development of a major project in the La Jolla Shores Plan District, a Process 2 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 CEQA. An addendum was prepared to program environmental impact report or PEIR number 920199 for the La Jolla and Pacific Beach community planning local coastal program land use updates in accordance with section 15164 of the CEQA 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 CEQA. The project site is located 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 Calle Frescota westward to La Jolla 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 numbered lots And one letter lot designated as a private access road to the public right of way. City staff reviewed and accepted a geotechnical study for the project, which concluded that the site is suitable for the construction of the proposed residential subdivision and associated improvements. And the geologic conditions potentially affecting the proposal have been adequately addressed. The project site is surrounded by one and two story 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 Jolla 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 a 300-foot radius of the project site. The proposed lot sizes, lot coverage, and building setbacks are consistent with the survey. The proposal aligns with the community character of the surrounding neighborhood, providing varied massing and articulation styles. 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 three foot maximum structure height allowed in the coastal limitation overlay zone. Lot 1. The proposed construction at Lot 1 is a two-story, 8,870 square foot single dwelling unit with an attached three-car 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 stucco, natural stone veneer, wood trim and awnings, and heavy timber trellis. The shown above is the west elevation for lot one. The proposed maximum building height is 28 feet 6 inches. Lot two. The proposed construction is a two-story 9,068 square foot single dwelling unit with a basement three level. a basement level three 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, step facades, terrace garden areas with low walls, and a water feature. Shown above is the south elevation for lot 2. The proposed maximum building height is 28 feet 7 inches. 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 three-car garage, outdoor dining, and a second floor partly covered patio. The building design includes sloping roofs, covered patio areas, and large segmented windows. The shown above is the north elevation of Lot 3. The proposed maximum building height is 29 feet 3 inches. The proposed construction at lot 4 is a two-story 10,504 square foot single dwelling unit with a detached office space and a detached three-car garage. The building design consists of low-profile horizontal massing with flat roofs. It provides roof cutouts for indoor-outdoor areas and light filtering breaks. Exterior finishes include white soco walls and green grass roofs. Shown above is the south elevation for lot 4. The proposed maximum building height is 25 feet 6 inches. Lot 5. The proposed construction is a two-story 9,287 square foot single dwelling unit with a detached gym, outdoor dining, workshop, office, and game room at the ground level and an attached three-car garage and partly covered patios at the main level. The building design is a low profile front facade with flat roofs and awnings. The rear of the lot includes terraced landscape areas and water features. Natural finishes include white stucco, natural stone veneer, and wood trim and awnings. The south elevation for Lot 5 shows a proposed maximum building height of 29 feet 2 inches. The proposed construction on lot six is a two-story, 13,264-square-foot single dwelling unit with an attached three-car garage, a lower-level game room, and a covered patio. The proposal includes a detached accessory dwelling unit with a four-car garage and vehicular access from Calle Frescora. The building design involves flat roofs and awnings, material blocking, and a connecting bridge. Exterior finishes include white stucco and wood siding. And shown above is the north elevation for lot 6. the proposed maximum building height is 29 feet 9 inches. Community Planning Group. On January 9, 2025, the La Jolla Community Planning Association voted 7 to 4 with one abstention to recommend approval of the project without conditions. The project was presented to the La Jolla 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 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the project. The public concerns during this meeting centered on inconsistencies with neighborhood's character, including FAR, building height and setbacks. The board's concluding comments, including concerns about grading and retaining walls, as well as nonconformance 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 CEQA 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 is not required. preliminary grading and drainage plans to comply with San Diego 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 fenestration. After review of the entire project, the environmental section found no significant or substantial increase at first impacts as a result of the project. project opposition. A letter dated November 28, 2025 was sent to the Planning Commission by Phil Merton stating 11 areas where the project is not in compliance with the La Jolla Shores Plan 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, recading wall height and location allowances, plumb line structure heights, and environmental analysis requirements. Staff responds to the opposition. Grading. The proposed, the previously disturbed site does not contain environmental sensitive lands or natural hill sites. The project complies with the grading relations 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, 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 all proposed swimming pools are at grain, the regulation reference is applicable to swimming pools that project three feet or more above grain. street frontage the street frontage requirements section referenced addresses regulations to determine if a lot is legal and established prior to march 4 1972 our lots in the proposed development was reviewed for compliance with the la jolla plan district single family zone proposed setbacks. All the proposed building setbacks fall within the range of existing setbacks for similar single-family residences in the vicinity, as shown on the 300-foot radius map contained within the project plans. Retaining walls. Within the La Jolla Shores Plan District Single Family Zone, there are no quantifiable setbacks. Instead, the retaining wall setbacks were addressed to be in general conformity with other similar structures in the vicinity. The proposed height of the walls was determined to be consistent with the La Jolla Shores General Design regulations. The retaining walls are 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, AA-404, 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 PER number 920199, which was posted to the City's website on August 28, 2025, consistent with CEQA requirements. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 allows the 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, I stated the addendum based upon a review of the current project. None of the situations described in Section 15162 apply. No changes in circumstances have occurred and no new information of substantial importance has manifested, which would result in a new significant or substantially increased adverse impact 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 three two one three nine six five tentative map number three two one three nine six six and the adoption of addendum number prj one zero eight five eight eight three to per number nine two zero one nine nine 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 Martin letter from November 28th item seven, 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 his staff confident that the project conforms with the municipal code and street design manual.

Yes, Transportation Development reviewed the plans. The plans do note compliance with the visibility triangles. However, they requested additional spot elevations to show that clearly on the drawings. And that's why we provided memo in the updated sheets.

Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. All right. Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, Chair. Just one clarifying question for staff. Regarding the retaining wall height and location, I'm just a little unclear. Are they in compliance? Are they in general conformance with the vicinity? Or are there allowances being made?

I understand there are no allowances. They comply. Comply as is. The height and, yes, and setbacks.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ringer I have a clarifying question about the height of the structure again referencing the letter by Philip Burton Merson. The you said that sheet 404 has been updated is that accurate. Yes, that's correct. And that wasn't necessarily a part of the memorandum?

No. So during the review, the comments from Mr. Martin referred to an older version of the plan. And so the plan that you have in the report with that elevation sheet shows a correct height, which is in conformance.

So it is not above the 30 feet?

It is not. No, none of the structures exceed the 30 feet. Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

Okay. Any further clarifying questions? Okay. We'll move on to public comment. Speakers will be limited to three minutes. We'll start with Robin Madaffer. You'll have three minutes.

How about now? Robin Madaffer, 1625th Avenue. I represent Lynn Shank. Lynn Shank is a neighbor immediately south of Lot 3. Lynn has been very concerned about this project throughout the time. We've met with the applicants team several times, and I'm happy to say that in the last 24 hours, I think we've got some sort of a compromise settlement that Lynn is happy with. So for the record, the applicant has agreed to move the pool to the other side so it's not right on the boundary line, property boundary line. And he sent me a sheet showing that. Two, they've agreed to some limited construction hours for exterior work, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., and no weekends or holidays. Interior work is fine. at the times that the city allows. And then lastly, the wall on the south side of lot three, which is the north side of Ms. Shank's property, we would like that to be some sort of a sound attenuation wall. And we can work with the applicant to come up with what the right material is and how to do that. So that's what we've agreed to for the record. I would like that, you know, to be reflected in an approval if you're so inclined. Other than that, thank you.

Thank you. We have a organized presentation from the applicant. There's a number of people sitting time, so I'm understanding that Chandra Slavin and Andy Fotch 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. People's seating time include Rafael Rofaro, Brian Will, Queenie Loken, Sorry, some of this writing is terrible. It looks like mine. Daniel Valdez and Lee Andelen. Okay, perfect. You'll have 15 minutes, right? Yeah, so you'll have 15 minutes for your presentation. You don't have to use it all.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Chandra Slavin. I'm here on behalf of the applicant team. I want to quickly introduce everyone. We'll start going with Lee Andelin. He is our counsel. Andy Fauci, who is our lead architect. Brian Will, also our architect. Dan 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. And with that, you said 15 minutes? All right. I'm going to turn it over to Andy, and then I'll wrap it up.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Andy Fotch here. We have a presentation, if it's coming up quickly here. 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 up here, I'll just go for it, is there's been a lot of conversation about grading. We've done our best to really work towards a balanced site. The site right now is, total has 545 cubic yards of export. 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 four and a half acre site, that's 0.9 inches. So it's less than an inch. almost a rounding error 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 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 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, et cetera. So we'll go to the next page. Just some other high points here. Over 14 hours of presenting this specific project at community planning meetings. We've had over 20 additional hours of actual meetings with neighbors. 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 300 foot radius access to our emails office number everything and ask them to reach out with any questions Additionally, we've gained 8 over 8 letters of support for this project. And the main reason we're just engaging in this dialogue is that the project, not that the project falls short of the city standards, but we're really doing this to seek harmony with the neighbors. This project had a developer looking to develop this site about 8 years ago who had a bit of a different tone that we really did not want to. We didn't want to have these are all 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. 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 pickleball courts. We've put stucco walls around all HVAC equipment located in very private locations. We've talked about the stucco 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 jolla so i guess I'm here to introduce them to all of you. With that, I will go ahead and turn this over to Chandra. Thank you.

Hello, Chandra Slavin. If we could pull up the next slide. I'm going to go briefly through this. Originally, the purpose was to respond to letters from both Lynn Schenk and Phil Merton. However, due to the fact that we seem to have come to an agreement with Lynn Schenk and her counsel, I'm going to spare you all and we will skip those slides. 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 going to skip that one, skip that one. Okay, let's go into Phil Martin, who I'm sure you're all hopefully familiar with. In your record, you have two detailed response letters from Anastad, Andalyn, and Korn, dated November 27th and December 3rd. These letters walk through his claims one by one and demonstrate that many of 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 walls, heights, and other dimensional details, he misapplies the admissible 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 CEQA, 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 CEQA review. In short, Mr. Merton's letters should not be given weight in your findings. The technical and legal responses from council and staff are unrebutted in the record. Next slide. Let me speak briefly about outreach. For a six-lot single-family project, the level of outreach has been exceptional. Over the last two years, we have held numerous small group meetings in neighbors' homes, including multiple meetings at the Volcker residence and meetings at the Leberitz, sorry if I said that wrong, on Cali Frascata. We met directly with Ms. Shank and her representative on several occasions, including at her home, to hear her concerns and discuss fire safety and Lot 3 in detail. And again, it appears that we have found a resolution to her concerns. In addition, we have appeared repeatedly before the La Jolla Shores Plan District Advisory Board, the La Jolla Shores Permit Review Committee, and the La Jolla Community Planning Association. Ultimately, the 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 admissible code. To close, this project complies with the La Jolla Shores Plan District Ordinance the underlying zoning, the city's noise ordinance, and the Coastal Act policies. Any remaining minor 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 standards for CEQA 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. 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 the 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 five minute timer for those wishing to speak uh first we have philip merton uh please unmute yourself you will have three minutes Mr. Merton, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes to speak.

Ladies and gentlemen, for those who are not familiar with me, I've been a licensed California architect for 55 years. I've been designing custom homes in the city of San Diego for 49 years. I was an elected trustee of the La Jolla Community Plan for 12 years, and I've served as chairman of the Planning Association's La Jolla Shores Permit Review Committee for four years, as well as chairman of the Coastal Development Permit Committee. I say this because I know of what I speak. staff has said the project is in compliance with the municipal code nothing could be further from the truth a clear example of that is the city-wide fence and retaining wall regulations are applicable within the la jolla shores planned district ordinance within the planned district area um if you look at one of the exhibits that was presented to you. It showed a street view of the proposed house on lot number three. The drawing showed two walls being four feet in height. The municipal code says that within a front yard setback, you're only permitted a maximum of two walls each wall not more than three feet in height however the plans show on lot number three four retaining walls within the 10-foot front yard setback 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 side yard setback is six feet. And you can have a maximum of two retaining walls of six feet. However, the drawings clearly show a retaining wall which varies in height from 12 feet at its western end to nine feet in height at the midpoint of the wall, clearly more than twice the allowed height for retaining walls.

Thank you. That concludes your time. Kavanaugh, a speaker named Kavanaugh, please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Hi, this is Lynn Palvin. We live at the end of Calle Cascada, at the bottom of the hill. Oh, excuse me for one second, ma'am.

Can you please mute your audio for your listening device? I'm not sure how. If you turn off the speakers on your computer or TV or tablet, and then you can just speak into the microphone, that will remove the echo. So you can unmute the microphone, but you can mute your speakers.

Okay, I'm on the phone. I'm not on the computer.

That's better. Please proceed.

There is no mention of our objection.

If you could speak up a little louder, please. It's difficult to hear you.

Possibility objection. Again, I'm aware that they have not been mentioned in the presentation.

I'm sorry, it's very difficult for us 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?

Yeah, please proceed.

Hello, can you guys hear me?

Yes, very clearly. Thank you.

All right. This is Artie Cavanaugh. That's my wife, Lynn. 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 were a little bit offended by the happy talk of reaching out to the neighbors because none of that has actually happened. We have a major concern with unresolved easement and right of way in terms of the consent of those developers to essentially do whatever they think they're going to want to do in the in 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. 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 had some mechanism by which the water could be raised and then put out onto La Jolla 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 Jolla 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 basically a private road. And there needs to be some provision for this large underground pipe that needs to be maintained. or obviously disasters will happen if it is not, and then there will be absolutely no drainage, which would affect all of us downstream, as happens very frequently with large storms. There is 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 from the Higgs law firm has sent this. We would want to make sure that this is included in the record 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. We have Andy Fotch. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes. I know that's Whoever's named Andy Fotch on the Zoom has raised their hand and will unmute their self.

Got it. Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes, can you please state your name for the record?

Hello, my name is Charlie Race. I'm part of Lot 5 of the proposed community. Very nice to meet you all. My wife and Charlene and I are extremely grateful to live in La Jolla 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, Josh, who's 20, and Brandon, who's 10, who attends Torrey Pines Elementary. I've heard repeatedly during this process that we're developers. I want to assure everybody we're not developers. This isn't a project for us. In fact, it's the first time any of us have ventured to try and build a house. And trust me, it's going to be the last one as well, I think. if I've got any hair left by the end of this. We love this community. You know, we're hoping to build our forever home, not just for ourselves, but also we want to bring Jeanine's parents close to us and our three generations living here. We love the area. Brandon is a budding marine biologist. He's out to save the oceans. We're members of Birch Aquarium and the Scripps Marine Biology Conservation efforts in La Jolla. 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 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 decades. So we want a home that reflects the beauty and character of the community. And I hope that you've seen in the renderings that we've all worked very hard to provide something that is in character of the community and isn't the derelict wasteland that it currently is. So we're very excited. I just want to reiterate, we're a family that wants to build its future in La Jolla Shores. And I sincerely thank you all for your time and for considering all the families here and in the future that we want to bring to the community. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one final caller online with their hand raised. If you could please unmute yourself and state your name for the record, you will have three minutes.

Hi there. Natasha Allos here. My husband, Christian Allos, is also on the Zoom here. We are San Diego natives. I am probably the fourth generation in my family of San Diego natives, originally from El Cajon, my husband and I both, and we have worked tremendously hard to get ourselves and our three boys into La Jolla, which has been a dream of ours since we can remember. We currently live on the same street that will be part of this community. We live across the street from Charlie and Charlene and their wonderful family who just spoke. And we have tremendous respect for our neighbors. We are heavily involved with volunteering with a lot of different sports and coaching and schools and church and everything in our community. And that's something that we're very proud of. We are entrepreneurs and the goal of this project is to live in the 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 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... taken the time to meet us 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 that will happen. And we've done everything to in our power to, 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 relationships. 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 our online testimony, and I do want to clarify that the letters received all 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 gonna start with commissioner marlborough 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 re regarding the, uh, Merton 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 drainage system and the easement issues.

I can start out. We also have the applicants engineer in the audience and our city review staff that can add to my comments. But with regard to the drainage issue, just a little bit of background on that. In existing conditions, the runoff from this project site, the undeveloped project site, drains to Cuyahoga, Frescota, and it drains to that location as sheet flow. It's somewhat uncontrolled, just runs to the street. uh with development of the project they will implement two peak flow attenuation basins those double as water quality treatment facilities but the peak flow attenuation component will reduce the post-development peak flows below the pre-development peak flow levels so it'll be it'll be less than it is right now and in addition the proposal is to control that runoff in a storm drain pipe. So it is, for just purely a hydraulic standpoint, it is somewhat of an improvement because the flows reduce and also the flow is controlled. There's not that surface runoff to CAE Frescota. So those are my comments. And then certainly if 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 Andelen of Honest Thought Andelen and Korn. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I want to address the property rights issue related to that. So Calle Frescota is a private drive. It's owned jointly by all of the adjacent I think I'm good. So it's a private drive owned by each of the adjacent property owners, including my client. And there is an easement over it for ingress, egress, and utilities. And the entire purpose of an easement is, especially a utility easement, is you can go and bury a pipe without having to knock on the door of each of your neighbors and get their permission. That's what this easement was established for. When the... when Calle Frescota was granted to each of the neighbors. 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 that property for the installation, repair and replacement of public utilities. All we're proposing to do is to bury a stormwater pipe under the road. There was a comment about removing hedges or something. 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... the easement allows, and it is a public improvement. It's capturing water not just from this specific property, but from surrounding properties. It's collecting it, it's capturing it, it's controlling the peak flow, as was explained by a city event engineer, and then put into this pipe and directed to the public stormwater system. So it's part of the overall public stormwater system of the neighborhood. It is a public improvement. cited case law in my my letter, establishing that the city has the right to approve this kind of thing. Whatever the city approves is a public improvement. There are some details about you know, access and to the to the public right of way and returning the the pavement to the previous or better condition. Those are all things that will be worked out in the grading permit. And we're already in communication with the city engineer. Dan, do you have anything to say from an engineering perspective?

Yeah, go ahead. Just a clarifying remark about the hedge situation. Can you just state your name? Oh, sure. Dan Valdez, Coffee Engineering, Civil Engineer. There is a note on sheet C1 with regard to removing hedges. That note, I think it's important to point out that it applies to a section of sewer that is maintained by the city of San Diego. It's not a proposed section of sewer. We'll be connecting into this point. But it is a City of San Diego easement currently. And I see this all the time where City of San Diego water and sewer staff 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, 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.

Thanks.

Thank you for your answers and your honesty in this. Deputy City Attorney, do you have anything to add with this?

I know 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.

Engineering staff, Tariq, would you like to come to the front?

Hello. Good morning, Commissioners. I don't have sufficient evidence to say that that portion of the easement belongs only to this property owner. I believe it's a fifth of the easement is owned.

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. Thank you.

Do you want a further response?

No. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So I appreciate all the answers that makes me feel a lot more comfortable with this. The only other comment that I would have is there was a mention of concern about neighborhood character. And I did a, which I guess you can call it a 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 that community. And I think that this particular project 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 the additional information?

Thank you for bringing that up.

We have a motion, Commissioner Reeves. Thank you, Acting Chair Buhmeier. I'm sorry to belabor something here, but I'm still sort of unclear based on the responses received. I appreciate the applicant's attorney coming out. I feel like his explanation made a lot of sense. I'm not myself an attorney, so I'm looking to our deputy city attorney just to either clarify or confirm the legal basis for this. This is regarding that easement. by tenants in common. And my understanding of property rights, non-legal understanding, is that precisely what was said, an easement is dedicated and is for the purpose of allowing the work to be done in the right of way that is not either approved or consented by all co-owners of the property. 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. That's why I ask staff to put on the record typically if they are 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 stormwater dream 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 project to proceed in terms of consent and the language and the actual deed that is not for the city to interpret.

Thank you for that. And I feel like we've gotten that answer sufficiently from staff that it is something that can be processed. One last thing here regarding the contention that 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 does it make a difference for the use of this easement?

Again, that's- That's between private parties. Yes.

Understood. Thank you. That's all I have for a clarifying question. I'll just note I appreciate the outreach that was done on this. I understand that not all the property owners that are adjacent to this project feel that it was sufficient. 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 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 UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR DISCRETIONARY RESPONSIBILITIES HERE AND THOSE OF MINISTERIAL DUTIES OF PROCESSING BUILDING AND GRADING PERMITS, WE'RE HERE TO APPROVE OR WEIGH IN ON A DISCRETIONARY PROJECT, NOT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE FACT. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, 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 dais that 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. So I'll just go or just Commissioner Renger, Commissioner Miyahara, 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 at the table check that out It's a safe assumption. Okay, that 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 motion was approved 5-0 with Chair Modane and Commissioner Mazzari absent. Okay, perfect.

So thank you all. That is our only item of business for the commission today, so we are adjourned.