Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of 12/18/2025. Until further notice, Planning Commission meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 54953A as amended by Assembly Bill 2,249, which allows the public to participate in person as well as a hybrid format. This meeting will be live streamed on the City of San Diego's Public Hearing YouTube channel and on City TV. Members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes.

The virtual queue will close five minutes after in person testimony ends. Also per Section 2.6.2 and of the Rules of Counsel, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time can only be seated by speakers who are in the hearing room. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony.

Thank you, Chair Modine. 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 605-0252. The webinar ID is 1609440367. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a thirty second delay. Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak. Thank you.

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

Present.

Commissioner Miyahara?

Present.

Commissioner Reeves? Present. Commissioner Renger?

Present.

Chair Modena is present. Commissioner Mazari is absent as well as vice chair Boomhauer. The staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, assistant deputy director from development services Courtney Pash, principal planner, city planning Corinne Neufer, Senior Chief Deputy City Attorney and Eric Masalgo, Senior Civil Engineer and our legislative staff. We will now start our agenda with public comment for non agenda items. This portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to make comments on planning related items that are not on today's agenda.

Any person wishing to speak will have three minutes maximum to provide testimony. If you would like to speak, please click on the raised hand icon on your screen. We don't have any speakers in person, but we do have an online speaker.

Peggy Walker, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes.

Good morning, and thank you. I'm a public health educator, and I'm here because I find it unfortunate that the city's legislative platform introduced yesterday includes a recommendation protect the cannabis industry. This is disruptive land use contrary to public health. This industry promotes addiction and other disorders. Interestingly, the recommendation comes as referendum campaigns in other states such as Massachusetts and Maine are gaining support to reverse marijuana legalization altogether.

In Massachusetts, the reversal campaign is in response to hospital findings showing the share of adolescents with marijuana related health and psychiatric emergencies testing positive for THC has jumped nearly fourfold since legalization. San Diego County data shows similar steep increases and higher rates countywide of ER admission for marijuana related disorders for those aged 10 to 24. A study in the Journal of American Medical Association, in fact, shows a nationwide surge in teen and young adult ER admissions for cannabis use disorders. Not only are tax revenues for this industry failing, we have an epidemic of marijuana use patients overwhelming ERs as verified by San Diego ER doctors. So I bring this here because this body makes important land use and other decisions.

I urge you in the New Year, please consider the huge toll, quote, protecting marijuana is already taking on use in society and to make land and planning commission decisions favoring public health, not addiction for profit entrepreneurs. Thank you.

Okay. That concludes our public comment for non agenda items. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? K. Is there a request to place any items on consent?

Yes, chair. I'd like to place item number two on consent.

Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number two?

We have two speaker slips in representing the applicant who are here for questions, but they do not request to speak.

Are there any online speakers? Okay. Are there any commissioners who wish to discuss item number two?

Okay. Is there a motion to approve the items on consent?

So move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. We can go to a vote. It passes unanimously, but two commissioners are absent. So they are not yay votes.

The item the the item passed by a vote of five to zero with commissioners vice chair Boomhauer and commissioner Mazari absent.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the December 4 hearing?

So move.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. Got a motion. The meeting minutes for December 4, we can go to a vote. And those are approved. Do we have any director's reports?

Thank you, chair. The last punting commission hearing was held on December 4. At the hearing, the commission heard one item. The commission heard the project located at 8303 La Jolla Shores Drive, which is a tentative map, coastal development permit, and site development permit for the consolidation of three parcels into a single lot totaling 4.45 acres for its subdivision into six residential lots with one dwelling unit per lot and one ADU on Lot 6 for a total of seven dwelling units. The commission approved the project by a vote of five to zero to two with chair Modane and commissioner Mazari absent.

As a reminder, the state updates to the California Building Standards Code, are updated every three years. The current edition is the 2022 California Code of Regulations, and the the new 2025 California Building Standards Code will go into effect on 01/01/2026. All project applications submitted on or after that date must conform to the new regulations. We expect that the application submittal volumes may increase in the final weeks of 2025, and so that means applications submitted toward the end of this year may not be reviewed for accuracy and deemed complete by intake staff until on or after 01/01/2026. However, the city will continue to honor the current 2022 edition of the California Building Standards codes for project applications submitted before 01/01/2026 as long as staff determines they substantially conform to 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/bsc. That concludes my report.

Good morning. Courtney Pash, principal planner with the city planning department. On Tuesday, the city council approved the College area community plan update, the Claremont community plan update, and the Community Enhancement Overlay Zone regulations proposed by the City Planning Department to implement these two community plans. These updates will go into effect in early twenty twenty six. We appreciate the Planning Commission's review and recommendation of support for these three important items.

Thank you. Is there any non agenda commission comment? No? Okay. Then we can start with item number one. Staff, whenever you are ready.

For anyone who would like to participate remotely, the phone in testimony period is now open. Please take a moment to read the instructions displayed on the screen. And when prompted, use ID number 1609440367, and please mute yourself until called upon. Good morning, chair Modine and planning commissioners, members of the public. I'm Veronica Davison, project manager for the, development services department.

The item before you is an appeal to a substantial conformance review for proposed, development at 7951 Paseo De Locaso, Project number P R J 1133046. The, project site is point 17 acres in size and is located within the La Jolla community plan, the La Jolla Shores Plan District single family zone, coastal overlay zone, nonappealable area two, coastal height limit overlay zone, and parking impact overlay zone. The site is surrounded by existing single dwelling residential development, and it's currently developed with a one story, 1,799 square foot single dwelling unit, a detached garage, a pool, and a shed. The original project application, PTS, six nine one six seven two, involves the demolition of all existing structures and the construction of a new two story single dwelling unit with an attached garage and and associated site improvements. The required approvals include a site development permit and a coastal development permit.

The project was heard and approved by the hearing officer on 10/05/2022. Project number PRJ one one three three zero four six is a process two substantial conformance review or SCR that was submitted to the development services department on 04/01/2025 for modifications to the previous approval. A notice of decision approving the proposal was issued on 07/22/2025. Substantial conformance is defined by the San Diego Municipal Code as a revision to a development that was approved through a permit that complies with the objectives, standards, guidelines, and conditions for that permit. If the revision is determined to be in substantial conformance with the approved permit, the revision shall not require an amendment to that permit.

The development services department reviewed project PRJ1133046 in accordance with the San Diego Municipal Code. The proposed modifications include a reduced, floor area from 3,503 square feet to 2,849 square feet, a reduced building height, revised exterior finishes. And in addition, the existing retaining wall at the east property line previously shown to be removed is now existing and to remain in place. Staff determined that the proposed revisions are in substantial conformance with the approved project PTS six nine one six seven two. City staff conducted a comprehensive review of the proposed modifications based on guidelines of measurement that include the following.

Land use. The proposed project is consistent with the La Jolla community plan's residential land use and density range. Although the project reduces the site's gross floor area, it does not reduce its density or lessen conformity with the La Jolla Shores Plan District Ordinance. Site design. The project proposes reducing the building footprint and hardscape areas with the garage, driveway, and curb cut remaining roughly in the same location.

All proposed work is within the property boundaries. Architecture. The proposed floor area and building height will be reduced from the previous permit. The proposed finished materials are in conformance with the La Jolla Shores, design guidelines, which are limited to wood siding, natural earth colors, and stucco. The proposal conforms to the development patterns and bulk and scale of the existing neighborhood as well as the requirements of the La Jolla Shores Plant District zone, including lot coverage of less than 60%, floor area ratio of less than 57%, density setbacks and building height not exceeding the 30 foot height limit.

Permit conditions. The project permit contains specific requirements to ensure compliance with the regulations of the land development code. All conditions of approval for project PTS six nine one six seven two are applicable to SCR project PRJ 1133046. Following the notice of decision approving the proposed revisions, an appeal was filed on 07/23/2025 by Jerry Chakowski, the appellant, citing a factual error, conflict with other matters, findings as supported, and new information as grounds for appeal. Legal standard for appeal.

Pursuant to the San Diego Municipal Code, an appeal of a process to decision may be granted with evidence supporting one of the following findings. Factual error. When statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving the project were inaccurate. New information. When new information is available to the interested person that was not available through that person's reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision.

Findings not supported. When the decision maker's stated findings to approve the project are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker or conflicts when the decision to approve the the project is in conflict with land use plan, city council policy, or the municipal code. The planning commission can deny the appeal and uphold pro project approval if none of these findings are supported by sufficient evidence or grant to the appeal and deny project approval if the planning commission finds that one of these findings is supported by sufficient evidence. Appeal issues. The appellant contends that the project cannot be approved without the following corrections, documentation, and additional permits.

Appeal issue one a, a completed corner record. The new project plans hide the reference point established by the power pole to claim that the retaining wall at Lot 19 crosses the property line at the north end even though it does not cross the property line. For reference, Lot 19 is directly adjacent to the property line southeast of the project site as shown on the map. Staff response to appeal issue one a. The project plans include a topographic survey dated 05/19/2025.

The appellant relied on that on an older version of the project at 7951 Paseo De La Casa, which will be superseded by the plans approved under this SCR. The current survey shows the East property line through a utility pole between the two properties. A photograph provided by the appellant of the existing power pole is consistent with the survey and the proposed plans. One of the modifications comprise comprising this SER is not removing the retaining wall in question. The project plans show that the existing retaining wall at the east property line is to remain.

Appeal issue one b. Corner record and property survey. The project has not provided the official corner record or the property survey and has not staked out its property lines, which is not acceptable for a project of this magnitude. Staff response to appeal issue one b. A corner record is not a required document for the approval of a discretionary permit.

Permit. However, a corner record was prepared for the project which confirms that the property boundary lines are correctly shown on the SCR plans. Condition 29 within the approved permit stipulates that a topographical survey may be required if it is determined during construction, that there may be conflicts between the buildings under construction and the condition with the permit or regulation of the underlying zone. However, a topographic survey is included in the SCR project plans. Appeal field number two, a correct topographic survey.

A correct topographic survey should be required as Baylor project is still using an erroneous five year old COFFE engineering survey dated 02/19/1990 2039, which is off by two to three feet in elevation in comparison to the recent Lot 19 survey dated 12/30/2024, for it is impossible to have such a big difference of up to three feet between the two surveys. Staff response to appeal issue two. Staff has reviewed the topographic survey included in the SER plans dated 05/19/2025. Engineering review staff found no discrepancies in grade elevations. The survey accurately reflects the existing conditions, including the retaining wall and utility pole at the shared property line.

This, survey supports the approved building elevations and confirms conformance with the applicable height and grading standards. Appeal issue three, grading permit for La Jolla Shores Plan District. The 2025 Baylor project, continues to show a three foot slope from the 33.5 foot grade, though there is no slope unless the plan is to add three feet of dirt in the back of the building creating an elevation increase. This misinformation may lead to an unintentional an unintentional augmentation to the existing 33.5 foot grade during the addition of filter to the old swimming pool. The appellant provided a photograph of the existing retaining wall and grading plan prepared for the adjacent Lot 19 to illustrate that there is no slope.

Staff response to appeal issue three. According to the San Diego Municipal Code, a grading permit is not required for this project because a project site is not located within a designated open space area or a special flood hazard area. Excavation or fill quantities will not result in gradients of 25% or greater nor will the proposed grading result in a five foot vertical differential. The project plans show a 2.5 foot maximum depth of cut and a point five maximum depth of fill. The appellant refers to filling the previous pool with dirt, which may impact the finished grade elevation of the site and the overall building height.

The proposed swimming pool is in the general area of the existing pool, and the project's rating conforms to the city's drainage regulations and standards. It should be noted that one proposed modification in this SCR is to lower the overall building height to 21 feet seven inches compared to the previously approved 29 feet seven inches. The topographic survey contained in the SCR plans support the vertical data utilized to establish the overall building height. In addition, a height verification flag will be added to the construction permit application. If a height issue is revealed during construction inspections, the issue will be would need to be corrected.

A deviation of the three foot height limit is not permitted. Community planning group. The applicant opted not to present the project before the La Jolla Community Planning Association. On June 2025, the the project was presented to the La Jolla Shores Plant District Advisory Board to consider whether the proposal meets the SCR requirements. A vote of three to two, three yes to no resulted in no action because four votes are required as a majority to provide a recommendation according to the last Anajo Shores Plan District Advisory Board regulations.

Staff recommendation. In conclusion, city staff has reviewed the, proposed project, analyzed the appealed issues, and determined that the project is in substantial conformance with the design guidelines, development plans, and permit for project PTS six nine one six seven two. The requested changes to the previously approved exhibit a are consistent with the general intent terms and conditions of the approved coastal development permit number two five five six eight three two and site development permit number 2559861. All applicable conditions and findings specified for the approved permit remain in effect for this site. The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support any of the four findings that are ground for appeal.

Therefore, city staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and affirm the 07/22/2025 decision to approve SCR project PRJ 1133046. This concludes staff presentation. Staff and the applicant's team are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the commission? Okay. We can move on to public comment. Jiragam Aljuburi. Did I say that right? You'll have three minutes.

Hello. Good morning. So, I just wanna clarify, the retaining wall that's shared between the 7951 Paso Del and the 7944, it's stating here that the previous show to be removed and now is to be remained on 7951 Paso Del. So, originally, this is belong to the 7944 retaining wall. So we just wanna confirm what, what my what I mean by, remaining for the, retaining wall.

Thank you. Chandra Slavin. You'll have three minutes.

Good morning, chair and commissioners. I'm actually here on behalf of the applicant, Baylor. So I will I'm just here for questions, and I'll save my time for our architect who's on Zoom. So thank you.

Thank you. That concludes in person testimony. Are there online speakers? If there's any online speakers that wish to speak on item number one, can you please raise your hand?

John Lum, you have, three minutes. Please unmute yourself.

Okay. I have some slides that I wanted to show, but I'm not sure if they're available for the commission.

We are queuing that up right now. They are now

Oh, great. And That's on slide 11. So could we please go to the beginning? Just sorry. I'll do this very quickly. Just to I we believe that the appellant might have be confused with the former project that had been proposed, which was much larger. So this is just a graphic diagram to show the floor plan of the purple is what is being proposed. The pink is the previous project that was much larger. Next slide, please. The height comparison also shows how substantially lower the building is in relationship to the previous proposed project.

Most importantly, the next slide, please, would be showing where the rear yard is, specifically where the appellant's rear yard is and where his existing fence is going to remain and the existing retaining wall is going to remain, whereas our new fence is just adjacent. So that's describing to what the gentleman asked about the retaining wall remaining. The next slide, please. This is a markup of the topographic survey by Coffey Engineering showing the relationship of the power pole, fence, and property line. And you'll see actually that the power pole is actually in the middle of the property line, and I think that's where some confusion is coming from is that the retaining wall also is straddling the property line.

Next slide, please. This shows actually where that power pole is, where the stud is in the power pole. That's where the property line runs through. And you can see actually the alignment of the retaining wall that's currently there that it's going to remain is still existing there. So we can see that that retaining wall is surrounding the property line. The last slide, please. This is just showing the new corner record confirms our submitted survey information, and this was done in September 2025. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other online speakers? Okay. That concludes the public comment. Is there any commission comment? Commissioner Malbro?

Yes. Thank you, chair, and thank you for your report and for and the public comment from both sides of it. I just have a few questions here really just to confirm what's already been said for the public record. So a new topographical survey was completed on 05/19/2025. Correct? Alright. And the applicant actually did another corner record report on 09/04/2025. Right?

Correct.

Okay. The appellate filed this complaint, but they used a topographical survey dated 02/27/2019.

Yes. For the initial project.

Did the appellant have the ability to have the latest information from the change of the project?

The appellant, had the opportunity to see the, plans. Correct. It's the apparently, had the opportunity to see the plans, in the office at, DSD. We cannot share, prints, because of proprietary restrictions, but they were, able to see the plans on at the in the office.

Okay. Did they do that? Do you know if they did that?

They did.

Okay. Mhmm. But they still chose to use the older older, survey for their

I'm not sure of the timing of the, appeal, related relative to when they saw the drawings, but the appeal moved forward with the initial

Well, they filed their appeals 07/23/2025, so I'm assuming that they

Yes. But I'm not sure when they came in to see the drawings.

Okay. Well, it it to me, in my opinion, is the appeal is based on information that's incorrect based on the report. So I I'm gonna have to make a motion to deny the appeal.

Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Miyahara, did you wanna speak? No? Okay. Any other comments from the commission? Okay. Then we can go to a vote. We have a motion and a second to deny the appeal. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. We can go on to item number three whenever staff is ready.

Good morning, chair Modine and commissioners. Daniel Heipes with the San Diego Fire Rescue Department, assistant fire marshal. With me today is also deputy chief fire marshal Tony Tosca. I'll be speaking on item number three, which is the adoption of the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface code. So the California Wildland Urban Interface Code is being adopted for the first time by California.

This has been in existence as the International Wildland Urban Interface Code since 2003, but California is adopting it for the first time. It was published on July 1, and like other building standards codes, will become effective one hundred and eighty days later on 01/01/2026. This is now the new Part seven of the California Building Standards Code and will be adopted on the triennial cycle with the rest of the codes such as the building, fire, and residential codes. So as I mentioned before, this is based on the 2024 international wildland urban interface code, also referred to as the model code. This was, very heavily amended by California.

When California adopts codes, they typically add their own amendments. However, this one is even more so. There's not a lot of the model code remains. Most of what is in the California Wildland urban interface code is California specific language. One of the main things that it attempted to do was consolidate several existing codes and regulations that apply to wildland urban interface areas and consolidate them into a single code.

Just kind of a quick overview of the organization. So this is a relatively short code. It only has six chapters. And like most of the other building standards codes, chapter one is administration, chapter two is definitions. And then as you see, the, the red lettering there is showing other codes and regulations that are already in existence that have been reorganized into the various chapters.

So chapter three, was borrowed from that used to be in chapter 49 of the fire code, which talks about the adoption process for the fire hazard severity zone maps that has been relocated to chapter three. Chapter four contains portions of the, title 14, state minimum fire safe regulations. Chapter five is what was previously the, ignition resistant building construction requirements that used to be chapter seven a of the California building code, which has now will be repealed and relocated here, and R-three 37 of the residential code. So all the same requirements, it's just a relocation. Chapter six contains information on defensible space and fire protection requirements that were previously located in Chapter 49 of the fire code as well as other titles such as Title 14.

Appendix H is not enforceable. It's really just for information. And that contains a printout of the applicable sections of other various state legislation applying to defensible space laws really just for the user's convenience. So the Wildland Urban Interface code applies to all Wildland Urban Interface areas as as defined, in the code. This is referred to as an overlay code.

So it's really these requirements apply on top of the base code. So if you were to build something, it would still be built according to the California Building Code or the Residential Code. But if it happens to be in a wildland urban interface area, these are additional requirements that would be applied on top of those. So I think one thing that's important to do is define when we talk about a wildland urban interface area what that is or what that means. So it is a defined term in the code and is defined as a geographical area identified by the state as a fire hazard severity zone in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 4,201 through 4,204 and government code section fifty one one seventy five through fifty one one eighty nine and other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at significant risk from wildfires.

So earlier this year, on March 24, the state fire marshal issued their new recommended fire hazard severity zone maps. We adopted those maps by ordinance and included additional designated areas that you see on the map here. So essentially, everything that is shown on our fire hazard severity zone maps that's included in those areas could also be designated a wildland urban interface zone. Those terms are synonymous with each other. So just to give a quick overview of the chapters, so as I mentioned before, Chapter four, those requirements come out of the existing state minimum fire safe regulations.

So these five sections here are what is, currently in the minimum fire safe regulations, and the highlighted chapters are what has been carried over into chapter four of the WUI code. So it addresses ingress and egress, which has been retitled to fire access. It addresses signing and building numbering as well as, water supply. So if you look at some of the things that are addressed in the WUI code, again, it's establishing requirements for fire department access for new subdivisions as well as for individual structures. This is really based on requirements that a lot of the requirements are already in the California fire code, as well as some additional items that come from Title 14.

It addresses minimum road widths, road surfaces, making sure that roads can support the weight of fire apparatus. It addresses maximum grades, turning radius, turnarounds, turnouts, gates, including minimum widths for those gates, road and driveway structures, as well as dead end roads, which is something that the fire code does not specifically address. I included this, table here, and this is really just showing within the WUI code, and this would affect new developments, based on zoning density. So for parcels that are zoned less than one acre, which is a lot of what we have in the city of San Diego, it establishes a maximum length of dead end roads at 800 feet. And then you can see that that maximum length increases as zoning density decreases.

There are also water supply requirements. So again, establishing minimum requirements for fire department water supply for new subdivisions as well as for individual structures. So this addresses things like minimum fire flows, number and spacing of hydrants, hydrant identification, as well as required testing and maintenance. There's really nothing here that we don't already meet or exceed in our current fire code as we've adopted. The WIB code also identifies or establishes requirements for road signs and address numbers with the intent really being to ensure that the fire department can identify that those road signs are visible.

So it has requirements for making sure the signs are reflectorized. It establishes minimum letter or numbering heights and requires unique identifications for roads. Again, this is already addressed in the fire code, building code and our local municipal code. So Chapter five contains the ignition resistant building construction requirements. As I mentioned before, these requirements, this is nothing new.

This is really just moving over from where it was previously in Chapter 7a or I should say currently 7a of the building code and R-three 37 of the residential code. These construction requirements really affect the exterior envelope of the home. So these are requirements if you're in a wildland urban interface area that would affect the roof, the windows, the eaves, all those exterior components of the home to try to resist, ember intrusion. And this will apply to all new buildings, additions to those buildings, or remodels, that would affect the exterior of the home. Chapter six gets into the fire protection requirements.

So one of the things contained in there, is currently addressed in chapter 49 of the fire code, is the ability for the fire code official to require fire protection plans. Fire protection plans would likely be required for, new developments, such as master plan communities, and it would require, those developments to address fire department access, egress, road and address signage, water supply, fuel modification zones, and mitigation measures to address the project specific wildfire risk. Chapter six also has requirements where the fire department can require landscape plans. Those landscape plans must be provided when required by the fire code official. The landscape plans really will establish the, defensible space fuel modification zones.

So as you can see in the picture here, the landscape plans would identify any hardscaping, which would be required for the new zone zero. Any new plantings would have to, be considered FireSmart vegetation, which is a new term, that Cal Fire has established, and just make sure that any new plantings would conform to the maximum height and also the spacing requirements within the particular zone that they are in. This is very similar to our current brush management zones that we established for new projects that are adjacent to native and naturalized vegetation. And a lot of these requirements have added amendments to try to make it consistent with our current practices for brush management. Also in Chapter six, it's after defensible space zones are established, it has requirements to maintain defensible space.

So again, all structures that are located in a wildland urban interface area have to maintain 100 feet of defensible space or up to the property line, and that is California state law. The WUBI code doesn't really expand on these requirements. It actually just points to existing state laws, such as the public resource code, government code, title 14, and title 19. So one of the things that I did in chapter six is I added a lot of, local additions so that all of the applicable information from those different titles so that people don't have to go and try to figure out that information. It's actually going to be, listed in our municipal code.

So it's going have specific requirements for Zone zero, Zone one and Zone two. The Zone zero requirements are based on the most recent Board of Forestry draft regulations because those regulations have not yet been finalized. Chapter six also addresses the subdivision review survey program. This rolled out a few years ago with the intent of identifying existing subdivisions that are considered at risk communities. The criteria that they use to identify those subdivisions are any subdivisions with more than 30 dwellings that are located in a very high fire hazard severity zone that do not have a secondary egress route.

So we worked with CAL Fire several years ago to identify the subdivisions as you can see on the map here. After those subdivisions are identified, the board of forestry comes up with recommendations to improve the fire safety within those subdivisions, And then this process is supposed to occur every five years to review those subdivisions or see if there are any additional subdivisions that have been created or identified. Chapter six also introduces requirements. Again, this is something that comes out of existing law in title 14, but it it has to do with building citing and setbacks, and it requires parcels to provide a minimum 30 foot setback for all buildings from property lines into the center of a road. The intent with that is to reduce the likelihood of structure to structure ignition during a wildfire event.

There are, reductions that are allowed as this would be very difficult, to meet in many instances. And those reductions are allowed based on practical reasons such as partial parcel dimension or size, topographic limitations such as steep slopes that are not buildable, sensitive habitat, or other site constraints. And so if any of those are identified, then there's alternative mitigations that would be allowed. We have processes that we use already where we can't achieve those setbacks, typically with, additional construction requirements, reducing windows on the affected side, adding noncombustible block walls, or just increasing those ignition resistant construction requirements to make up for that reduced setback. This is just kind of a visual example showing, this idea of locating structures and creating that 30 foot spacing between structures, so that if auxiliary or accessory structures are built on a property, trying to locate them away, from structures on your property as well as structures on other properties and finding spaces again to reduce that structure to structure ignition.

Additionally, there's more wildfire protection measures that are identified that come over from the minimum fire safe regulations in Title 14. This includes the identification of strategic ridgelines to support fire suppression activities, also creating fuel breaks where needed if there's approval for new parcels or zoning density increases, as well as finding ways to establish or utilize green belts or greenways to function as a fuel break to help protect communities. Chapter six also, addresses the, safety element within the general plan. It requires the safety element to be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. A draft shall be submitted to the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection at least ninety days prior to adoption or amendment.

The Board of Forestry will then review that draft and recommend changes to the planning agency within sixty days, and then city council shall consider recommendations, if any, made by the board of forestry and provide a response. So we worked in the past with our planning department and Cal Fire's land use planning unit. They have people that will help us with that safety element specifically to incorporate, requirements or make sure that we're addressing the fire hazard severity zones, to help us prepare to get that ready to submit to the board of forestry. We were holding off on that because of the adoption of the new maps, I believe that next year, they'll likely take that to the Board. So as far as local adoption of the code, so again, we are proposing local amendments to both the 2025 California Fire Code as well as the Wildland Urban Interface Code.

We presented, originally, we're going to present November 12. We actually presented December 12, to Public Safety Committee. And then we presented to counsel just this past Tuesday. And so our local amendments, we're hoping to get a second reading in January, so our local amendments are anticipated to be in effect actually closer to 2026. And that concludes our presentation. We're open for any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any commission comment? I'm at you.

Let me pull my notes up.

Oh, I'm sorry. I we don't have any online speakers, so we don't have any public comment.

Thank you for your report. I appreciate it very much. Very technical report. It kinda reminds me of the land development code updates that we have to do. It's very difficult to read. Not saying your report is difficult, challenging. Your PowerPoint actually answered more questions from me. And so this is a workshop. Correct? Great.

So really, the only thing that I would offer up because a lot of this is not new like I thought, like the subdivisions, I thought that was new. I had no idea you had already been doing that. And so, but I can guarantee you when this gets published, the public is gonna think it's new. So if I were you using your website, I would put together a q and a on what you think you're gonna get people are gonna wanna ask because some of this may impact people who are have ideas of remodeling, roofing, deck, fences, all those kind of things, landscaping, that might not be aware today already. And then when they start to do this and they find out it hits their pocketbooks more than they planned, they're not gonna be happy.

And so I think it's it's it's not really your responsibility, but it's a good thing to do is put something out there so that you can point or push that out to to the public to show the what the I don't wanna call it changes, but what what you have done so they can more easily understand how does this affect me because that's what they're gonna be worried about. What will this do to me? So that and then posting your your PowerPoint because that's it's a very good document. The the report, again, is is on point, but it's very difficult for the average citizen. And I'm an average citizen.

I know a little bit, but I had to go back and forth and do a little AI work to to fully understand it and stuff. So because fire prevention really wasn't my thing anyway. So you you know how that goes as a operation guy. But I appreciate fire prevention. So that's pretty much my input is to do something that the public can better understand this and answer your questions where you can.

Certainly. I appreciate your comments, and we always appreciate the feedback. It's always constructive for us, getting feedback from community, from commission, anybody. One of the plans that we have and we do consistently is we have a lot of community education outreach events. And so as you may not know, we've worked really hard to establish more fire safe councils in the county.

So we started with less than five in the city, and we have over 47 in the county now. So probably the most in the county, most in the nation, and we're proud of that. And so we also hired on our new wildfire program manager, and we work with these community events, and that's what we do. We have already set go program, and that has the foundational principles of what we're talking about here. And we will work with those communities, and we're gonna actually bring them to us too. We're gonna have, like, annual and quarterly meetings and and talk about all of these things. So and we will also take your input on on putting that into our website. Do you have anything to add to that, assisted fire marshal types?

No. Yeah. I think I appreciate your comments. And, yeah, I definitely agree that getting this information out to the public I will say that the public, a lot of them are very educated on this, especially our our fire safe councils are very active and they do a lot of their own research. And they are aware of a lot of these things that are coming.

Like Zone 0, we get a lot of questions. And as Chief Tosca mentioned, we have done a lot of outreach with our fire safe councils or with just in within different council districts to those people who are very interested and active, but I'm sure there are a lot lot of other members of the community who who may not be as aware. So we'll definitely take into consideration what you said. We have some things on our website, but I'm sure we can include more and just make sure that we get anything that's new or these changes. I think like you mentioned, lot of this isn't new, but I would say that a lot of people are not very familiar with Title 14.

That's kind of something that's been around for a long time. In state responsibility areas since the nineties, it is relatively new applying to local the cities just since 2021. So technically, it's been law for a while, but, within the cities, it hasn't been very prevalent. So I think adding it to the Wildland Urban Interface code is gonna bring more visibility than it's had. So I think with that needs to come more education. I appreciate your comments.

Well well, thank you very much. I'm actually jealous. You guys are so much smarter than we were when I was working, so I do appreciate it.

Commissioner Miyahara.

Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. Just one question. Section three three zero seven point two point two, the vertical construction of type three, four, and five. I'm I'm curious, you know, requiring the availability of full fire flow for the building prior to vertical construction for combustible type projects three through five.

We know that incurring costs sooner rather than later impact projects. Is this a big deal? You know, what are the builders' current practices? Are they delaying providing full amount of water needed to fight a fire currently? Or is this going to be something new for them in terms of perhaps upsizing or providing on-site improvements to meet this code requirement?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. And just to clarify, that section is part of the California Fire Code, not the Wildland Urban Interface Code. Yeah. So that has to do with buildings under construction.

And so that requirement to me is really kind of about order of operations. And and obviously, that's gonna vary between developers and and companies. But for us, what's important in the fire department is to make sure that if something happens and we have had some significant construction site fires, which are very difficult because all of the building, you know, safety features, the sprinklers are not operational, the drywall, the fire resistant construction materials aren't there, right, especially with these wood frame structures. So we, you know, we definitely wanna make sure that if something were to happen, we need to make sure we have a water supply to be able to put that fire out, protect exposures. And so we do see sometimes water supply may not be in place right away.

So we wanna make sure that when they start going vertical, if we have a building that's four or five stories in height wood frame construction, we need to have hydrants on-site. So it's not requiring anything additional beyond what the project requires. It's really just making sure that it gets established at the correct point in the project.

We also have two instances locally, which is what triggers why we want to look at things like this. We had the Iola fire off La Jolla Village. I was on that fire, and we didn't have enough water. And it was type five construction, wood frame, multiple stories, apartment complexes. And it was so hot that we had to park so far back, and I could feel it on my face, and we didn't have enough water on that. We also had a recent incident in Point Loma, Loma Portal area. Again, vertical construction without adequate water supply, so we have to have that set up, get the we want the cart before the horse.

Yeah. No. It makes sense. I get it. But what's the current practice? I mean, are we what are builders currently doing generally? Are they delaying these types of improvements till the tail end of the project, or are you seeing them actually, you know, make these infrastructure improvements, you know, prior to going vertical?

Do you want me to respond to that? Yeah.

Okay. Yeah.

Hi. I'm Kelly Charles. I'm chief building official and deputy director in building construction safety and development services department. Actually performs the inspections, for water supply and underground on new construction. The California Building Code actually under, buildings under construction does require an on-site water supply as soon as combustible materials are brought on-site, And our inspectors do require that.

We have had instances where construction has occurred where the on-site water supply was not provided, and that's when we actually bring in the fire department staff to potentially do fire watch or other means of protection while, they bring the water supply. It does occur. It isn't common in infill development, obviously, because there's water supply already there. But it's these newer sites, newer developments where sometimes the cart is brought before the horse, and we really wanna make sure that we provide the fire department the water resource available. And that's in the building code as well as the fire code.

And those have been there, for as long as I've been here, with the city of San Diego. But it does occur, unfortunately. It is, typically, when you're doing your grading, you're also going to be doing your underground water supply because that would make the most sense. But sometimes due to deliveries or due to just the construction schedule or maybe, there's a delay in getting your, right of way permit, and so you're getting your, water connection, that can occur. And, you know, we've had all sorts of projects where they had to bring in, you know, a water tank while they were waiting on their connection.

So it's just making sure. And our inspectors, on first inspection, say you need to have your water supply before, combustible materials are brought on. And we do that as almost a precon meeting to let the contractors know.

Commissioner Reeves?

Thank you, chair. Gentlemen, thank you for the presentation. Kelly, thanks for being here to answer your questions as well. I you mentioned that the, amendments made by the state to the international code were pretty extensive. Was are the state's amendments creating more a more protective environment? Are they more aggressive? Are they just different because we have a different reality here? What what were those amendments, like consisting of?

Yeah. I think in some instances, might be a little bit more restrictive. The International Wildland Urban Interface Code introduced a little bit more of kind of a tiered system. It had different kind of similar to how we have different fire hazard severity zones. It had different hazard levels that created I guess there's a little more flexibility, whereas California's approach just to maintain consistency, again, because most of what's coming in is already existing state law, right?

California usually kind of leads the nation with this stuff, especially when it comes to wildfires. So in some cases, it could be more restrictive. But again, it's really just California wanting to bring in what it had already established through other codes and regulations to maintain consistency with what we've had really for the last twenty plus years in some instances. So it could be It's hard to answer for sure. In some instances, I would say it may be as more restrictive, but it's also it's just different. It's kind of how California does

it. Understood.

Yeah. And it addresses our local climactic and geographical conditions here. And we kind of talked about this in a previous commission where we had the college area where people wanted construction outside, and and we kinda lose that the details of what are mitigating factors to address the frequency rate and spread of fire. So we have canyons and slopes, and so we have to implement, like the map layer, the firehouse and severity zone. So there are tools for us to mitigate those hazards.

And, I mean, you just sort of zeroed in on the issue that always pops to my mind on this topic, and that is we have a ton of canyons. It's one of the things that I think is really beautiful about San Diego, but it also creates a lot of potential hazard. And so in both existing residential as well as new development, the need to protect the surrounding old established communities from wildfire because of these, you know, over the overgrowth that occurs in the canyons. That that's it's top of mind because of what happened in LA in LA. Right?

I mean, everybody's thinking about that, I'm I'm sure, here. And so wanting to I I imagine you guys, more than anyone, want to ensure that something like that never happens here in San Diego, of course. So I'm my questions really are with regard to chapter six. Only a couple questions, really. But, with regard to defensible space, when it comes to new development that's adjacent to existing, and you've got property owners who are good stewards of the Canyonlands, and there are property owners who are not.

And that creates a conflict, right? So is there a difference between the defensible space requirements that are in the Wildland urban interface code and the FHIR code? Are those identical?

Yeah. So a lot of the defensible space requirements are established through state law. So for local responsibility areas, which is what the city is, it comes from the government code. A lot of what we look at for defensible space specific to the city is our brush management regulations. So kinda, I think, like, what you're talking about when you're adjacent to a canyon, you have native and naturalized vegetation.

That's where our land development code has its brush management regulations. Essentially, we always want to try to get 100 feet, right? That's kind of the standard. Depending on parcel size, we can't always get that. But what I tried to do within the Wildland Urban Interface code is take again because it's confusing and there's a lot of different laws and regulations that pertain to that, but I tried to pull out the specific meet those state law minimums, but also pull out some of our brush management regulations in those specific instances and and really kind of lay that out for each specific zone what those requirements are. So, you know, I think it's it's consistent. It it meets or exceeds state law, and it's consistent with our current brush management regulations.

Is the zone zero that's new. Right? Is that for new construction only, or is that going to be something that is, imposed on existing homeowners or developments?

Yep. So so it's both. So zone zero, it was initially supposed to take effect back 01/01/2023. It is a controversial item, and it's been pushed for several years. There was an executive order by the governor to have those regulations done by 01/01/2026. It looks like that might still be delayed a little bit. So some some jurisdictions have adopted zone zero locally. The county has actually been enforcing it for a while now. So I did include language for zone zero just because we know, you know, the the science shows that it it's important and it matters, and I wanted to make sure we have something we can point to. So I did include that.

So for that will be effective as student as our ordinance takes effect, again, likely mid February, it will be effective for new developments Mhmm. And then for existing structures one year later, so 2027.

So, I mean, there there are thousands of homeowners on canyons that are probably not compliant with even with the zone one and two requirements, let alone a a zone zero. So it'll be interesting how enforcement is done there. So I guess my final question is what are the requirements in this specific in the Wildland urban interface code with with regard to enforcement, and how is that implemented by the city?

There you want. Okay.

So it'll begin with new construction. We work with our DSD partners. We have landscape plans. We'll look at the construction of the property and where it's at, and we'll have the noncombustible construction that was formerly in Chapter 7a. So we addressed the structure, we addressed the fuel modification zones, 100 feet from the structure.

That's all for the new, and we have that zone zero, so we're going to look more like hardscape from zero to five feet out, because we know, as Assistant Fire Marshal Hypes had stated, that ember resistant, ember casting on structures, it works, it's effective. For the new, we want to work with our communities for the nonconforming. So if someone has like a 100 year old tree within the drip line from a structure, we're going to work with them. I'm not going to expect them to cut it down. We'll give them options. So we're going do a lot of education outreach and work with them on that respect, but unless you have anything additional to add.

Yeah, and I'm not sure if your question was specific to zone zero or just defensible space

Defensible in space in general. Yeah.

Yeah. So we and we've we've had we have an existing, program, our door to door inspection program. So we proactively go out. We've, you know, historically focused on Canyon Rim homes, because they of their proximity to brush. And so we do door to door inspections.

We also really are just trying to utilize education because there are so many parcels to we just don't have enough staff to really enforce. So if we get complaints, we will go and investigate a complaint. We're offering educational home risk assessments so that, again, to educate people, especially with these new requirements for Zone 0, taking more of an educational approach. But at the end of the day, if we get the information out there, defensible space is the responsibility of the homeowner. So I think homeowners need to take accountability to make sure that they're doing it.

Again, we've really partnered with our fire safe councils. We have a lot of community members that are very active and they really care about this and they understand that defensible space really only works if the whole community is doing it. It can't just be you and if your neighbors don't. Right. You know, so I think that a lot of getting educating the public, trying that approach, but we do have enforcement. It's just hard to yeah. Enforcement total enforcement

is costs a lot of not money to enforce universally, right? And we just don't have the

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your presentation. I just have a question. I'm looking at this map of the fire hazard severity zone, and like 95% of our city is in the red. And I heard you talk a little bit about working with homeowners on existing conditions, but what about new construction, new projects, and alternative compliance? Because some of these are going to be challenging to meet. So just curious on your thoughts with that.

Yeah. So again, with the WUI code, I wanted to maintain I think we have a good process where we work with our partners in DSD. So where a project that is adjacent to native or naturalized vegetation, if they cannot meet that 100 feet that's required, the DSD landscape reviewers will trigger a fire plan review. And so we will then work with that project understanding that most parcels cannot achieve 100 feet. And so we'll work with them to have a reduced defensible space zone with whatever they are able to get, and that's usually determined by DSD.

And they look at because there could be environmentally sensitive lands where we just cannot extend that defensible space zone. And so that's where we can work with, again, alternative mitigation such as maybe doing a noncombustible block wall to help protect or increasing the fire rating of the structure, just different mitigation options. We do it the time. It's pretty frequent. And so I think we'll just continue with that practice.

It's a good question. We had a lot of internal discussions about this. And it's a balance of encompassing more of the city so that we can not so much impose, it's about the mitigation factors of suppressing the fire, the frequency of fire, and the survivability of those structures. But on the homeowner side of it, or the applicant that's going to build a commercial property or whatever, it's the survivability and insurability. So what do you want to get? If we don't do it, then the insurance is going to impose it anyway, right? So we think about those things, but again, these are hopefully going to improve things so that we don't have a Pacific Palisades or eaten fires and so on. We've been through the 'three and 'seven fires. I know. These are the things that we need to do.

They're effective. They work. And in the long term, it's going to be an improvement. And I don't know if Kelly want to add anything to that, but.

No. I think, like you said, the defensible space, the fire department's worked really closely with the applicants to find alternative solutions, and I think that's been very effective. I don't think any of that's changed. Regarding the construction of buildings, I don't hear that we get much pushback on on the what was previously in seven a and r three thirty seven that's now in the OUI code. That will still be enforceable and done by, the development service staff, the structural reviewers. And, the cost impact, I think, is pretty minimal. I think most people want the double paned windows and enclosed eaves and and noncombustible finish and if you're on a canyon rim. So, I think we've been very consistent, and and none of that has changed.

Great. Thank you.

One I just wanna make one one comment because they're not gonna make this comment. What they're gonna have to do in the next few years, they're gonna need more staffing. And I hope somebody down at the city council and mayor's office are listening to this, because if you want them to carry this out, you have to give them the staffing in order to do so.

Thank you. Doesn't look like we have any other comments, so appreciate the presentation and workshop. And that concludes our hearing for today.