Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

May I have your attention, please? out of respect for the proceedings and in consideration of others in the audience, please turn off or silence any sound emitting devices. If you wish to speak on an item or register your opinion for an item on today's agenda, please visit publiccomment.sandiegocounty.gov and select the planning commission hearing for June 12th, 2026 to register for today's hearing. If you are joining us in person, check in with the commission secretary to let them know you have arrived and register if you have not already done so. If you are joining us via phone, dial into the conference line using the instructions in the email reminder. When it is your turn to speak, begin your comments after the prompt. Requests to speak must be turned in prior to the item being called on the agenda to the Commission Secretary at the front of the room. If you have questions about today's hearing process or need assistance with registering, staff is available to assist you. These hearings are recorded. So when your name is called, please approach the lectern and give your full name. Each speaker will currently have three minutes unless otherwise approved by the chair. Information on how to appeal any decision can be found on the last page of today's agenda. And if you need to leave the room, please use the door at the rear of the chambers today.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to beautiful downtown San Diego and the County of San Diego Planning Commission hearing for June 12th, 2026. Madam Secretary, please call roll.

Commissioners, please answer for the record when your name is called. Commissioner Ashman.

Here.

Commissioner Calvo. Chair Edwards.

Here.

Commissioner Pallinger.

Here.

Commissioner Weber. Commissioner Sudbury. Commissioner Sibelico.

Present.

Please note for the record that four commissioners are present and three are absent.

Public communication provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not on any item on today's agenda. No specific action will be taken on any comments or queries that come from public communications. However, this could result in a referral to staff. Madam Secretary, are there any members of the public wishing to discuss a topic not listed on today's agenda?

Chair Edwards, there are no requests for public communication.

There are no requests for public, excuse me, communication. Handouts of materials today related to today's agenda. Documents to be considered as evidence shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission not later than 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10th. The Planning Commission may, however, receive into evidence for good cause shown or impose reasonable conditions on late-filed documents. Please note that this does not apply to materials presented as part of a visual presentation. A staff presentation for today's items will be posted online for the public to view on Wednesday, June 10th, more than 24 hours in advance of the hearing, and the public was able to provide comments by submitting e-comments prior to the hearing. Madam Secretary, are there any handouts or e-comments related to today's agenda items?

Chair Edwards, 127 correspondences have been received. All items were submitted to the commission through email or hard copy. They've been made available to the public on the Planning Commission website and also at the rear of the chambers.

All right. We'll proceed, staff, to item F, requests for continuance. Director, are there any requests for continuance from staff?

Chair, there are two requests for continuance. The first is item three, the Pass Rail Project. The applicant has submitted a request to have the item continue to the July 10th Planning Commission and staff supports the request. The second request is for item four, Starlight Solar Project. The Planning Commission received several requests to continue the item ranging from 60 to 90 days. Staff is recommending that the item be continued to the July 10th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant has agreed with the staff recommendation. The reason for the recommendation of 30 days is the plume analysis associated with the best facilities for this project was received at a point where it only allowed two weeks ago where we were able to make it public for the community to review. So we want to grant the additional 30 days for them to have time to review it and understand it. To support that, staff will be attending a community meeting in Boulevard on Tuesday, June 16th at 5 p.m. at the Backcountry Resource Center. to hear and discuss community concerns on the plume analysis and the rest of the project itself. The Planning Commission should consider the requested continuances and allow any speakers that wish to comment on the continuances request to do so prior to taking a vote.

Thank you, Mr. Director. Madam Secretary, are there any members of the public wishing to speak on the continuance requests for items three or four?

So we will ask for clarification because we have received 21 members, both in person and on the phone, who wish to speak on continuances. We wanted to verify if there was anyone who specifically wanted to speak on continuances for those two items.

So, Council, I guess we better split them up.

We do have that.

Let's take item three first, Passarelli. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to the request by the applicant for a continuance on item number three, Passarelli? If so, please approach the dais and make your statement realizing that we're only addressing the request for continuance, not the merits of the project. I see none, council. Oh.

So what we'll do is we will have, if you wish to speak to the continuance, I'll have you line up here at the front of the chambers and I will give each member three minutes to speak. Just remember to state your name for the record.

Just a point of clarification. This first session of speakers, it is for item three, which was the Passerelle project continuance.

Passerelle. So I think we have some callers on number three.

So I will now proceed with our caller that we have on the line for item number three. If you receive the message, please go ahead and connect online.

Speaker, on item three, are you there?

The speaker for item number three is not connected online at this time.

Technology. Council, can we proceed with a vote on item three to determine whether or not to continue it? Yes, that's fine. All right.

Mr. Chairman, I'll move that item number three, pass the roll, be continued to the hearing on July 10th.

I'll second the motion.

Okay. So we have a motion and a second on item number three to continue it until July 10th. Any discussion? All right, let's vote.

Please wait until your name is called to vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sabelico?

Yes.

Chair Edwards?

Yes.

And Commissioner Pallinger.

Yes.

Please note for the record that item number three has been passed for a continuance with a vote of four in favor and three absent.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's proceed to the second request for item number four, the Starlight Solar Project. As I understand it, staff, you're recommending a 30-day continuance, and it's apparently the consensus of the public that they want either 60 or 90 days. Is that true? That is correct. All right. We're speaking to the request for continuance only. Madam Secretary, do you have a list of people who wish to speak?

Chair Edwards, yes, I do. I will proceed with the in-person speakers first. If you choose to speak on behalf of the continuance, please approach the lectern. If you do not wish to speak towards the continuance, I'll proceed with the next person. So the first person I have is Brittany Stark.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Brittany Stark. We definitely need more time to process this project and make sure that it's safe for our community. 90-day continuance would be much appreciated. Thank you for giving us your time.

Thank you. Next.

Next, I will actually call you up in groups of three. Can I have Carl Anderson, Deborah Peck, and Jim Whalen?

Good morning. My name is Carl Anderson III. I'm on the Boulevard Community Planning Group, appointed by Joel Anderson. I've been to all these meetings and listened through them and everything like that. We voted for a 90-day continuance just to give our people that have come to these meetings more time to look it over. looking at this giant packet that we just got today, it's like a lot to read. It's very technical. You know, we just have our day jobs, but we really need more time. The community is asking for more time. They're asking me to represent them, to give them more time. And I'm asking you to please grant that continuance of the 90 days instead of 30. That's all I have to say for now on that. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. I'm Deborah Peck. We would really appreciate it for the 90 days. We have the town hall coming up. That's going to be a blessing where we're going to be able to have questions and answers. A lot of the community still doesn't know that it's a different project with it. And we, like Carl said, that thing is huge and I don't understand a lot of it. So this opportunity to have 90 days would be a blessing for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good morning, Chair Edwards and members of the commission. Jim Whalen, J. Whalen Associates here for the applicant. We're here in agreement for the continuance request for 30 days. We don't think any more time is needed, especially when it's clear from comments on the plume study that we've already received that the new opponents have read it. So it doesn't seem like there's more time needed. The project's been in process for five years. The community group has had over 60 meetings on it. and we think that there's been more than enough time. In any event, we do look forward to showing the Planning Commission how large-scale solar should be done in the county, and we look forward to seeing you next month. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Up next, we have Karen Parker, Ken Kramer, and Mara Harris.

Good morning. My name is Karen Parker. I'm a retired social worker. I live in Boulevard, California. According to the 2020 census, the Boulevard population has a notable demographic with 22% of the residents age 65 and older in a large segment between 45, 64 years old. That population is aged into 2026. I did what we do as social workers. I took an assessment, and I found that 53% of our population is aged and disabled. I observed and noted their disabilities, the most common being brain injury, COPD, cardiac, legally blind, hearing impaired, and they ambulate with assistance with subgroups of people with each of those disabilities. It's a very underserved population. They're not able to email, no cell service, no Wi-Fi. That service is limited. limited to no transportation. They weren't notified, and this is an isolated population. I made an assessment of our vulnerable and age-disabled population, documented a subgroup within the demographic of Boulevard that received no notice from the county or a developer. They do not know when the planning group meetings are. They don't drive at night, and they can't afford the fuel. They have no Wi-Fi, no phone. These are property owners and tenants alike, and this is 53% of the population of Boulevard that had no idea this was happening. I'm here today to ask our council for a 90-day accommodation to serve the disability of this 53% of the population. and their rights are mentioned in the ADA under Title IV and Title V. Regarding their rights, I respectfully ask for a 90-day continuance to accommodate 53% of our aged and vulnerable population in Boulevard. Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am. Next.

Good morning. I'm here to ask for a 90-day continuance on behalf of the Boulevard community. Please state your name for the record as well. Thank you. My name is Mara Harris. I've been living in Boulevard, California for two and a half years. and I've been frequenting that area for 17. I don't believe that I actually represent most of our residents. I am not suffering a brain injury. I have finances to be able to drive myself here. And I have Wi-Fi connection, and I'm able to read the documents that are sent in the mail from the county. Just to note and remind the Planning Commission here, on June 1st, the final EIR was released. The plume study was released on the 1st as well. It is June 12th. And there is a group of residents that are strongly attempting to outreach to our disabled and underrepresented population So with that I request a continuance with that consideration 90 day continuance no less than 60, and I would also like to say thank you To our county representatives for putting together a town hall, but I would also like to note that That town hall, just remember people are concerned, that town hall was provided with three business days. So we're grateful for that, but that is not enough time to send out communication and education to the community. So thank you for your time and your consideration.

Next speaker.

Up next, we have Mark Guerra, Robert Wallace, and Susan Fogle. Please proceed and state your name for the record.

How could you guys, um, Bobby Wallace from the Bruna band, uh, from the Kumeyaay nation. Um, I'll reiterate what they said too. Cause that's what I, that's what I believe a 90 day continuance would be nice for the people of Boulevard. Um, I don't know if some of you guys are able to live out there, but we know it's hard. Um, you know, I grew up in the mountains and, sometimes it can be rough with communication and getting people notified of things that are going on. So a 90-day would be so respectful, and it would be great. I know things are out there. This man said it's been in the making for five years, but, man, these guys, some of them just don't know and need the time. for them to understand it better, to make adequate decisions for their community, and make sure they're safe. So thank you for your time, guys. Please, 90. Thanks.

Thanks, sir.

Good morning. My name's Susan Fogel. I'm a resident of Boulevard. I live in the Jewel Valley area where all this is happening. I'm just learning about a lot of this. particularly the battery storage. I believe we all need to do a little bit more investigating to see what's going on and the impact it's going to have on our community. I would like to ask you all to give us an extension of at least 90 days so we can continue to investigate the plume damage results and other things that might help us to understand the whole project a little bit better. That was a very big packet that we received today and I'm sure tonight we'll all be doing a lot of studying for the next 90 days and more investigating. But I really appreciate if you guys would kindly give us at least the 90 days to or 60 days, anything we would be grateful for any time. And I appreciate you guys. Thank you very much and have a good day.

Thank you for coming.

And we have one last speaker in person, Weena Josie. We will now proceed to the one caller that we do have on the line, Veronica Santos.

Hi, my name is Veronica Santos, and I am the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation out here in Boulevard, California. I would like to also request a 90-day continuance. With the plume analysis only coming out two weeks ago, the tribe has not had adequate time to review it. The plumes off of a fire from this project would absolutely affect the Manzanita reservation. So we would like to ask for a continuance of 90 days to further review these analysis and go over it and send in our comments. Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am.

That completes both in-person and phone participants for that item.

All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Staff, two things. I've heard allusions to some package of materials they were given today. What's the back story on that?

Chair, so the standard process for a project like this, there was an EIR that went out for public review from July to September of 2025. That would include the technical analysis and studies for the environmental work that was done for the project. The majority of the information in the packet today for the hearing packet is what was in that EIR that went out for public review. Following the EIR, the process would be staff and the applicant work together to do response to comments to the EIR. That is also included in the packet. And absolutely, we recognize the plume analysis was only released to the public two weeks ago. What I would also just note is for the overall timeline for the project, the project still does also need to go to the Board of Supervisors. We had proposed to attend a community meeting, seeing the urgency from the community of having a lot of questions on the plume analysis and the hearing report that was made available to the public, thus the reason we had proposed it for next Tuesday evening. We are absolutely available for additional community engagement before the project goes to the Board of Supervisors. We would expect there are still community questions following a Planning Commission recommendation on the project before it would ultimately go to the Board of Supervisors. So I want to make sure that we're committing to be available to the community more than just next Tuesday evening. We absolutely can be out there again for additional engagement on it.

Thank you, Mr. Director. The second question is one that I hear quite a lot, and that's a lack of notice and the opportunity to be heard. I think I have a pretty good idea of how you folks do that, but could you, Mr. Slovic, just briefly backfill us on the efforts the county made?

Chair, so as the commission is aware, there's a number of opportunities during the process where we notify the public. We do that at application. This project was submitted in 2022. So that was notice to the property owners. We also notice during the notice of preparation process, basically sharing with the public that we're gonna prepare an environmental impact report. We notice again during the public review period for the environmental impact report, We also conducted public meetings at both of those public input sessions. And then we also noticed ahead of the planning commission hearing today, I'd also share state law has a minimum requirement for public notice. We've exceeded that dramatically. The standard for public review under the state law is a 300 foot notice. We've noticed 4,000 feet and we've captured much larger than the 20 minimum property owners where we've noticed 257 individual property owners.

And just beyond that, though, Chair, our goal is always to ensure that the community is aware and able to engage on projects. So when we're out there next Tuesday night, we'll absolutely be listening for any ideas on additional ways that we can engage with the community to ensure that they're aware of the project.

My final question is that from Mr. Whalen. He says this has been in process for five years and there have been over 60 meetings on this. Is that correct?

Yes. I've been going out there for 18 years. 18 years? 18 years, yeah, because I started working on Sunrise for SDG&E, Rugged for Rough Acres Ranch, then Soy Tech, remember that one with the ill-fated concentrated photovoltaic, and now this. And the Hagans have owned the property for 70 years. So we're part of the community. Thank you, Mr. Whalen.

So... Commissioners, comments, motions, what? Go ahead, sir.

So, we're generally bound by the representation principle. So, both the applicant and staff and other interested parties are in favor of a continuance. I think that I'm definitely inclined to grant it. Regarding the length of the continuance, I am mindful of the time and resources that the applicant has invested thus far. When I was appointed, one of the things I vowed to do was speed up permit timelines. So in the interest of justice and fairness, I think I'm going to support the 30-day continuance. Moreover, I do see several people here, even though it was communicated that there would be a continuance. Boulevard has a population, as of the most recent census, of 359 people. I think that there's probably more than 10% of the population of Boulevard here today in these chambers. And to me, that signals that the interested parties are already well represented and capable of submitting thoughtful public comment by our July hearing date. So for those reasons, I'm in favor of a 30-day continuance.

Thank you, Commissioner. Other comments, observations? Commissioner Pallinger, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your comments, Commissioner. And at advice of staff, I will make a motion to support the continuance of item number four for 30 days to the July 10th hearing.

All right, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. The motion has been seconded by Commissioner Ashman. Discussion, commissioners? Are we ready to vote? All right, let's vote.

Commissioners, when your name is called, please vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger? Yes.

Yes.

And Commissioner Civello. Yes. Please note for the record that a 30-day continuance has been approved for item number four with a vote of four in favor and three absent.

All right. Let's go to item G, I believe. Staff formation of consent calendar. We'll now form the consent calendar. These are items to which no opposition has been expressed or received. Madam Secretary, are there any items for consent?

Chair Edwards, yes. We do have item number one, the Palma Heights tentative map available for the consent calendar.

Commissioners, we do have one item, Palma Heights tentative map for consent. What is the pleasure of the commission? Do you wish to take that on consent? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to approve item number one on consent.

Is there a second? I'll second the motion. It's been seconded by Commissioner Ashman. Discussion? Then let's vote.

Please wait until your name is called to vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sibelico?

Yes.

Chair Edwards?

Yes.

And Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

Please note for the record that Palma Heights has been added to the consent calendar and approved with a vote of four in favor and three absent.

Thank you, commissioners. We can move now to item number two, I believe. Excuse me. Paschall Heights tentative map and density bonus permit. This is not a consent item. No. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right

Good morning, Chair Edwards and Commissioners. I am Aiden Pulley with Planning and Development Services. Today I will be presenting on item number two, which is the Pasquale Heights project. The Department is before you today recommending approval of the project. Project site is located at 830 Idaho Ave, immediately West of the intersection of Idaho Ave and San Pasquale Valley Rd SR 78. approximately 400 feet northeast of the city of escondido's municipal boundary within the southern central portion of the north county metropolitan sub-regional plan area the site is also located approximately 1.93 miles northeast of interstate 15. The 10.39-acre site is currently developed with a vacant single-family residence proposed for removal. It is designated Village Residential VR2 and zoned Limited Agricultural A70, allowing residential development at a base density of 21 dwelling units. The site is also within a village area, which is intended to support higher density. with access to transportation, services, and a mix of surrounding uses. Surrounding land uses include residential neighborhoods, commercial and community serving facilities, and a private preschool through high school located immediately adjacent to the project site. The project includes a tentative map to subdivide the site into 42 single-family residential lots and four lots for private roadway utilities, a sewer lift station, and a biofiltration basin and open space. The project also includes a density bonus permit to increase residential density from 21 to 42 units under state density bonus law. Access is provided via a private roadway connection to Idaho Avenue, a county maintained road, along with approximately 640 feet of sewer improvements within the public right-of-way. Infrastructure includes a sewer lift station, stormwater facilities, and noise attenuation walls, with water and sewer service provided by the City of Escondido. Grading consists of approximately 74,800 cubic yards of cut and fill and includes all electric residential construction with no natural gas infrastructure. The project proposes a density bonus permit to increase the allowable residential density from approximately 21 units to 42 units under state density bonus law. qualify the applicant will provide seven affordable for sale units approximately 29 of base density including four very low income and three moderate income units this level of affordability supports up to a 100 bonus under state law allowing the proposed 42 units All affordable units will be deed-restricted and provided as for-sale homes through an agreement with county housing and community development services. Because the project is consistent with the site's general plan designation and zoning, and because its potential environmental effects are addressed through the applicable planning and environmental review framework, a CEQA Guideline Section 15183 checklist was prepared for the project. the County conducted a public review period from April 16th to May 18th, 2026, with notification provided to responsible agencies and property owners within 1,500 feet of the site. During the 32-day review period, the County received 24 comment letters, including four letters from agencies and stakeholder organizations and 20 letters from neighboring residents. Comments addressed a range of topics, including biological and cultural resources, traffic and evacuation safety, public infrastructure, project density, land use compatibility, community character, public noticing, and cumulative impacts. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife provided technical comments that were resolved through the coordination with county staff. The Endangered Habitats League submitted a letter supporting the project, stating that the site is appropriate for infill housing because it is located within a village designated area adjacent to existing development and services, is biologically degraded, and is not part of the North County Multiple Species Conservation Program. The organization also supported the project's affordable housing component and the use of the density bonus program. Protect Rural Escondido and neighboring residents expressed concerns regarding public outreach and noticing project density and compatibility with the surrounding community, traffic and evacuation safety, impacts to nearby schools and community facilities, and cumulative impacts associated with other proposed developments in the area. The San Diego County Archaeological Society commented on the site's historical agricultural use and requested consideration of the potential presence of historic era resources. All comments received during the review period were considered and addressed in the response to comments and staff report. The project is located within an established residential area surrounded by single family neighborhoods with a church to the southeast and a plant nursery to the east. The site is designated Village Residential VR2, which supports residential development within a transitional urban to semi-rural setting. The project proposes 42 single-family homes designed to be consistent in scale and character with surrounding development, with one- and two-story variations. The design incorporates a rural aesthetic with minimal entry features and two monument signs, along with approximately 46,461 square feet of common open space maintained by the HOA. Native landscaping, road improvements, sidewalks and internal pathways are included to provide screening, enhance aesthetics and integrate with the existing neighborhood context. Overall, the project maintains compatibility with surrounding uses and preserves community character consistent with the adopted land use plans and policy. Fire protection plan for the Pasco Heights project was approved by the Rincon del Diablo Fire Protection District and will be incorporated into the project's conditions of approval. The site is not located within a mapped fire hazard severity zone and is served by existing public roads with direct access to San Pascual Valley Road and Idaho Avenue providing multiple evacuation routes and fire apparatus access designed to meet fire code standards. Fire protection services would be provided by the Escondido Fire Department with nearby stations approximately two miles away and estimated response times of six to seven minutes below the 7.5 minute general plan standard supported by mutual aid agreements. The project incorporates comprehensive fire protection measures including 100 feet of defensible space zones, residential fire sprinklers, underground utilities, a new eight inch water line, three fire hydrants, and concrete masonry unit walls in select locations. These features, combined with fuel modification, access improvements, and ongoing HOA maintenance responsibilities, reduce wildfire risk and ensure compliance with state and local fire safety requirements. Traffic impact study was prepared consistent with the county guidelines and the 2011 GPU EIR, evaluating impacts from the proposed 42-unit project. which could generate approximately 396 average daily trips. The analysis found that nearby roadways and intersections, including Idaho Avenue and SR 78, would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Primary access would be provided via Idaho Avenue. with roadway improvements including a three-lane section and left turn lane to enhance circulation, safety, and emergency access. Frontage improvements would include new sidewalks, landscaping, and buffer areas to improve pedestrian safety, accessibility, and connectivity between the project and the surrounding transportation network. The project would also provide internal pathways and pedestrian connections, as well as a coordinated driveway alignment with the adjacent church and school to support safe and efficient site access and circulation. In coordination with county staff and Caltrans, the project would incorporate improvements including bicycle enhancements such as a green conflict striping at the Idaho Avenue SR 78 intersection to improve cyclist visibility and safety. The project will also provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to preserve right-of-way for future roadway and bicycle improvements. Public transit service is available approximately one-half mile from the site through North County Transit District facilities. Overall, the project would not result in significant impacts to traffic operations or safety. The project includes stormwater and drainage improvements along Idaho Avenue and San Pascual Valley Road to support the proposed development and associated roadway improvements. Stormwater runoff will be treated and detained on site through best management practices designed to meet county requirements and maintain existing drainage conditions. The project also includes drainage infrastructure improvements to ensure runoff is properly managed and conveyed, with no adverse downstream impacts. The project is located within the North County Metropolitan Subregional Plan area, which is not represented by a community planning or sponsored group. Staff has determined the project is consistent with the General Plan, Subregional Plan, and applicable county regulations. Staff supports the project because it advances state housing objectives by providing affordable housing consistent with state density bonus law, is located near the city of Escondido with access to jobs and services, and is sited in an area without significant biological or environmental constraints. The project also includes necessary infrastructure improvements to support the development. Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project as detailed in the staff report and adopt the CEQA determination under Section 15183. This concludes the presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. As I understand it, Madam Secretary, there are no... Planning or sponsor groups, is the applicant want to make a presentation? Or are they here?

Yes, that would be correct, Chair. Can we please have Kerry Garza and Ruth Cementis, please, approach the lectern?

Good morning, commissioners and county staff. I'm Kerry Garza, the owner of Touchstone Communities. the applicant for the project. I usually don't read notes for my presentations but I didn't want to miss anything today so I have a few notes for looking down every now and then. I have been creating projects and communities in San Diego County for over 40 years. the last five years it' s become very difficult in the county to find projects we can build but we' ve been scouring the county looking for infill properties that are vmt efficient and this project is vmt efficient and was the perfect candidate for a small development like this. it' s an infill property as aiden said surrounded by housing where we can build a small community that complies with the general plan it' s always our goal is trying to meet the rules. It' s not a property covered with sensitive habitat like he said or precious resources it' s been well maintained by the property owners for many decades. As noted by both the sierra club and endangered habitats league It's the type of project and location that they want to see development in. It sits on a transit corridor. It has utilities surrounding the property and it doesn't require major infrastructure to be built. As Aiden noted, we're providing seven affordable homes that will be made available to very low and moderate income families to give them the opportunity to share in the American dream of home ownership. project is in the sphere of city of Escondido. My team and I work closely with the city staff and council to build a community that provides housing for families who will financially support the local economy and become part of the fabric of Escondido. The city realizes that these homes will someday be part of the city of Escondido and the city is providing sewer and water service for their future residents. we' re working with kb home to build out the community. They' ve become well known for building a nearby community that provides the this project will be the first in the county to achieve this and only the third in the country to achieve to achieve these wildfire resistance standards. KB representatives are in the audience if you have questions about that later they can address it. Lastly it has been an honor to work with our landowner Ruth who's behind me right now she's a widow who has longed to see her husband's vision for the property come to life. She can tell her story a little bit Like I understand that no one wants to have new housing built near their homes But those people who think this property should be left undeveloped need to realize that this entire area of Escondido was once covered in groves and orchards and Dairy farms and that their homes sit on property That was once undeveloped but this property is no different it has had a home on it for over a hundred years and And now it can finally reach its full potential to become home to 42 new families who can call Escondido their home. I'm keeping it really short today. That's all I had to say. But thank you. And I'll be available for questions. And I have my consultant team here to address any technical questions you might have. And, of course, staff is well-versed on it. Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Good morning. My name is Ruth Timities. I own the property at 830 Idaho. I'm with Jamison Builders Incorporated. It was my husband's company. I have kept that property for the last 13 years after he has passed away. And I've had many developers come forward and try to get me to sell the property. I never wanted to. out of respect for my husband that he wanted to develop that property along with other properties that he did develop in Escondido. He did do a lot of building there. We owned businesses there and everything. And when I met Mr. Kerry Gaza, he seemed to say, have the same vision for the property to be built as my husband would have done also. So in memory of him, I decided to sell the property. And like he said, I have kept it well maintained this past 13 years that he has been gone. Sometimes doing it myself, which now I am not capable of doing. doing anymore and I think my husband would be very happy with the vision that Kerry has got to develop the property and I am looking forward to seeing him develop it. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you ma'am. We'll now take public testimony. Madam Secretary do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item?

Chair Edwards, there are eight requests to speak in person and four that will be joining us on the phone. And I will go ahead and proceed with the first three. I have Carolyn Van Houten, Charles Phillips, and Charmaine McWilliams, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about Pasquale Heights.

Could you give us your name and your address?

I want to tell you that as a resident of 50 years in living on Park Hill Lane, which is right next to the Pasquale Heights proposed development, I have enjoyed the property and Been happy there. However, I do object to the 42 units. I'm not objecting to the 20 residential units. 41 seems over the top. The community character of the area is such that has aesthetics that are very more or less rural. In the area where I live, we have students that raise goats for the fair, chickens. We've even had a few pigs. And also on our properties is large enough that we grow oranges, avocados, grapefruit, all kinds of different vegetable and fruit products. So this concerns us very much that the rural area of our part of Escondido is changing. Also, our concern is that Highway 78 is a very busy road. Some of us no longer can drive from our street onto San Pasqual. And over the years, Idaho has become so busy that there's a long line fortunately at the traffic light so we can turn left on Idaho to go to our street. I am very, we are very concerned about that also. My children went to Escondido to the school on Idaho. And from years back, I have been aware that there are occasionally safety concerns. However, it's more of a concern now with this new proposal And I would like the Planning Commission to look at that carefully. The last thing I want to mention is the difficulty in using the county's link. I tried to... Could you summarize, ma'am? Okay. But it's difficult. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Yes, sir.

Please remember to state your name for the record.

My name is Charles Phillips. How's it going? I'm going to just read this so I can be done in my time. My name is Charles Phillips. Many people know me as Tally Phillips. I serve as the operations director and associate pastor of the Escondido Christian Church and School directly across from the proposed project. Our church has served this community since 1930, excited to celebrate 100 years and just a few more years. Today, we serve hundreds of students and families every week. Beginning this August, my wife and I will be moving into the church parsonage directly across the street from where we will be raising our five children. I'm not here because I'm against housing. I understand people need places to live. I simply and deeply care about this area and just want to see it thrive. Over the last year, I've personally been involved in conversations regarding sewer infrastructure, development proposals, school operations, and community impacts in this corridor. The more I've learned, the more I've realized how disconnected many of these decisions seem to be, especially including the future Aldea project, which is in the neighboring vacant lots. All of these projects will be affecting the very same roads, the same infrastructure, and the same families, but too often it feels like we're only talking about one piece at one time. One thing that stands out to me is that the sole entrance of this development is directly across from the sole entrance of our church and school. Every weekday, hundreds of students, parents, staff, and visitors move through the area during drop-off and pick-up times. I would simply ask whether those unique traffic traffic patterns were specifically considered as part of the analysis and whether their interaction with the proposed development entrance was fully evaluated. This is not just a theoretical concern for me either my wife my children and I were involved in a serious collision at ashen Idaho last year where a driver made an illegal left turn at the unprotected left turn our van was totaled and our kids were very young all under five. I pay very close attention to the traffic and safety in this corridor. I also have questions regarding infrastructure. Over the last year, I've participated in conversations regarding the sewer service in this area, and I'm struggling to reconcile statements that this project requires little infrastructure. The project proposes approximately 640 linear feet of sewer pipeline within Idaho Avenue, which is a two-lane road and our main road to exit the church and school every day. My hope is that we're looking at the whole picture and not just the project directly in front of us today. The decisions made in this area will affect families, schools, churches, infrastructure, and public services for decades to come. As someone who plans to live here, raise my family here, and continue serving this community for many years, I simply want to make sure that we're getting it right the first time. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir.

Good morning. My name is Charmaine McWilliams. I live at 717 Idaho, just up from the church. My house overlooks the church. I see the view. It's beautiful. The one thing that hasn't been brought up is that the shape of Escondido City is a puzzle piece. And so my next door neighbor is in the city. Beautiful adobe home. My neighbor across the street is in the county. I'm in the county. The house is in the county. Pedregal is county, I believe. We are on sewer. We are not on sewer. So I just want you to know that it's an interesting puzzle. I don't know how it's going to work. but I'm sure you do. I'm going to read from my notes because I want to get it right, and forgive me for that. The proposed project description does not accurately address major problems that exist or will be exacerbated caused by this project. Touchstone only dealt with problems within their community or their property. that leaves County Planning Commission and the residents of the fifth district to cope with or pay for problems created by this project. Idaho Avenue is a narrow two-lane country road that already has heavy commuter traffic as noted by the minister. It is used as a shortcut from Bear Valley Parkway to Interstate 15. In fact, it goes to Bear Valley and then leads to Valley Center and people go also to Ramona. In the morning and reverse in the evening, This is compounded by the drop-off and pickup of school across the street from this project, and the project proposes residents to enter the same location on Idaho as the school. Without a left-hand turn lane for school parents entering from the south, it creates confusion and potential accidents. If the turn lane was occupied, where does the parent turn? The project proposes to widen Idaho within the neighborhood of the 42 homes. This requires that it would simply push unworkable congestion down the road. The traffic survey said that the traffic volume in the morning is not a problem. It is obvious to me that the property at 717 Idaho, that this survey was not done in the morning when the school was in session.

Can you summarize, ma'am?

When I look out my window... 17 cars are backed up in front of our house, past the school, past Pedregal, and on and on. So 17 cars per stoplight. Across the valley, it's the same. The road is not wide enough to manage 400 more trips.

Can you summarize, ma'am?

I can't. The county needs more housing, absolutely. Lower density would not be in keeping with the neighborhood and the environment. Overloading the infrastructure of the roads will not serve the county of the future. In our case, when Bear Valley Parkway was expanded down the other direction, the traffic was diverted to Idaho and that has not changed. To this day we have signs posted there are no large trucks to go. I saw a truck with a double gas tank, two trailers going down my street. And we're not supposed to have double. We're not supposed to have it. Yeah. It's crazy. And it's the speed limit is 25 and 35 miles per hour, which is not enforced, not enforced, not enforced. I can't get out of my driveway.

So thank you for your comments and thank you for coming down. Thank you. You should meet Pomerata road and Scripps ranch. if you want to see some matter of traffic where there's no speed enforcement and trucks are not allowed. But that's another story. Do we have further public testimony?

Yes, we do. Just as a friendly reminder, can we also respect the room and make sure that there's no applause? I'll go ahead and proceed. Next, we have Michael Nemeth, Sandra Davis, and Sylvia McChesney.

Good morning. My name is Michael name it and I live at 1303 Park Hill Lane just above the project and our road is about 9 to 12 feet across many large trucks have been stuck in that area I think even a fire truck once before in the past. We as most of the residents on our Hill and surrounding area, especially in the county of Escondido enjoy the rural feel of this area like the pictures you have up over here old San Diego. Many things have came with our purchase of our homes in the county, like abundant natural trees, open lands, tame wildlife like occasional deer, rocky hills, which we build our yards and gardens around, and dark, starry nights, which we can play name that planet with our children and grandchildren, and a safer, less crowded community. Besides some of the aesthetics I've mentioned, there are real concerns with the doubling of the housing base density in this project. As you may have noticed or heard in the past two years, traffic has substantially increased on Bear Valley Road and has spilled over to the smaller side roads as usual when populations grow too much and too fast. More houses and no more road space means more than congestion, but serious road hazards like more accidents from speedy drivers in school and housing zones. Escondido Christian School School and church is right across the narrow one-lane road, exposing children to a much higher threat of getting struck by drivers beating each other out of an overcrowded housing project in the morning. Also, there are plenty of statistics showing when people are crammed in tighter living spaces, especially in low-income housing, high crime is a direct result. And what about police enforcement? I personally have run into this serious project and many others on the street about which government entity protects us citizens. If you call 911, they do not want to dispatch the police since it is slightly in the county. there are not enough sheriff' s and so you have to wait 45 minutes to an hour and a half to get help from a highway and whatever the developer states on the time to complete the project will be far much longer our water project for some years ago on park hill was supposed to require a few months of rock digging not a few years as it took to blast and dig out rocks the size of the large trucks from the ground a few feet under. Plus, there will be a huge drum truck running and ruining existing roads, which taxpayers will have to ultimately pay the cost. In summary, I hope you see the detriments to us existing homeowners and travelers caused by this project. And thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next.

my name is sandra davis I' m a long time resident of escondido it' s obvious that this proposed project is very complex I don' t feel like I have sufficient information yet I don' t feel like we' ve had opportunity to study it and I respectfully request that there be a continuation that we can study the

Take your time.

I am. that' s the primary thing secondarily I guess I don' t want to repeat things that have already been discussed but this project the impact that it will have on our community is being greatly underestimated and I have a lot of concerns about that we need time to study it and study all of the details so we know what' s going to happen there' s going to be much more impact on our community than has been presented at this meeting thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Sylvia McChesney. I live on Idaho, second house in on Idaho. I look right down over this project. The nursery is the view out my kitchen window and many of my other windows. I want to thank the property owner for maintaining the property so well. It has not been a fire hazard for a grass fire because of that. I've lived there for 25 years. I've lived in the zip code for 50 years. I've watched it grow. Other speakers have talked about the increase of traffic on Idaho as stoplights have been installed. It has become a thorough way for grocery trucks, speeding cars, and everything else. Problem is, because we are these isolated spots of city and county, nobody really cares about the road. Idaho for much of it on the west side has no sidewalks, no shoulders, and an open ditch. There's no safe way to walk on it. on the east side there is a small shoulder but it's still it is not safe it's not safe for bicycles it's not safe for people walking I see this project as making that worse under the density laws I believe that there has to be access some sort of access to public transit well I was shocked to learn it's only half mile away because I thought it was down on Ash and Valley Parkway, which I think is more than half a mile. The other way, it's the Wild Animal Park, which is five. There are no sidewalks to get there, so it is not practical for any way, shape, or form for public transit. The extra density makes that a real issue. If this was 21 units, I would not be here. Concerning the traffic, what happens, it's almost impossible to go out of my street and turn right in the morning. I try not to. The last time I did it, it took me four cycles of the traffic light to make it that block down the hill to Highway 78 and then turn left. The left turn lane is not protected and it is extremely short. it holds three cars so since there's no right turn lane and no extended left turn lane everybody comes down that one lane whether you want to turn right go straight ahead or make a left turn so all it takes is one person who doesn't want to do what the person is doing behind them it comes to a grinding halt at the same time the oncoming traffic to the intersection and claim their right to turn after the light turns sometimes to at the very minimum the things that should be done the developer needs to widen it put in both sides of Idaho and put in some traffic calming up the hill for the blind driveways and roads.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

Up next, we have Teddy Jackson and Tom Emery.

I'm hoping everybody received this handout that I sent a couple days ago. thank you. good morning commissioners my name is teddy jackson I' m speaking on behalf of protect rural escondido we respectfully request a 90-day continuance the county' s process has narrowed public review by relying on the outdated 2011 general plan eir instead of a full limited infrastructure, animal keeping properties, wildlife movement, and a long-established rural character that was once the heart of the county's citrus industry, with three historical farmhomes owned by prominent figures, including Ulysses S. Grant's family. Our first concern is the serious failure of public noticing. The county worked with the developer for two years, yet this community had no notice until last month. The primary notice was a sign posted 30 feet from a road with no safe place to pull over, surrounded by deep weeds and dangerous for residents to access. This is not meaningful public engagement. It is an injustice to a predominantly older demographic rural community. The county's website further widens the digital divide for residents who may not know how to find documents nor download technical studies. There was no community meeting, no accessible briefing, and no real opportunity for informed public participation. We also object to the project's transportation assumptions. The county stated there is a bus stop a half a mile away, but that bus goes to Ramona. Ramona's lovely, but it is not an employment center, so very incorrect, misleading information. The nearest one is on Ash Street that takes you to the transit centers. That's over a mile walk along a road that has no sidewalks. very dangerous. We also object to the project's, excuse me, the project also raises serious access concerns. The commission must evaluate conflicts between project driveways, Escondido Christian School and Church, and existing rural road conditions. There will be daily safety issues. My daughter also attended Escondido Christian. We almost got t-boned by a crazy person driving San Pasqual Road and running a light. This project is also concerned about possible long-term sewer gas odors from the onsite sewer lift station. The county should require mitigation monitoring, maintenance obligations, emergency backup systems, odor controls, and enforceable response procedures before approving this project. Construction impacts also require a stronger review. The project includes grading and possible rock blasting. Historically, this land has been used as a dumping location, which is on county record, which raises questions about what materials may be there and disturbed by airborne pollutants that could be released. Dust, silica, diesel exhaust, contaminated soil, and construction pollutants could measure and cause... problems for school children. Strong mitigation measures must be required and most importantly this project is being analyzed as a single project. A 400 unit housing and county city annexation project is proposed across the street in which the two developers have been in lockstep. The county must analyze the cumulative impacts of these two projects together, including traffic safety, affected intersections, and evacuation notices. Protect Rural Escondido is not saying no housing. We are saying, maybe, maybe in my backyard. Housing must be planned with respect for infrastructure, public safety, animal keeping, rural identity, and the people who already live here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Before we continue, may I ask where that handout that she held up is in the package? Yeah.

That was provided in one of the e-comments that was submitted. Okay. So that was inside of...

I sent it in to the clerk.

You sent it directly to the Planning Commission website?

Yes, to the person you told to send things to two days before.

I will check the records to see exactly where that specific document is located.

Thank you. Just hand it up here and we'll take a look at it if you don't mind. Thank you. Next speaker, sir.

Thank you for your time. My name is Thomas Emery. I live at 1583 Glenna Drive, which is right across the street from this development. First off, you guys got to go out there and look at this plot of land and then picture 42 houses on it. It just doesn't add up. I've just gone through their literature. I only got to page 188. The project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to community character, visual quality, or neighborhood compatibility. It's right on there. That's wrong. Dedicated bicycle lane right turn pocket and shoulder improvements along the project frontage on SR 78 not to Idaho Avenue They are proposing a future bike lane going up Idaho Ave, but not now And what's with this bonus density thing I mean they could they can 100% density That's that's nuts 42 units 21 Maybe doable. 42, nuts. Okay. Increased traffic flow. They say they have an access road to I-78. it' s not on the maps. They should have a road going to I-78 and a road going to Idaho that would decrease the traffic flow in Idaho. I don' t see it on the maps. What about construction? How are they going to monitor the dust mitigation? Are they going to have heavy equipment going up and down that road all day? My my road Glen I will suffer because you know they're gonna be turning down up and down that road just to make u-turns and whatnot I'd recommend it be repaid that the developers expense And you put 42 units in there which is 80 some people and you're gonna have increased traffic increased crime and Increase population density wildlife habitat they have a thing in there that says yeah we're not going to tear down any trees but there are hawks nesting all over the place on that property. Property values what's going to happen to my house is property value when 42 units go in. Quarter mile down the road. And the scenic vista thing. How could I be looking down at 42 houses instead of a nice open field? And the 10-foot, you guys have restricted this to five feet. You've narrowed it down to 10 feet between houses. You get a fire in that place. That whole place is going up in smoke.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah, I hope you guys think about this. Oh, and a continuation would be a really good idea because I just got this notice last month. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We will now go to our first caller, Cheryl Stephenson.

If you signed up but your name was not called, why don't you come up in groups of three and we'll take your testimony now. And you need to fill out with Secretary a speaker slip, please.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is David McIntosh, county resident. I live across the field where I can see that intersection. I can hear the sirens. I can hear the sound of the children playing at the school every day. And I wonder what this will look like with the additional traffic. It was mentioned 396 average daily trips will be added, but I wonder if they figured that that's all going to be at the same time. As Mr. Phelps mentioned, that their traffic is happening at the same time as you figure the there's no public schools nearby there as a public school teacher at university faculty I think about these things that there's going to be people leaving far away from whether schools are they all have to leave at the same time. They all have to be coming at the same time that the private school across the street and the church are going to be coming with their parents at the same time. And that's going to be a real difficult thing. Due to the amount of misrepresentations we see and noticed by other speakers and the complexity of this, we would request a 90-day continuance to be able to look at this. We're just finding out about so many of these other things. we wonder about the traffic that's going to be happening there and the density bonus permit as mentioned also like presenting this as something that's great for the community when in fact it's only the minimum amount of that that's that's being added to be able to double the density of the project there and they're adding what seven possibilities and then thinking as if that school across the street is going to be a place where they're going to be able to afford to go that's not going to be the school they're going to even be attending. Also considering the cost of HOA fees, is it still going to be affordable housing when you factor that in too? And you need to wonder, that's probably not the real reason why those affordable housing is being added there, those units at all. It's only to be able to double the density to 42. And again, 21, 20 residents there, 20 homes there on that property, seems totally reasonable. But to double it for that reason and the amount of traffic... It was mentioned also extra review for the archaeological sites. needs to be done the amount of earth moving that needs to happen and also was mentioned that there might be soil contamination there from dumping that happened in the past all these things need to be considered it was also mentioned the idea of annexing to the city like one day this would be part of the city of escondido when you figure in the sewer and then the water services that they want to add my house is in the contiguous line coming from the boundary of escondido across that field where they want to build the aldea development and then over to there And as you can see, that idea of annexation, that's not a given. No one is in favor of that in the entire neighborhood. And so that's someday becoming that. That comes directly through my neighborhood and where I live. And right now that seems most unlikely to happen. The other misrepresentations I think other people have covered. And so due to all those different things and a lot of other things that need to be looked at and solved here, a 90-day continuance would be wonderful.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, staff and the commissioners. It's amazing looking at San Diego. It's such a beautiful place, and it's so interesting. When we moved to San Diego, everybody starts in PB as a single, and then you buy a house in Claremont. And now I live in Escondido, and I've been raising four kids there for about 10 years. And my name is Bob Weller. I need to remind myself to do that. And I live about 200 yards straight up the road from where this is going. I do applaud Mr. Garza for trying to take on such a project like this. We definitely do need additional housing, both in the county and in Escondido. I sit on the Escondido Union High School Board. I was recent past president. I'm still there. and we definitely need more housing and I appreciate the low-income housing that he's going to be building. I did the math even on a $700,000 and I'm a mortgage broker as well on a $700,000 townhome or house even with 10% down you're looking at a payment of about $5,500 a month and as we all know a teacher starting pay is about $66,000 a year to be able to afford housing so the fact that there was going to be super low housing in there I appreciate the density is a little high I have to admit on that so I guess if I can summarize the main things that I really know and I know that the county planners you guys staff have really put time into this is the traffic and the transportation is transportation corridor in that area. If any of you were to try to ride a bicycle on San Pasqual Valley or Idaho, you would know that you're going to probably have a likelihood of getting killed because it's so dangerous. And so the tension becomes widening the roads, making the roads safer, you know, bicycles probably not an option if you saw the area, and then still being able to get additional housing in that's not a million dollars a unit. So as somebody who sits on the high school board that understands we need housing, we need affordable housing and yet this area here with this development and then the other two major developments that are going to be going in up there this traffic pattern right here at the corner of samples are samples well in idaho is going to be a catastrophic mess and here's why not only does it look like a four-way intersection but idaho going east is like this and so when people are coming down this road here and they're looking this way is making a left turn here we have seen so many near misses because people look like oh they're going to go off to the right in fact they're coming across the roadway there so I'm in favor of this but I really think a little bit more time in development especially as it relates to traffic needs to be attended to this otherwise you're going to see a loss of life okay thank you.

Thank you sir.

Is there anyone else that was missed? Okay, we'll go ahead and proceed with Cheryl Stevenson. Cheryl, if you're on the line, go ahead and please state your name for the record and begin your comment.

Yes, thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm writing as a property owner directly adjacent to the proposed Pascal Heights project site along the San Pascal Valley corridor near the Idaho Avenue and 78 intersection. I respectfully request a 90-day continuance. My most significant concern is a lack of meaningful public notice and early engagement. While this project has been in development for over an extended period between the county and the applicant, affected residents were not made aware of its scope and potential impacts until very recently. As a result, the public is effectively being introduced to a near fully developed project at the hearing stage, rather than being meaningfully engaged during the time when key assumptions and design decisions are being made, which creates a fundamentally reactive process for the community, even when minimum noticing requirements are met that practical result is a directly impacted residents are not given a realistic opportunity to understand and respond to the project or in a timely or meaningful way. This really undermines public trust and gives the appearance of community input is secondary rather than the integral to the process. As an elected body, Your responsibility is to the constituents who live with long-term consequences of these decisions. In rural communities such as San Pascual Valley, where infrastructure constraints, roadway limitations, emergency access, agricultural uses, and existing land use patterns already define daily life, early and transparent engagement is essential to fair and responsible planning and leadership. I also have serious concerns regarding traffic and safety. San Pascual Valley Road functions as a critical rural corridor that serving all of us residents, schools, churches, agricultural operations, and emergency access. Additional development will increase traffic pressure on a roadway system that was never designed for suburban-scale density. The Commission should carefully evaluate the intersection safety, driveway conflicts, school-related traffic impacts, and cumulative traffic conditions in the surrounding area. I would also like to emphasize the importance of preserving the agricultural character of this area. I do work for a farming operation that has been active in this region for over 100 years, and agriculture remains a defining and valuable part of Eskinder's identity and local economy. This quarter is still actively used for farming in rural areas, and that context should be a key consideration when evaluating land use compatibility. Finally, this project cannot be properly evaluated in isolation. separate large-scale residential and annexation proposal to the across the street is considered in conjunction with this project the cumulative impacts on traffic capacity emergency evacuation routes agricultural viability and rural community character must be fully analyzed this is not a request to oppose housing it is a request to ensure that housing is planned responsibly with transparency early and meaningful public participation and full consideration of the realities of existing rural communities For these reasons, I respectfully request a 90-day continuance, additional community outreach, which is hugely important, and a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis before this project proceeds further. I do thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

Hey, good morning, everyone. This is Ryan Ross at 600 Idaho, right at the intersection of Encino and Idaho, probably about several hundred feet from the proposed development. Everything that has been said has been great and wiser words than me. We're a family that's been here for 12 years raising our boys on Idaho. We don't go in the front yard because it's dangerous, play in the backyard. It seems to be, this is my point, there's a lack of awareness to the traffic and the safety of the proposed development and what it does to Idaho. The road is 24 feet in front of our house. And you need to know that our neighbors, we meet with each other usually at traffic accidents. When we hear it, everyone comes outside and you get to say hello to your neighbors. So please just be aware of the disconnect and communication and awareness of the traffic and what it's doing to Idaho. That is my central point this morning as I am trying to focus on work at the same time. Thank you so much for making it possible to hear from local residents that are deeply impacted and living in the surrounding area of the proposed development. Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

That is it for our speakers who wish to participate via phone.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. That concludes public testimony. Commissioners, do you wish to hear from the applicant on the traffic related issues or do you want to hear from staff? I do have one preliminary question. This is again, another notice and opportunity to be heard. How long has this project been in process?

This particular project chair was submitted in 2024. So it's been in process for a couple of years now.

And have you had community outreach and meetings, et cetera?

Similar to what I had shared previously, so we notice the surrounding property owners when we receive an application. We also provide another notice during the public disclosure period for the CEQA documentation, all the analysis that we prepared, and then we prepared another notice ahead of the meeting today.

And my final question, because I don't want to preempt the other commissioners, is this. Could someone speak to this issue on traffic?

Happy to, Chair. There were a number of concerns that were raised, so I'll kind of go through them and then see if there's any follow-up questions. One of the questions was about the timing of the traffic study and if the counts for the existing schools were reflected in that, and the answer to that is yes. All the existing counts were conducted during school hours. So it did account for the church and the school that is next door to the property. So the turns coming in and out of the school were all reflected and studied as part of the analysis. We also studied both Idaho Avenue and we also studied the 78 or San Pascual Valley Road. We coordinated directly with Caltrans on that. The developer is going to be required to install a bike lane and some striping along the 78 pursuant to Caltrans direction. They also are going to be installing sidewalks on both sides of the property for the full extent of the frontage. So along 78 and then along Idaho Avenue as well. We've confirmed that they do meet site distance. And then at the intersections themselves, the project does not add enough traffic to those intersections to warrant any changes to the traffic signal or any additional measures to be installed there. So from a traffic perspective, we did study both roads, both intersections, and there's no additional measures beyond the installation of the sidewalks that was proposed by the developer.

And I don't want to ask a pedestrian question, but did you... go out during the rush hour or the school hours and observe what we've heard today about the long line of cars and traffic?

Chair, that was all part of the study that was done. That's correct, yes.

Okay. Commissioners, would you like to hear from the applicant or do you have questions?

Chair Edwards, actually, I do have one more caller that was previously not connected before. She's actually connected right now. Would it be okay to go ahead and join that caller?

Sure. Let's do it.

Hello. Good morning, Commission. My name is Neil Bokta. I live in Center Stage Lane. and i am two questions two concerns i have traffic and density i'm not against 21 units i believe that's reasonable that's only with more more infrastructure improvement but 42 at 100 percent of what state allows i think that's just mind-blowing it will have will create so much infrastructure and traffic issue on idaho especially as many mentioned this road is not maintained last 20 years no work has been done so many potholes open ditches no sidewalk so if this project goes any further further infrastructure and development needs to be addressed on idaho leading up towards the freeway going west that is a big thing and i live on center stage through a part of lane dropping my kids off in the morning turning left is impossible even though i have to turn left i have to go right and go around a mile and a half to come back around and that's this is just without this hot 500 trips being added With these many trips, it's going to be impossible. It's a death trap. And we may all regret it in the future. And especially if there's more development coming along across the street, it's going to be a nightmare. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes public testimony. Again, commissioners, I'll turn it over to you. Do you wish to hear from anybody, applicant? Does someone wish to make a motion? Yes, Commissioner.

I think if the applicant would like to respond to any public testimony, it would be good to hear from them. You don't have to. Sure.

Hello again, Commissioners. Cary Garza touched on communities The comments they raised were addressed through the technical studies studied for the last year and a half with staff in regard to The lineup of our infantry with the entrance to the church school across three that was a requirement by traffic engineering It's much more safe to have them lined up and have them offset We are creating a turn pocket a dedicated turn lane for the school to mitigate their traffic so that flow on idaho avenue can go around them right now it' s one lane and it backs up we' re widening idaho avenue adding a turn pocket for them so it' s going to be a much safer condition that will additionally relieve traffic impacts on the san pasqual valley road because right now cars are waiting there' s a big long queue so this will help clear up that whole area. of course the concerns they raised were studied in all the technical studies from blasting and environmental issues and there hasn' t been dumping on the property it' s been well maintained for a long time so all that' s research in the geotechnical studies and environmental studies sure they have concerns but they've been addressed it's just that these people haven't taken the time to go back and look at technical studies if if they did they would see it they they've had plenty of notice on the project we've been at it for a couple years this is no surprise so please don't do that any other questions commissioners any other questions no I

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Pellinger.

Just for the benefit of the community and as far as the density is concerned, that is not a county land use issue. That's a state of California mandate from our legislature. So if you object to what they do up in Sacramento, we should change who's up there.

All right. That is public testimony, ladies and gentlemen. Commissioners, is there a motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation for the tentative map density bonus permit and to adopt CEQA.

Commissioners, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Zabellico seconds. Discussion?

Anything further? Just one quick, thank you very much for all the public that came down and took the time to come down here and speak. Thank you.

I know it's a real imposition on you. Thank you. I'll make one comment. Yes, sir.

Well, I agree with what Commissioner Palindra said regarding density bonus that, you know, it is the law of the lands. I know people have strong opinions on it one way or the other and we feel about it we were obligated to uphold the law as it' s written and it' s very clear on this issue they' re entitled to the 42 units under the law. I' ve heard testimony that the applicant is going above and beyond what they' re required to do by creating a dedicated turn lane and widening I just want to comment that if we were to deny housing projects across the board where there is existing traffic, we would deny every housing project that would come across our desk. So I'm mindful of the fact that there is traffic concerns in your community and every community, including mine. we nevertheless have to apply the standard of what traffic are they adding to the existing community. We can't hold them accountable for fixing the problems that already exist. We're only gonna make them fix the problems that they would be responsible for adding and 42 units is in my opinion not a great amounts in terms of the existing traffic that we've already heard testimony about there's between 315 and 438 students at asking the Christian school according to what I just looked up on online so Adding 42 units, the number of car trips on that road, I just don't think it reaches the significant threshold for us to deny the project. So for that reason, I'm in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner. Anything further, gentlemen? All right. If not, let's vote.

Commissioners, please vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

and Commissioner Sabellico.

Yes.

Let the record show that item two passes with a vote of four in favor, none opposed, and three absent.

Let's go to item number five, the ADU ordinance.

Thanks, Chair. As we switch out team members, just to tee this one up, on March 4th, 2020-26, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance for the sale of accessory dwelling units. That ordinance has gone into effect and is implemented now. However, at that March hearing a few months ago, the board did ask staff to go back and look at options that could be added into the ordinance to support first-time homebuyers, as well as considerations for tenants in existing ADUs if they were to be sold. Today's update is going to summarize those options as it relates to potential amendments to the ADU ordinance, and then based on Planning Commission recommendation today, we'll return to the board in two months with an updated set of options, specifically focused on first-time homebuyers and then existing tenant considerations. And then once our staff is situated, we'll go through our presentation as usual. Thank you, Mr. Director.

Good morning, Chair Ashman and Planning Commissioners. Today's staff is requesting the Commission to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a potential amendment to the zoning ordinance related to the separate cell of accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs. We will be discussing the separate cell of ADUs and potential options for implementation that support homeownership and encourage owner occupancy. We will review the direction provided by the Board of Supervisors, then we will introduce draft options for supporting homeownership and owner occupancy through the separate sale of ADUs. San Diego County is one of the few jurisdictions in California that allows the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums. This creates a new pathway to homeownership by allowing ADUs to be sold separately from the primary home, often at a lower price point than traditional single-family residents. For many households, especially first time homebuyers, this can provide a more attainable entry into the housing market and expand home ownership opportunities in the unincorporated area. On March 4, 2026, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance allowing the separate sale of ADUs under the state framework established by AB 1033. This approach was previously recommended by the Planning Commission and supported the greatest flexibility. While the Board adopted the ordinance without additional local criteria, they also directed staff to return with options that could further support home ownership and owner occupancy. The options presented today build on that direction and would apply only to properties with ADUs sold separately from the primary home under AB 1033.

Today's request is for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation to the Board on four draft options specifically related to the separate sale of ADUs. The Board may choose to implement one, several, or none of these options. Adoption of any new implementation criteria would build upon the county's existing program for the separate sale of ADUs. Before we go into the details of each option, we'd like to provide a brief overview of the four approaches staff developed as part of this effort. The options are intended to expand access to home ownership while promoting stability and owner occupancy through the separate sale of 80Us. While each option takes a slightly different approach, the draft options include option one, maintaining the existing ordinance as implemented earlier this year, which allows the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums following state framework. Option two, a right of first refusal providing existing tenants or other condo owners on the property with the first opportunity to match a purchase offer. Option three, requiring owner occupancy for a certain period to encourage primary residency. Option four, listing period that prioritizes buyers intending to use the ADU as their primary residence.

With the first option, the Board may choose not to add any additional local criteria and not to implement any of the other options. This would maintain the ADU ordinance as it was adopted on March 4th and continue to allow the separate sale of ADUs as condominiums using framework from State Code AB 1033. This would preserve maximum flexibility for property owners and avoid added regulatory complexity. The current ordinance, as it exists, works to advance local policy objectives to increase homeownership opportunities by creating smaller, more attainable units available for sale.

Our second option is a right of first refusal. Under this approach, before a unit could be sold, An existing tenant or another condo owner on the property would have the opportunity to match the purchase offer the draft option includes a 30 day window to execute a matching sales agreement. The intent is to create a pathway to home ownership for existing tenants or others already connected to the property, while also supporting stability and potentially reducing displacement. It could also provide opportunities for multi generational living arrangements, this option would mainly apply to occupied properties, so it may have less impact on newly constructed units entering the market for the first time. A right of first refusal would add new requirements to the sales process and could affect marketability or transaction timing. Stakeholders suggested that a shorter response window, such as 15 days, could help balance flexibility with the intent of the program. If the board chooses to pursue this option, the response timeframe could be adjusted prior to adoption.

Option 3 is an owner occupancy affidavit, which would apply to both existing units and new construction. This option would require buyers of ADU condominium units to sign an affidavit confirming that they or a family member intend to occupy the units as their primary residence for a specified period. This approach is intended to prioritize owner occupants. In doing so, it supports long-term community stability and aligns with the Board's intent in promoting owner occupancy. During outreach, we heard mixed feedback on this approach. Some participants questioned how an owner occupancy requirement could be effectively enforced and whether it would substantially change purchasing patterns, noting that many buyers may already intend to live in their units they purchase. An owner occupancy requirement is a new responsibility for both the buyer and the seller of an ADU. Buyers would be required to commit to residency. For sellers, marketability may be impacted if potential buyers perceive an owner occupancy requirement as too restrictive.

Option four is a public posting period. Under this approach, ADU condominium units would be publicly listed for a set period, such as 30 days, with a disclosure noting that priority is intended for buyers who plan to use the unit as a primary residence. The intent is to increase transparency and provide a fair opportunity for eligible buyers, including first-time home buyers, to learn about and compete for these units. In many cases, this may already align with how units are marketed today. At the same time, this option would add new responsibilities for sellers, particularly in situations involving wait lists or time sensitive transactions, such as 1031 exchanges. For that reason, the draft language includes the ability for some exceptions at the director's discretion. If the board chooses to pursue this option, it may choose to modify the required posting timeframe at their discretion prior to adoption.

In addition to evaluating the options for local criteria for the separate sale of ADUs, staff also considered several additional broader concepts that may have potential to support homeownership opportunities for all housing types. These concepts were evaluated but determined not to be necessarily specific to the ADU separate sale program. Concepts that were explored include tenant relocation assistance beyond the one month that the state requires for no-fault evictions, empty homes tax, similar to what the City of San Diego is exploring, deed restrictions, legally permissible under limited circumstances and would require significant administrative oversight, larger ADU types requiring a new CEQA analysis for such ADUs in a new section of the zoning ordinance, Some of these concepts may be appropriate for future exploration to extend to more housing types. It's worth noting that due to the compressed timeline of the current board direction to bring forward options specific to ADU condominiums, staff have presented the most applicable and feasible options. These additional concepts require broader timelines to accommodate more robust stakeholder engagement. Existing efforts that support home ownership county wide and for all housing types are the county's low income and moderate income down payment assistance programs administered by the county's housing and Community Development Services or HCS. Any first time homebuyer effort administered by the county that includes condominiums as eligible property types also include at you condominiums. HCDS is currently exploring the feasibility of expanding these programs and expects to report options to the Board in a memo this summer.

To better understand stakeholder concerns and opportunities, staff hosted a public webinar, published options for review, and engaged with stakeholders and subject matter experts. Feedback showed strong public interest in the county's new ADU condominium program, with much of the discussion focused on understanding the existing requirements before adding new local criteria. There was also continued interest in whether applicants would realistically be able to qualify for and develop ADU condominiums for separate sale. Owner occupancy was another key theme with mixed views on how to approach it. A required public listing period to prioritize owner-occupants was favored by some housing advocates, while others felt the market already naturally favors owner-occupants without additional requirements. Feedback also questioned the impact of applying these requirements to a narrow housing type rather than all housing types. stakeholders and industry experts consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining flexibility for property owners, as the program is implemented. Overall, there was a strong support for expanding home ownership opportunities, while minimizing complexity for buyers and sellers. stakeholders noted that additional requirements could create delays and development professionals emphasized the importance of avoiding requirements that could make projects harder to complete. On a final note, The options brought forward today were developed in response to board direction and county priorities related to homeownership and owner occupancy, and were further refined through public and stakeholder feedback to incorporate flexibility for the implementation of certain options.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. Find that the program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and state and county CEQA regulations. Provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on local implementation criteria for the separate cell of ADUs. This concludes our presentation. Staff are available to answer questions.

Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions or do you wish to engage in discussion before we take any planning response or groups? Testimony? No. So do we have, Madam Secretary, any planning or sponsor groups, or do we have people wishing to speak on the issue?

We did have one member from a planning and sponsor group who wanted to communicate, but she's not online at the moment.

Okay.

And then other than that, we don't have any public comment.

No public comments? Correct. All right, Commissioners. There aren't any community planning groups wishing to speak. No public testimony, so what's your pleasure?

I guess our job is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. I personally do not have an issue with number two and would recommend a 30-day notice period. I have no issues with number three. I think it encourages owner occupancy. I don't know if it should be one year or five years. And number four, I have no issue with that posting. I know it's more work for everybody, but it seems fair and I would recommend 30 days.

Thank you. Commissioners, any other comments, observations? Yes, sir.

Would staff please put up the slide with the four options so we can discuss? I have trouble remembering which one is which.

As we pull that up, commissioners, it may just be helpful. There was a reference to, for the owner occupancy affidavit, one year, five years. As a reference point, the city of San Diego also has an owner affidavit. It is one year. So I share that just as a reference point for your consideration.

Well, with that input, Mr. Director, I would favor one year so we're consistent with the city.

So are we putting up the options?

We are, thank you for your patience. Thank you. Working hard in a new setup with the technology slightly different.

There it is.

So Commissioner Pallinger, your recommendation would be option three and four?

Commissioner, options two, three, and four. Option two, first right of refusal. They have 30 days to match any future purchase offer. I know it's more work, but it does seem fair to me. Option number three is occupy the unit as a primary residence for a set period one year consistent with the city of San Diego. And option number four, although it's more work, a 30-day notice helping to prioritize owner occupancy.

Yeah, it seems logical to me. I have no objection to two, three, or four. I do have a blanket objection to ADUs, but that's neither here nor there. They're a blight in our neighborhood. So two, three, and four is acceptable to me. Commissioners, what's your pleasure here?

I would... I would ask that we not approve option number three. I understand the appeal of it, but I just think that there's many use cases, for lack of better terminology, where someone might want to purchase an ADU but not live there or live there in the future or have a grandparent or a child live there for a time and then You know move another grandparent or another child in there for a time. I think that making the owner occupancy requirement would Unnecessarily or wouldn't incentivize the supply which we're trying to do with with this with this ordinance So I think I mean, I'm not I don't feel super strongly about it. I will admit if you feel strongly about a Commissioner Prollinger I'm not gonna fight you on it, but I would rather have two and four rather than two three and four I

Uh, thank you, commissioner. Um, where there was some reference to family members are all considered owner occupancy. So it's not just a single owner, be anybody in the immediate family or is that, is that true?

Commissioner through the chair. That's correct. It would apply to family members.

Yeah, it does help actually. So, okay. I'll drop my objection. All right, gentlemen, anything further? I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to find the project exempt from CEQA and make a recommendation that item number two option is included with a 30-day period, option number three with a one-year period consistent with the city, and item number four with a 30-day period.

All right, gentlemen, there's the motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner. Any further discussion on the item? If not, let's vote.

Commissioners, please vote. Commissioner Ashman.

Yes.

Chair Edwards.

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger.

Yes.

And Commissioner, excuse me, Sibelico.

Yes.

And Commissioner Pallinger, you said. Yes, correct. Okay. Let the record show that item number five passes with a vote of four in favor, none opposed, and three are absent.

All righty, then. Moving on to the department report, we'll now hear the director's report.

Mr. Nicolosi? Thank you. Uh, short one today, uh, for your information, June 24th, the board of supervisors will be considering the inclusionary housing ordinance, which we presented in the past for consideration. And then, um, again, just for the July planning commission will be in this building. Thank you for a full morning.

Yes, sir. Mr. Director, when is the marijuana item scheduled to come before the board?

Thank you, Commissioner. We expect that to go in August for the first hearing of it, and that date is the August 19th.

Thank you.

Did you want to be on vacation?

Well, I want to attend that hearing.

Oh, okay. The exact opposite of what I thought, yes. Okay. No. Our next scheduled Planning Commission hearing will be on Friday, July 10, and it will be held here in the board chambers at 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 310, San Diego. And the meeting is now adjourned.