[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:26] All right, good evening, everyone. Welcome to the September 3rd meeting of the planning commission. With that, we'll take a roll call. We let the record reflected all five commissioners are present. And we'll start with the pledge of allegiance tonight.
[1:07] Oral communications, are there any speaker slips? We have none this evening. Okay.
[1:14] Any changes to the agenda tonight.
[1:20] But first I will be the consent calendar.
[1:22] the consent calendar is considered items are considered routine in nature.
[1:27] Tonight there's only one item on the consent calendar the approval of the
[1:30] minutes from the August 20th planning commission hearing. Can I get a motion on
[1:35] the consent calendar?
[1:40] I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Motion in a second.
[2:01] There we go. Okay the consent calendar passes 5-0 and we'll move right into our
[2:08] regular agenda items tonight. We'll start tonight with item 8A, the planning commission
[2:16] determination of general plan conformance for the purchase of property located at 2883
[2:22] Loan Jack Road for the potential development of a new fire station. With that, prior to
[2:30] this, are there any disclosures by planning commissioners?
[2:38] No disclosures, I won, I buy it three times a day, with that I'll turn it over to Denise
[2:47] Russell for a staff presentation.
[2:50] Actually, we have the director online, via phone, the presentation, sorry, put you on the
[2:57] spot.
[2:59] Good evening, Sarah Dalton, listeners, hopefully you can hear me.
[3:04] Yes, we can hear you.
[3:06] wonderful. I apologize for not being there tonight. My plans for flying to the Midwest were made
[3:14] before this effort to a participation. So again, I very much apologize for not being in
[3:20] this person.
[3:23] I'll get right into it. I have a super short presentation and it's not, it will take
[3:31] Again, very long at all, it will follow up with any answers.
[3:36] If you need to ask any questions about the data.
[3:39] This project is for the termination that is required by the state 7.
[3:44] These codes before a public agency can acquire a property.
[3:49] In this case, the property is located at 28.83 with a jack road,
[3:55] and is anticipated to be used to replace the current fire station 6
[3:59] and the O'Leven Hut Community.
[4:03] The planning commissioner has a limited review for state law
[4:06] and only has to determine if the proposed acquisition
[4:09] is consistent with the general plan
[4:11] in regard to the purpose, location, and extent.
[4:17] The office is recommending that the planning submission
[4:19] make the state required finding pursuant
[4:21] to the analysis provided in the FAF report.
[4:26] And it can be noted that any development
[4:29] that this property will require future permit approval,
[4:32] including both for the design.
[4:36] The California Environment of Quality Act,
[4:38] CISO will also be considered with use and design.
[4:43] That's it.
[4:45] Both staff from the Development Service Department
[4:47] and our distinguished fire chief are here
[4:50] to answer any questions, and this concludes my presentation.
[4:55] OK, thank you very much.
[4:57] Are there any questions of the staff?
[5:00] On the planning commission? One.
[5:06] Well, thank you very much. Apologize for your travels. Be well. Josh and Denise, thank you. Shout out for finding a place. I know you've been looking for a long time in the community and it's kind of hard to find one. Just a couple of quick questions. On, in the report, there's a comment about general plan consistency and you reference the safety element goal.
[5:29] are there any other references in the general plan other than safety that support
[5:36] this? That was the only reference that was made?
[5:41] I looked in the safety element,
[5:44] the land use element, and a couple other of the elements of some of the
[5:48] policies, and it really wasn't losing that hit right on the bulls eye.
[6:03] This is
[6:04] require property or sell property without even going through the process, but technically
[6:10] you are supposed to do it from state law and really what I've found over the years is
[6:15] that when you're looking through the general plan from a policy perspective, you're really
[6:22] focusing on more on policies that would require that you could just use the property for
[6:32] that fire station and acquire it for that use rather than be consistent with the real
[6:39] difficult to find out those policies that they, yeah, the little fire station can.
[6:47] Clearly, if you look in Sloan of Beach, there's fire stations right there off of Santa
[6:51] Faye Drive, next to houses.
[6:53] I'm sure there's plenty of fire stations in residential communities across, you know,
[6:59] city and or you know local communities and you feel that this is good enough to satisfy
[7:06] that code the general of the state law? Yeah absolutely the zoning for the property
[7:16] is rural residential floodplain and that zone pursuant to the city's land use matrix actually
[7:24] allowed fire stations with the minor commercial use permitted for them.
[7:29] Okay.
[7:30] And this has, we don't have to acquire any property from the county of San Diego.
[7:36] This is all within the city of San Diego.
[7:39] So over the last few years,
[7:41] there's been some concern about maybe working with the county to acquire some property.
[7:44] So this is all within the city.
[7:49] There was some other review for other properties to satisfy this need.
[7:53] but we came upon this one, and this one, this bike and bike, and I did good at it.
[7:57] I did try.
[7:58] Okay.
[7:59] And then, lastly, this probably not the right time,
[8:03] but we're going to approve the process.
[8:07] Does this affect Little Oaks Park at all?
[8:11] Is the plan in the future has been laid out,
[8:14] and you are comfortable knowing that if you go down this path,
[8:17] the site can be, I don't know what the correct architectural word cited,
[8:22] that the fire station fits and the ingress and egress has been at least looked at in advance
[8:30] of coming to the commission. We haven't seen that yet but hopefully we're not going
[8:35] down a path on a site that can't handle the needs of the fire department.
[8:40] Yeah, correct. I comment and we have looked into it. The property has about 250 feet of
[8:50] which is a large distance at some point with the major innovation of the property.
[8:57] You could easily provide it in and out, right away, access.
[9:02] Having the park located adjacent to it, and it's real helpful from a perspective,
[9:07] which is normal impact that might even as light as they are with the forest nation
[9:13] to a residential that isn't there so the park is the park makes for a perfect neighbor.
[9:23] And then last question, the road narrows right there, coming past the looks park headed
[9:31] to I guess we'll call that the northeast.
[9:34] And I guess it narrows also coming to the southwest around that bend.
[9:38] So you're comfortable in the sighting of the station and the ingress and egress that it's
[9:44] not use the phrase a blind curve because it's a pretty narrow road it narrows
[9:50] there and it's a tight turn a few feet beyond the house as you and then the road
[9:56] opens up 500 feet or so.
[10:00] So, after passing the curve. So, has that been taken into consideration as if this site is suitable? Again, we don't have the site plan, so it's hard for me to know. But I just want to ask the question now. Now, that's again an excellent question. We have looked at it from an apparatus perspective. Our apparatus can work within that right away. And it does work even that right away. So, in the blind curve, we've also looked at that from the perspective.
[10:29] There's mitigations that we can do from a perspective of painting the street if required put in spout signs, just different type of mitigation for circulation and safety.
[10:43] But again, like you said, we don't have a site plan or development plan just developed at this time.
[10:53] Right.
[10:53] So they'd have the command later point when we get a little further down the road.
[10:57] No, I understand.
[10:58] I just wanted to make sure that was at least under thought process.
[11:01] I'm sure it was, as you know, the site has its physical limitations to it.
[11:06] I'm just hoping that that was thought, and these guys like you guys went through it and thought
[11:10] about that.
[11:11] So I appreciate it.
[11:12] Thank you.
[11:13] Thank you.
[11:14] A
[11:17] couple follow-up questions.
[11:20] The first is, how does the square footage of the site compare to the other fire stations
[11:29] that we have in town?
[11:31] Is it comparable in size to what we have or a figure?
[11:37] I haven't driven by that area for a while, but it seems like it's a pretty large piece
[11:41] of property.
[11:43] Yeah, the property is 23,000, so it's 250 feet fronted, it's a lot of low track like I mentioned, and 100 feet feet.
[11:56] As far as comparison to the other fire station, I think I'll leave that question to our fire chief who's very familiar with those other states and locations in the fight.
[12:08] So, maybe chief handles our question.
[12:14] Yeah, of course, great question.
[12:17] The, this site would be more aligned with our station four,
[12:21] which is in Village Park, right by 7-11 off of Village Park,
[12:25] and not in District right there.
[12:27] It's roughly about the same size, a different shape.
[12:30] But if you think of station two off of Birmingham,
[12:33] that's kind of a narrow lot as well.
[12:37] And so we would have to do some kind of design that would be more of that narrow lot-wise,
[12:44] but as far as square footage, it aligns a lot with station four in Gochemann.
[12:49] Okay.
[12:50] And then my understanding is that the current site that we have in Alivanhane on Rancho
[12:56] Santa Fe Road is operating off of least land right now.
[13:01] Are we in any danger of losing access to that in any time soon?
[13:06] No, the property owner there has been very gracious and collaborative with us.
[13:11] Right now we have entered into a lease for five years and we are actually going to
[13:18] do some tenant improvements to make that a larger fire station until the future permanent
[13:28] fire station can be identified.
[13:30] Right now this is a property that we're coming in general or to planning commission for, but we have we have plans for that other property off of ranch Santa
[13:41] Fey Road for long term to make sure that we can provide the service to the community.
[13:46] Okay, thank you.
[13:50] And lastly, this takes a while, my understanding is you have to send the plans to the State Board of Architecture and it takes
[13:58] well to get this bid, so an ideal world for the community, what can they expect?
[14:04] Or plus the budget has to be, I see there are certain members of the City Council here tonight.
[14:10] So there has to be a capital plan associated with funding, and we're already trying to figure out how to fund the one-down town.
[14:17] So what's the timeline in your best estimation that the community can look at for something like this?
[14:24] Well, two things. One is if you look at our this year's work plan for the City Council,
[14:31] it is one of the items to find out what our long-term budgeting is for station one and
[14:35] station six. And I'll tell you the second thing is I've learned my lesson on giving any
[14:41] time frame. I could not tell you what that is. I know that if we do find a piece of property,
[14:49] we go through design and permitting and making sure we find a budget, it's going to be
[14:53] years down the road right and we're we're planning for that long-term investment not uh
[15:00] Not to just find a spot and try to plop down on it, right? So, we want to make sure we're doing our due diligence, making sure that we're planning ahead of time, and that we're not putting the city in a spot where we can't afford it. Thank you. I have one quick question. There's a, seems to be a small triangular parcel of land to the northeast of the site. Is that part of the purchaser is at a different parcel? That's a different parcel. If you look to the other side of the street,
[15:30] there with the home. That actually belongs to that piece of property.
[15:35] So right now, it's its own property. It's not part of what we're looking at.
[15:40] Okay, but you don't need that parcel to make this site.
[15:43] No, no, no, no. Okay, thank you.
[15:47] Okay, thank you very much for those answers. Are there any public comments on this?
[15:53] No, I'm not on this item.
[15:54] Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public comment portion and
[15:58] I can open it up to Commissioner Deliberation.
[16:02] I think really just a reminder, we're only talking about the purchase of land and not the design or the future station that will be there.
[16:13] Just do we think it's an appropriate site to purchase.
[16:18] Yeah, I mean look, I support the opportunity to buy the property, the community clearly needs it and it's been a priority for the city for many, many years.
[16:27] Mayor Ailer is here tonight, lives in the community, knows he's probably heard this conversation for the last 15 to 20 years, and I know Josh is probably, excuse me,
[16:37] Fire Chief Gordon has probably had to deal with this for a super long time with all the leases over what we currently have on that temporary spot.
[16:44] I mean, this is an important component to the community to actually find a place and get the ball rolling to the next chapter is really important for the community.
[16:53] I think for all events in the US because many of the fires come back from which Greek and others came over the hill and having that response time is critical.
[17:04] And on an underlying piece of it is also something as simple as fire insurance that people are having.
[17:10] A lot of us have been dropped from our insurance companies and having response times narrowed even by half a mile from the existing.
[17:18] But I think it's more not just the response time, but the type of trucks that respond.
[17:24] I think right now we have a very, the type of truck that we have can't do the kind of work
[17:30] that a larger truck can do that can pump water and do some of the various firefighting.
[17:36] So it's an important component for the community and I think we'll impact everybody in the
[17:47] kind of equipment that we're planning on,
[17:48] or the city's planning on doing.
[17:50] So, taking a while to get even to this kickoff start,
[17:54] this beginning of this next chapter,
[17:56] but I think it's a big important step for us.
[18:01] Yeah, I definitely recognize that the city's been looking
[18:05] at that community to install a fire station.
[18:09] And I know they've been looking at that area,
[18:12] particularly in the site very closely.
[18:15] And so it's nice to see it sort of developing to the stage and moving forward.
[18:20] And I think they've done their due diligence in looking at the location and certainly
[18:24] in support of it moving forward.
[18:26] Okay.
[18:29] I would agree that it's important for us to have something that is a fully functional
[18:34] fire station for the area there.
[18:37] Development going east from there has in the year 25 years I've lived here has just continued
[18:43] to grow.
[18:44] So even if it's just a mile or so from where the station is now turning on
[18:50] tarantulasan if they rode, it's probably harder to get to go east than being
[18:55] over on Loan Jack a bit. So it feels like it would make response time a little
[19:01] bit better. I've been up in Palo Alto area when they have fire trucks come and
[19:05] there's so much traffic on those old roads that the fire trucks drive down the
[19:09] opposite side of the street which is when you're stuck there in traffic it's very
[19:13] scary so this seems like a good place to look at seeing what can be done so that for hopefully
[19:23] never but hopefully if something does come up that the fire department is able to do a
[19:27] quicker response. Okay, Michael, any comments? No comment, I'm also in support of this project.
[19:36] Why don't we move to a motion? Yeah, you know, one last thing is applaud the city and the
[19:41] staff Josh and everybody the fact that we are still able to find a site and keep little
[19:46] loaks park. I know it's a small place but it is used by the community. It is a horse driven
[19:52] community and that park is used quite a bit every now and then it gets a little hard and needs
[19:57] it be dragged, but nonetheless it's there.
[20:00] It is you. So, the fact that we were able to find something and still maintain public park and open space for the community is just even more kind of gravy. Thank you.
[20:11] I guess the next point is the motion to approve. I'd like to make a motion to approve. Well, we'll, we'll say, and I'll second that. Okay. I'm seeing a motion in a second. I'll call the vote.
[20:30] Okay. That passes 5-0.
[20:42] Okay. Our next item tonight is item 8-B.
[20:44] the pi-may residences, case number multi-008-091-2025.
[20:53] Are there any disclosures by commissioners?
[20:58] I drive by it a lot on my way to the BH.
[21:00] So I'm familiar with what the site is.
[21:02] Where the site is located.
[21:04] I can see it from my home.
[21:07] That particular location from the East Angle.
[21:10] I drove by it a few minutes ago.
[21:12] Okay.
[21:13] Thank you guys.
[21:15] with that, this one is being presented to us by, sorry, Christina Bustamonte.
[21:36] Good evening, commissioners, members of the public.
[21:39] My name is Christina Bustamonte. I'll be presenting this project this evening.
[21:43] This project is for the demolition of an existing single-family residence
[21:48] and the construction of a two-story duplex with a basement
[21:51] and an attached garage for each unit.
[21:54] A duplex is a two attached single family residence on one legal law.
[22:00] Unit 1 features 2447 square feet of living area, 285 square feet of deck area, and 410 square
[22:09] feet of garage.
[22:11] Unit number 2 features 2454 square feet of living area, 291 square feet of deck area, and
[22:20] 400 and 10 feet for a garage.
[22:24] The project is located within the old Incinita's District.
[22:27] The project is surrounded to the north, east, and south
[22:31] by a mix of commercial and residential land uses.
[22:35] Into the west, a mix of commercial, residential uses,
[22:39] and moonlight beach.
[22:45] The project requires the following permits,
[22:48] design review permit for construction of a duplex,
[22:52] landscaping and site improvements,
[22:53] a cost of development permit for the review of compliance for local cost of
[22:59] program.
[23:02] The subject property is owned residential 15 which allows for a
[23:06] maximum building height of two stories and 22 feet measured to the top of
[23:11] roof above the exterior building wall and 26 feet measured to the peak of a
[23:16] pitched roof with a minimum of a 312 pitch. The height of the proposed structure is
[23:22] measured from the lower of the existing or proposed grade. The maximum building height
[23:27] for unit 1 is 20 feet 1 ¾ inches from the building edge to the top of the roof material
[23:33] and 22 feet 6 inches to the top of ridge. The maximum building height for unit 2 is 21 feet
[23:41] and 9 inches to the top of roof material above the exterior wall and 25 feet 11 inches to the top
[23:47] of the roof material at the ridge.
[23:50] Reposed project complies with all height regulations and a condition of approval has been added
[23:56] to require a height certification from a license, land surveyor during construction to demonstrate
[24:02] compliance with the plans and height limitations.
[24:07] Project features two-story duplex with decks on the first and second floor and exterior materials
[24:13] such as seam, metal roof, wood, and facet and trim, glass guardrails, horizontal
[24:20] wood sighting, cement plaster, porcelain tile, and aluminum clad windows and
[24:26] doors. The project features similar size, massing colors and materials with the
[24:32] existing neighborhood and will maintain the existing desirable character of the
[24:35] neighborhood.
[24:39] Unit 1 has a front yard setback of 19 feet and six inches, a rear yard
[24:44] setback of 25 feet, 5 and a half inches, and a north side yard setback of 5 feet. Unit
[24:51] 2 has a front yard setback of 24 feet, 7 inches, a rear yard setback of 20 feet and a self
[25:02] The project proposes a 2006 square foot basement, living area for unit number one and two. The basement area within the duplex qualifies as a basement as per incident as municipal code, pursuant to the municipal code definition of a basement, one half of the perimeter of the basement is less than or equal to four feet above the lower of the natural orphanage grade as defined.
[25:29] defined by instantivism as code.
[25:32] Additionally, for the purposes of building
[25:34] conformance with the two-story code limitation,
[25:38] the qualifying basements do not count as a story.
[25:41] And the structures, as proposed, are two-story with a basement.
[25:46] The basement features two bedrooms, two bathrooms,
[25:50] a laundry room, and a bonus room.
[25:53] The first story of each unit features a bedroom, a bathroom,
[25:58] a walk-in closet, a two-car garage, and a patio.
[26:03] A second story features a living room, a dining room,
[26:07] a kitchen, a bedroom, and a deck.
[26:12] This is the west elevation, which is also the front of these homes.
[26:19] This is the east elevation, which is also the rear of these homes.
[26:25] This is the south elevation, which will be one of the sides.
[26:30] And this is the North elevation, which will be the other side.
[26:38] A landscape plan is required for new construction projects with an aggregate landscape area equal
[26:43] to are greater than 500 square feet demonstrating compliance with Incinitas Municipal Co-Chapter 2326 water efficient landscape regulations.
[26:53] The project includes 708 square feet of on-site landscape area, and 499 square feet of off-site landscape area located within the right of way, for a total of 1,207 square feet of landscape area.
[27:10] A newly adopted chapter 2327 native plants went into effect on May 15th, 2026, is
[27:19] applicable to this site, which requires 50% of the total landscape area of the
[27:24] project site planted with Southern California native plants. Plant pallet
[27:29] consists of 90% of native plant types. The project is located within the R15
[27:35] zone, which is considered a higher density single family and multifamily residential zone.
[27:41] This zone requires 30 trees per net acre as part of the project's landscaping.
[27:47] And this site is required to provide four trees.
[27:50] The project is providing six trees and
[27:52] complies with underlying landscape requirements as well as the native plant ordinance.
[27:58] Applicant held a citizen participation program meeting at the project site.
[28:03] In accordance with the municipal code on March 14th, five members of the public attended
[28:10] the meeting, a resident brought up concerns regarding the retaining wall that's located
[28:14] along the southern property line of the subject parcel between the two residential developments.
[28:20] The applicant has responded in both the applicant and the neighbor or in conversations about
[28:26] that retaining wall and will continue to work together as the project continues through construction.
[28:31] Notice of this public hearing was mailed on August 20th, 2026 to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site and to anyone who requested such notice and writing.
[28:46] No other comments were received during the public noticing period other than the same neighbor that commented during the citizen participation program.
[28:54] The
[28:57] project has been determined to be exempt from environmental review,
[29:01] pursuing to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 15301I,
[29:06] which exempts the demolition of one single-family residence and 15303A,
[29:12] which exempts the construction of small structures, including a duplex.
[29:16] The proposed project with conditions incorporated is consistent with the objectives
[29:21] and policies of the general plan and local coastal plan and demonstrates compliance
[29:26] with the applicable sections of the Incinitas Municipal Code and objective design standards
[29:31] in the Incinitas design standards and guidelines document.
[29:37] The findings can be made to support the project, therefore staff recommends approval of the
[29:42] design review permit and coastal development permit.
[29:45] Thank you for your time, myself, and the applicant are available for questions.
[29:52] Thank you, Christina.
[29:53] Are there any questions of the staff?
[29:57] Commissioner Whitaker.
[30:00] Yes, thank you for the report. We just today, the Commission received some public communication regarding the project. And I don't know if it's an appropriate time for that, but if I could just ask about it. I was just curious, there seemed to be approximately 11 items or so that were outlined concerns and requests.
[30:28] And I was just wondering like how much of that is actionable by the commission.
[30:36] All right, so it's a good question.
[30:39] It's question that the resident that sent the comments also asked.
[30:44] Many of these items that have been brought up in the comments are standard practice for
[30:50] us.
[30:51] They will be items that will get reviewed during the construction document review phase.
[30:57] So when the building permit comes in, the grading permit comes in, these items will get reviewed.
[31:02] There are some items on here related to costs and who is to be burdened with the costs.
[31:09] That is not something that the city would take an action on, or would create a condition
[31:14] of approval of, because it's on private property, and that's something that is a civil matter
[31:19] that will be between the owners.
[31:21] And so that's very general, very broad about this.
[31:25] The other things that I would say is that we have a lot of standards in place that speak to these things and so we would not necessarily add conditions of approval to the project because they're already standard practice.
[31:40] So that's very, very general but if you have more specific questions, I'd be happy to answer those.
[31:44] No, it's just time.
[31:45] Thank you for-
[31:46] Mr. Chair, I could add to that to your point, what can you do with essentially any type
[31:53] of public comment?
[31:54] It all goes to what you're here to do as your job as a planning commission, and that
[32:00] is make the findings in the resolution.
[32:02] And so if any of that that's in the staff report, I'm sorry, it was staff report, public comment
[32:08] And those comment letters goes to affect your findings, one of those mandatory findings that you need to make, that's where it will be applied.
[32:18] But as far as addressing those 11 points in the letter, I think you're really referring to, it's not your job.
[32:27] It's not the city's job to resolve those things.
[32:29] and I was probably saying many of those are private landowner to landowner type dispute issues
[32:37] that you're not here to mediate essentially. So when it comes to a finding
[32:47] that's what you're here to do is act as a judge and whether or not those findings could be made.
[32:51] Are
[32:56] there any other questions, the staff?
[33:02] Mr. Printergaston.
[33:04] Wait for you.
[33:06] No.
[33:06] Go ahead.
[33:07] Okay.
[33:08] Thank you for the presentation.
[33:11] Let's see.
[33:13] So this is a pretty tight site.
[33:15] It qualifies by basically less than 1% to go to 5,015 square feet.
[33:25] Was there a survey that was submitted?
[33:27] I see architectural plans, but there are a survey and a LTA survey that's been prepared.
[33:32] Are you comfortable with the fact that it's 5,000 and 15 square feet because if it's not 5,000 and 15 square feet,
[33:40] then I think the applicant falls into a different category and different classification.
[33:47] Yes, and fairly comfortable that that's the size of the property.
[33:52] Just walk me through, I think it's more rhetorical questions.
[33:55] So this is a legal, non-conforming lot, and the R15 zone requires that to be a 20,000 square foot lot to be acted upon or built on, but our code EMC 30.08 allows for development on a 5th, so does the EMC 30.058 override the zoning ramification because this is a legal, non-conforming lot?
[34:23] I don't know that I would use those exact words to describe it, more so that the development
[34:32] standards are in place, they remain in place.
[34:35] The code also allows for a caveat that says in these circumstances, when it's a 5,000
[34:42] square foot lot, and it's in this zone, we are giving a provision to allow for a duplex.
[34:49] So it's not overriding, that's not a word I would use in this case, but there is a caveat.
[34:55] Okay, so it's in the code that, well, it's not 20,000 square feet.
[35:00] It is 5,000 square feet, and if it is 5,000 square feet, then it can do a duplex. Correct. In this particular zone. In this particular zone. Okay, as related to some of the, one of the emails that came through, one of them was, you know, how, how close to the property line, will the excavations be? I understand there's a five-foot setback along both the north and the south side of the property.
[35:29] But will they be digging a hole and down and approximately how deep will the hole go?
[35:37] Yeah, so for that. Yes, you're correct. There's a five-foot separation
[35:41] But I think for a more detailed response if I may try and lean on either the geotechnical engineer or the engineer on the project
[35:51] That might provide a little more insight on how that happens when there's excavation happening close to a property line great
[35:59] Thank you.
[36:03] As far as depth, what I can say is that there is a maximum
[36:07] depth of 17 feet.
[36:10] And I also want to state that this is the discretionary
[36:15] phase, so the preliminary design of the project
[36:21] and final design will determine all of the specifics
[36:24] of the showering excavation and everything.
[36:30] So you're comfortable in reviewing.
[36:31] There was a geotechnical report that was submitted, and I think that, you know, when you go
[36:38] down, I'll just say you cut a hole, you know, is there going to be tiebacks or anything
[36:46] that's infringing upon either the north or south adjacent properties that the developments
[36:52] going to require approval? I mean, are they going to go into the neighbor's property based
[36:57] on the plenaries, I'm not an engineer or an architect, so based on the plenary drawings
[37:02] that we have, will there be any intrusions such as a tieback or something into the adjacent
[37:08] properties?
[37:13] No, there won't be any intrusion or encroachment into adjacent properties.
[37:21] Basically when we do a provisionary approval of this, the geotechnical report basically identifies
[37:27] the soil conditions and the geologic conditions of the site, and if there are any geotechnical hazards,
[37:35] they make recommendations for mitigation. There are no significant geotechnical hazards on this property.
[37:42] But if encroachment is necessary, the approval of adjacent properties would be mandatory.
[37:50] Okay. And that would be determined through the grading permit process and the shoring design process.
[37:56] Yes.
[37:57] So if things change and the designs come in, the neighbor would be notified, some comfort
[38:03] that the neighbor had that all of a sudden he'd have to be contacted or they would have to
[38:07] be contacted.
[38:08] It would have to be contacted and permission given.
[38:11] Understood.
[38:12] Okay.
[38:12] Thank you.
[38:15] I'm going to put my glasses back on.
[38:19] So just to, again, another rhetorical question, the basement area doesn't count to the FAR,
[38:26] correct?
[38:27] So it's really everything the basement is under our codes are separate from the floor area ratio calculations or the size of the house. Is that correct?
[38:36] Yes, that's correct.
[38:38] Any idea how much percentage of the living area is going to be considered a basement? Is it like 35%?
[38:46] I don't have a percentage.
[38:48] Well, maybe the applicant can answer that one. So I'll leave that one for the applicant because he'll know.
[38:52] So, let's see, on, there's a picture on page of the document of the PDF, I think it's
[39:05] page 77 of the PDF, of the staff report, which is really the architectural drawings.
[39:11] there's a deck that seems to visually extend from the second floor to the
[39:23] west and I guess is really again just some clarification. It seems to be
[39:29] encroaching upon into the setback that's allowed and can you tell me how long
[39:34] or not wide that deck is but can you tell me the distance that it really extends
[39:39] into the setback? Does it go all the way to the property line?
[39:45] It doesn't. Okay. Oh, it does
[39:47] even. Okay, so it's a visual. That looks like. Okay, so that's a visual. All right. The architect
[39:54] take to help me out. Thank you chair.
[40:00] What page was that?
[40:05] Okay.
[40:08] Oh, maybe the applicant can, can help out with that.
[40:14] On page 83 of the, I would like to suggest that the applicant changed Manhattan Beach to
[40:27] needs to change on page 85 of the PDF item number 16, also references Manhattan Beach standard plan 5ST.
[40:42] So I'd like to ask if that is the correct reference or is it just a typo and that actually references the city of
[40:50] since Anita's codes as it relates to item number 16 on page.
[40:57] This is from the FGB engineers from the city of Anaheim.
[41:02] So I hope that they know where in Anita's is.
[41:07] And that's it for me.
[41:11] Okay, are there any other questions?
[41:14] Commissioner Kimble?
[41:15] Yes, I had one question around.
[41:18] And there was something in the report that talked about the work that the applicant would
[41:23] have to do around the curb in the front of the property and drainage, could you go into
[41:29] a little more detail of what they're going to be required to do, and is that an improvement
[41:34] to what exists today?
[41:39] Yeah, you might be referring to the permanent BMP that this project requires, and it is an
[41:48] improvement and essentially the water, the storm water, is treated essentially and then
[41:57] pumped out to third street after it's essentially treated and clean.
[42:03] Is there an open drain in front of the property currently now?
[42:08] There's probably, yeah, there's drainage outlets like most properties.
[42:22] Okay. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here, would they like to address the commission?
[42:40] Gary, I think your microphone is not working.
[42:46] Okay. I think you're fine.
[42:50] Okay. The owners are here as well. They're long-time residents of Encinitas and should you have any questions for them?
[42:56] They'd be happy to address those. I want to thank Christine, our planner for
[43:01] working us through the project. She's been terrific in helping us navigate the city process.
[43:08] This is an interesting site in that it has significant slope and two directions. It slopes from
[43:12] the east to the west approximately 12 feet and it also has a pretty steep cross slope of approximately
[43:18] seven feet sloping from the north down to the south. This makes it challenging to site a building on
[43:25] there and what we did was we stepped the duplex down following the slope from the east
[43:31] to the west and we also split the duplex setting the southern unit a couple feet lower
[43:37] than northern units so it again follows the terrain.
[43:41] This helps to make the project a little bit more interesting.
[43:43] It breaks up the mass and it lowers the roots as it steps down with the terrain.
[43:49] We also incorporated a pretty good interior court to break the building up.
[43:55] It goes about half the depth of the building so that these appear as two separate units and not as one single building.
[44:03] The primary views are towards the southwest looking at Moonlight Beach.
[44:07] So instead of typically mirroring the plan as most of these type of duplexes are,
[44:13] We oriented both of the main living spaces towards the Southwestern view, so it gives
[44:20] it a little bit different character, and again helps to break up the mass of the building.
[44:24] We also slid the northern unit farther forward, offsetting the two sides, and again it helps
[44:31] to add more character in complexity.
[44:34] The design is a contemporary motif, it incorporates stucco, wood siding, tile, and a standing seam
[44:42] metal roof, there is also metal windows and doors with glass guardrails and horizontal
[44:49] stucco bands. We had very positive feedback about the design at the citizen participation
[44:55] patient plan, and we have been in discussions with the next...
[45:00] Members, and I think we can satisfy all of their concerns. I believe this project will be an enhancement to the local community and appreciate your support. I can answer any questions I'd be happy to. Thank you, Gary. Questions? Yeah, on just that deck of question. How far does that deck extend? The allowed encroachment into the front yard is four feet, and I believe on one side, the south side, we don't even encroach into the setback.
[45:28] I believe on the north side it's under four feet if we put the plans up
[45:32] I could tell you exactly it should be on there is it three-foot three-foot 10
[45:36] three-foot 10 okay so maybe that's just a visual on that plan
[45:39] all right that's that's all I have okay not seeing any other questions for your
[45:47] Gary all right thank you are there public comments we do have one speaker and
[45:54] that's not ultimate that's
[46:00] your cue thank
[46:07] you guys appreciate the time
[46:09] I am the person who sent the letter in that you asked about.
[46:13] I want to make sure that you know that I do support the project, I'm not against the project, I like the project, pro-development, pro-the-neighborhood, being invested in, and so I think I went down a little bit of an AI rabbit hole on the letter I sent, so apologies if it was too much, but do have a lot invested in the property that I own next door.
[46:38] And want to make sure that we do protect our property rights and the biggest thing for us is the retaining wall next to the between the two properties and because there's a slope.
[46:49] There's concern for us that that wall doesn't get treated correctly or that the costs are burdened on us.
[46:55] We probably will rebuild our house at some point in the future and want to make sure we work collaboratively with the neighbor arm on who we know and have every intention to do that.
[47:07] And I wanted to have it be a successful situation, but not being as fully knowledgeable about the process wanted to make sure that any condition around that was addressed so that we have a good solution and then it's not something that turns into a neighbor dispute.
[47:22] So your help in that regard is very welcome.
[47:26] And then second, that whole area that you're familiar with because I think many of you guys have either looked upon it or drive around it, have driven by their, it's very impacted with parking.
[47:37] And with traffic and with various things happening, we don't have a garage for our cars, so we park on the street, a lot of people do park on the street just to access the beach.
[47:47] And so I just think it's like to put our concerns on record about parking with the amount of construction traffic as well as time of day because the project is right next door bedroom.
[47:59] system and just whether we could get some assistance, whether it's collaborating with the
[48:06] owner or having some kind of adjustment to the times in the morning when the construction
[48:15] starts because at 7 a.m. that means the guys start at 6.30 they get there and they start
[48:20] unloading, especially during the weekends, so appreciate any consideration on that as well.
[48:25] So that's, that's really the main things that we had.
[48:31] And thanks for the thoughtful questions.
[48:34] Okay, thanks for coming in tonight.
[48:37] No other questions or no other comments?
[48:39] Okay, does the applicant want to spend a rebuttal
[48:46] or any time after that?
[48:47] The
[48:52] project and ourselves.
[48:54] We've been a resident of Incentive Distance in 1995.
[48:58] We purchased this home in 98, and with the-
[49:01] If I could interrupt you, just briefly, I'm going to apologize.
[49:05] This is a time I'm offering if new information was presented that you feel you need to respond to.
[49:11] Yeah, the response to Madam, like Madam Jessica, we've known each other since they moved next door.
[49:16] We have a good relationship, we had a really good discussion at the job site.
[49:20] Of course, this retaining wall has for the engineering comment, we have to go through the design process.
[49:25] we will get whatever needs to be done and we're not going to break any walls down without a good
[49:31] collaboration and talking with one another. So we'll definitely definitely do that. We have a
[49:36] couple of alternatives. It's too early in the process to know exactly how we're going to approach it
[49:40] yet. I said that and then I don't have a contract yet so we don't even know about start times.
[49:47] I mean it's a little bit ahead of the process but we'll for sure we've been good neighbors with all
[49:54] of our neighbors, we'll continue to be so.
[49:56] Okay, good, thank you very much.
[50:00] With that, I'm going to close the public comment portion of the hearing and open it up to Commissioner deliberation. Commissioner Quinn, do you want to start down at your end?
[50:11] The only comment I have is that it is a very tight spot I drove by there today. And it's going to cause some, you know, the construction part of it and the workers and the excavation, everything is is going to be tough, but that's what happens in that area. That's the only comment I have. Okay.
[50:32] thank you. Commissioner Kimmel. Yes it is tight. My concern is around the
[50:43] parking and how all the construction crews will be managed while that
[50:47] construction is going on primarily because it is so popular and you know while
[50:52] timing has not been identified during the summer it's if you come down there in
[50:57] your car. It's it's a free for all for parking. And so I just like to make sure that when this
[51:04] project does go for you know if this project goes forward and is in a construction phase making
[51:08] sure that this staff is following whatever processes we have in place to ensure that all the workers
[51:16] and any permanent or semi-permanent structures are complying with whatever our regulations are that
[51:23] that I can see that being kind of neighborhood friction,
[51:27] very easy to occur.
[51:33] OK, thank you.
[51:35] So yeah, initially when I looked at the project,
[51:37] I really didn't really draw a lot of questions
[51:39] or concerns for me.
[51:41] I certainly thought it felt well within that particular community.
[51:44] I thought the size of a lot and the tightness
[51:46] of the particular location for building
[51:48] was very typical of that particular area of our communities.
[51:51] and essentially I was left very supportive and then more recently since my first
[52:03] of review we've gotten some public comments and then I had a lot of questions just
[52:07] about the process but I feel very good about what we've heard from the
[52:11] developer, what we've heard from the neighbor from the applicant as well that
[52:19] And things are being looked after as far as these concerns that have been raised.
[52:27] And it seems that some of it will take place in that dialogue and that discussion in managing
[52:37] that.
[52:37] But some of it also will take place when they're finalizing the approval of the grading
[52:42] and the like.
[52:45] We only got the geotechnical study even today, and I just had a chance to briefly review
[52:51] it, just skim through it, and I certainly had things that I think would perhaps need
[52:57] to be addressed as they move forward with it, but I didn't feel like it was something
[53:02] that would draw this to it.
[53:06] If anything, I might accept a continuation, just so some of those things could be addressed,
[53:11] and we could revisit them perhaps, but in general, I'm supportive and I'd be happy to see it go forward as well.
[53:21] Okay, Mr. Pregnitz.
[53:24] Yeah, I echo my fellow commissioners.
[53:27] It seems like there's a good rapport between the two property owners.
[53:30] I know you have some concerns about parking.
[53:34] I had a kind of question for staff about safety and especially in the alley.
[53:39] Are you comfortable because there's going to be so much excavation?
[53:46] There's going to be a lot of trucks, and if the alley is an ingress in egress for
[53:51] the neighbors, next door neighbor and all the other neighbors.
[53:55] Can you speak to one of the questions like how are they going to haul out a project that
[54:01] is in a tight neighborhood like this and having watch construction occur in a leave and
[54:06] line, big trucks, and they leave them in the middle of the road, they detach.
[54:13] How do you handle, how do you suggest it gets handled when you're doing this in a tight
[54:20] neighborhood with the haul out?
[54:25] How does that work?
[54:27] Sure.
[54:27] So, that is something that would be covered and reviewed with a traffic control plan, and
[54:34] The traffic control plan gets submitted during the construction permit review process.
[54:39] And so there is some indication that if needed they would do a partial alley closure and
[54:44] not a full.
[54:45] But again, it would get reviewed further.
[54:48] And is there anything else that you'd like to add to that?
[54:55] No, unless you have any follow up questions.
[54:58] I guess the question would be...
[55:00] On a traffic control situation and you have a proposed, you have a planned date, will the neighbors be notified of a potential closure of the alley when there's a hall out as part of your traffic control plan so that they can plan their day around the hall out?
[55:23] Yeah, what I what I understand is that they would be notified for sure. Okay. Alright.
[55:32] Another thing you mentioned was construction hours.
[55:35] It's tough.
[55:36] I mean, there are city standards that everybody kind of has to follow, and so I'd probably
[55:40] leave that up.
[55:41] It's hard in this one particular comment on number five.
[55:46] I get it super sensitive.
[55:48] They show up at 6.30.
[55:49] Or maybe even earlier, hanging out, waiting for the clock to start.
[55:54] But I think I have to kind of leave that to the two of you to figure out.
[55:57] And if the construction company and the workers are not being good civil
[56:02] neighbors, then I think you probably need to talk to your neighbor about it.
[56:06] I don't know if we can make a waiver or a finding that your particular request is
[56:12] allowable because then everybody would get one.
[56:14] And that's why there's a standard.
[56:16] So it's a reasonable request, but
[56:18] I hope that you maintain a relationship with your neighbor that you guys can work
[56:25] together on that and that they are being unruly, then I think there's probably a path I believe
[56:31] through the city that they would say, hey, you know, XYZ contractor is not abiding by the rules,
[56:37] but it's tough to us to make a finding to the point that the council may to put it into the resolution.
[56:43] But that's about it. No, I understand. It's hard to, everybody in the city kind of has to abide
[56:51] by it, but if they're not following the rules, there is a path.
[56:55] So, I just, you wrote a very good letter, AI or not answering some good questions that made me stop and think a little bit.
[57:02] And I think all of us kind of had to stop and think a little bit about that.
[57:06] So I do appreciate the effort and the fact that you came tonight too.
[57:09] So thank you.
[57:12] I find the building to be seen to be appropriate for that neighborhood.
[57:17] it is dense, it is tight, but that's a very common building
[57:21] typology, particularly there. Cardiff is full of that.
[57:26] It seems to me a lot of our concerns revolve around very
[57:29] technical aspects of the construction of it, and I think that's
[57:33] a different process. There's a building permit process in
[57:37] which engineers, ensuring contractors, everybody else,
[57:41] there's more to be done on that front.
[57:44] Regarding the neighbors concerns, I feel like a good number of those are addressed by city standards.
[57:54] There are noise ordinances, there are work operation ordinances, there are hours of operation and traffic plans to address this stuff.
[58:05] Parking is a concern, but it's a public street and workers have a right to park there as much as the beach goers.
[58:12] and that's going to be a momentary disruption to a house that will stand there for decades.
[58:19] And so I'm supportive of the project.
[58:22] Nothing about the height, the setbacks, the materiality of it gives me cause for concern.
[58:29] It seems like it's an appropriate house.
[58:53] So I think we've all expressed some general sympathy for some of this disruption,
[59:00] But no real opposition to the project, can I maybe have a motion?
[59:11] I'll move to approve.
[59:14] Okay.
[59:14] Second.
[59:15] Okay.
[59:16] Motion in a second.
[59:17] I'll call the vote.
[59:28] Okay.
[59:29] That passes 5-0.
[59:31] I look forward to seeing your house being built.
[59:50] Okay.
[59:50] Our next item tonight is.
[59:53] Help me here.
[59:54] Are we on 8-C?
[59:55] 8-C.
[59:56] Sorry.
[59:58] The 20th.
[1:00:00] The second street, two unit development and ADUs, case number multi-008-111-2025. I'll start with any disclosures from commissioners tonight. Nothing to disclose. I drove by the site two days ago. I went by this afternoon, and I'm familiar with the site as well.
[1:00:29] Okay, with that, I will turn it over to Associate Planner Megan McElfish.
[1:00:36] Yep, thank you, Chair.
[1:00:38] Good evening, Planning Commissioners.
[1:00:39] My name is Megan McElfish, and tonight I'll be presenting item C, the Second Street,
[1:00:44] two unit development and ADU's project, under Multi-00811-2025.
[1:00:53] The project site is located at 858 Second Street in the Old Incidentities community.
[1:00:58] The site contains a vacant commercial building that was constructed in approximately 1947.
[1:01:04] The site has a general plan, land use designation of general commercial, is within the DCM2 zone
[1:01:11] of the downtown and state-specific plan and is located within the coastal overlay zone.
[1:01:17] The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map, minor use permit, design review permit,
[1:01:23] and coastal development permit to allow for the demolition of the existing commercial building
[1:01:27] and construction of a new two-story, two-unit residential building with two detached garages each with an ADU above.
[1:01:35] The project would result in two airspace condominium units on the existing parcel.
[1:01:42] Here is the project site plan.
[1:01:45] The project proposes a two-unit development consisting of 1,555 square foot unit with a 488 square foot two car garage and a 656 square foot ADU.
[1:01:57] a second 1,417 square foot unit with a 272 square foot, one car garage and a 656 square foot
[1:02:06] ADO. Access to the garages is proposed from the alley off of H Street. The site is also
[1:02:12] located within one half mile of the Ensigna station. Under assembly bill 2097 the city cannot
[1:02:18] require a minimum number of parking spaces for this project because of its proximity to a major
[1:02:23] transit stop. The applicant is proposing three enclosed parking spaces and one
[1:02:27] unclosed space for the two dwelling units. Because the project site is located
[1:02:31] within the coastal zone, it remains subject to the public access and recreation policies
[1:02:36] of the city's certified local coastal program. To comply with these policies, the applicant
[1:02:41] is required to install a bike rack within the public right of way at the corner of second
[1:02:46] and h street. For clarity, the bike rack is highlighted in orange on this slide and the one
[1:02:51] and enclosed parking space is identified in yellow.
[1:02:56] Here is the proposed north elevation with the eight use and garages shown on the right,
[1:03:02] and the two unit development on the left.
[1:03:04] The proposed material palette includes a white TPL membrane roof, gray CMU walls, any range
[1:03:09] of stucco finishes in white, warm gray, charcoal gray, and dark gray, along with steel guardrails.
[1:03:16] Overall, the project is consistent with the city's articulation, material, and color design
[1:03:21] matrix as well as the landscape design matrix as outlined in the city's design standards
[1:03:27] and guidelines.
[1:03:30] Here is the proposed south elevation as viewed from H Street. The proposed
[1:03:35] two unit development is two stories with a mezzanine while each ADU above the garage is one
[1:03:40] story with a mezzanine. The proposed flat roof height is 30 feet zero inches for the two unit
[1:03:45] development and 29 feet 9 inches for the ADUs, which both comply with the maximum permitted
[1:03:51] at height of 30 feet. A height certification will be required prior to the roof framing inspection.
[1:03:58] Here are the interior courtyard elevations and
[1:04:05] here are the front and rear elevations.
[1:04:07] The two unit development is shown on the left as viewed from second street and the AD and garage
[1:04:12] elevations are on the right as viewed from the alley.
[1:04:19] Here is the proposed landscape plan.
[1:04:21] The specific plan requires a minimum of 10 percent of the site to be landscaped.
[1:04:25] The project proposes 646 square feet of landscaped area or approximately 14% of the site.
[1:04:32] This includes a 433 square foot planting area and a 213 square feet of enhanced paving patio area which is allowed under the specific plan.
[1:04:44] The project also meets the design review landscape standards by providing 83% of the landscaped area with Southern California native species exceeding the 50% requirement.
[1:04:54] with no invasive species proposed.
[1:04:57] Two additional street trees are proposed while...
[1:05:00] No three existing street trees will be maintained.
[1:05:06] One CPP meeting, or ACPP meeting was held on December
[1:05:10] 9th, 2025, from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Ensenita City Hall. One member of the public attended
[1:05:16] the meeting. Questions were raised regarding the number of parking spaces provided for the
[1:05:20] new development and dust controlled during demolition and construction. The applicant clarified
[1:05:25] that four parking spaces will be provided even though parking is not required due to the
[1:05:29] site's proximity to the transit state center.
[1:05:32] The applicant also addressed dust-related concerns by confirming that proper dust control
[1:05:36] measures will be implemented during demolition and grading, and that efforts will be made
[1:05:41] to minimize construction impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
[1:05:44] No concerns were identified that could not be addressed.
[1:05:48] Additionally, the public hearing notice was mailed on August 20th, 2026, to all property owners
[1:05:53] within 500 feet of the project site, and no comments were received.
[1:05:58] The project has been found to be exempt from environmental review, pursuant to Section 153-101-L3 and Section 153-303-B of the SQL guidelines.
[1:06:10] Section 153-101-L3 exempts the demolition and removal of individual small commercial structures.
[1:06:17] Section 153-303-B exempts the construction of a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure,
[1:06:23] or totally no more than four dwelling units
[1:06:26] or up to six dwelling units in an urbanized area.
[1:06:29] None of the exceptions in section 153-00.2
[1:06:33] of the secret guidelines exists
[1:06:35] and no historic resources will be impacted
[1:06:38] by the proposed development.
[1:06:42] Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
[1:06:44] adopt the draft resolution based upon
[1:06:47] the findings in the staff report.
[1:06:49] This concludes my presentation
[1:06:50] and the applicant and I are available for any questions.
[1:06:52] questions.
[1:06:53] Okay.
[1:06:54] Thank you very much.
[1:06:55] Are there any questions of the staff from the commission?
[1:07:01] I had a question.
[1:07:03] In one of the slides that you showed, it showed a picture of the ADUs over the garage,
[1:07:12] and I'm wondering, it looks like it canlevers out over the garage a bit.
[1:07:19] on which that one, does that encroach into any of the setbacks for the property?
[1:07:27] So it does.
[1:07:29] I have a slide.
[1:07:30] Let me.
[1:07:37] This one.
[1:07:51] Sorry.
[1:07:55] I have it to show that now that
[1:08:02] Ray's slide, Jack.
[1:08:03] Sorry for the technical difficulties.
[1:08:05] So here's the architectural projection roof plan.
[1:08:08] So, these are the ADU projections that you were referencing, so they do encroach 5 feet
[1:08:16] into the required 10 foot rear yard setback, but under the specific plan they're permitted
[1:08:22] to go 3 feet from the center line of the alley, so they technically could go all the way
[1:08:31] to the property line under the specific plan, but they are encroaching 5 feet into the required
[1:08:36] setback.
[1:08:48] So, under the specific plan, they allow, it's
[1:08:59] the minimum separation distance between the center line of the street, or the closest interior lot line, so three feet is required, or three feet of separation is required from that center line of the street.
[1:09:12] So the center, the alleys technically 20 feet wide, so they exceed that 3 feet minimum.
[1:09:21] So
[1:09:38] the separation from the center line of the street to the property line is 3 feet
[1:09:43] that's required.
[1:09:44] They're not touching the property line, so yes, they are encroaching into the setback,
[1:09:48] but they're not exceeding that 3 feet from the center line of the street.
[1:09:53] Could we clarify that they're, I believe an ADU has a 4 foot rear yard setback.
[1:09:57] and so for the ADU itself.
[1:10:00] They're not encroaching on anything, right? The 10-foot setback I believe you're referencing is the underlying zone for the primary structure, but the ADU itself has a four-foot setback side
[1:10:18] and rear.
[1:10:21] So, do you want to clarify? So, for height purposes, for the ADU to go to the underlying zone limit of 30 feet, they have to meet the setbacks of the zone. So, that's why the ADU is at a 10-foot setback.
[1:10:36] instead of the 4-foot setback so they can go up to 30 feet.
[1:10:41] What would be their height limit if they use the 4-foot?
[1:10:45] I believe it'd be 18 feet.
[1:10:57] Thank you.
[1:10:57] Thank you.
[1:11:02] Any other questions?
[1:11:03] Commissioner Whitaker?
[1:11:04] Sure.
[1:11:05] I can jump in here.
[1:11:07] I wanted to ask about what we discussed during our briefing regarding the goals and objectives
[1:11:14] is for solar and water conservation.
[1:11:17] And I was just interested to know,
[1:11:19] like, although they're being required to install
[1:11:25] the wiring for that and the piping for the gray water,
[1:11:30] it's to me somewhat understandable
[1:11:33] to not necessarily have to connect to a gray water system
[1:11:35] that doesn't yet exist within that area.
[1:11:38] But the solar, I'm not quite sure I understand why
[1:11:43] and are not being required to install the solar.
[1:11:45] So they will be required at the time of building permits in middle for the eight use and for the two units.
[1:11:51] Okay, thank you.
[1:11:56] Page 17, the roof plan, is there a shared roof between the two units because I thought they were separate units.
[1:12:07] So there's a separation between the eight use and garages and the two units, but the two main units are
[1:12:15] connected. Okay, I see it now. Are there any utilities on the roof, any cooling
[1:12:22] towers or anything like that? Not that I'm aware of. Okay, and we also discussed
[1:12:30] today in a briefing about the existing trees on second avenue that will
[1:12:36] not be removed. What trees with those again? The one on second street is a
[1:12:43] camp for tree that was proposed to remain and then there's two paper bark trees on each street that will remain.
[1:12:50] Okay, thank you.
[1:12:55] I think we talked about this during the briefing a little bit.
[1:13:00] So these are going to be two separate condominiums.
[1:13:04] And so the main structure with the ADU is one condominium property and the second mirror image is the second condominium property.
[1:13:16] I wanted to clarify, does that count in according to our incinitis municipal code as a multi-family
[1:13:25] resident and as such, those ADUs nor the condos would be suitable or allowed to operate
[1:13:33] a short-term rentals?
[1:13:34] So under state ADU law it is considered a multi-family development because the two units are attached
[1:13:41] to each other.
[1:13:42] So they're allotted up to two detached ADUs, but the ADUs will be required to sign a covenant at the time of building permit or prior to building permit issuance that limits them to rentals of 30 days or more so they're not.
[1:13:55] No weekend rentals would not for the ADUs.
[1:13:58] Okay. Would they be allowed on further condominiums in the front?
[1:14:02] Yes.
[1:14:02] No.
[1:14:12] Let's see.
[1:14:16] So the ADUs, so what is the F, the total FAR? What is the density allowable
[1:14:22] under the code and how much are they using?
[1:14:28] And
[1:14:33] if there was in the report that I apologized,
[1:14:35] maybe there was a bullet somewhere. So the allowable FAR under the code is 0.65 and they're proposing
[1:14:44] 16.64. Okay. Squeezing it in. And the ADU's are a part of that calculation. They're
[1:14:53] exempt of the 800 square feet of each ADU exempt from. It's one of about 460.
[1:15:00] There are 6.56. Okay.
[1:15:05] Let's see. There are some boxes that we're not checked off in the
[1:15:12] submittal. Let me get to those. That's on page 10
[1:15:19] of the staff report. A lot
[1:15:22] coverage, it's 75%. It doesn't say a box yes or no. Floor air ratio, 0.65.
[1:15:31] That's
[1:15:32] That's not checked, neither is the landscaping minimum of 10%.
[1:15:35] So will that eventually, will that get cleaned up?
[1:15:38] Yes, I apologize, not just a typo.
[1:15:40] They do comply with all the standards.
[1:15:42] They do comply, what's good to know.
[1:15:44] All right, thank you.
[1:15:46] There's a reference on page 11 of 97 of the PDF
[1:15:53] under minor use permit.
[1:15:56] It says therefore the approval of the proposed project
[1:15:59] would remain below the code's maximum allowance
[1:16:01] So it's a 25% residential only acreage within the zone.
[1:16:06] So is there a, like a table, a running table?
[1:16:12] So if I come in, let's just say I own the property next door.
[1:16:16] And the 25% residential only acreage has already been achieved.
[1:16:22] Is anybody else allowed to do residential?
[1:16:24] So on this slide, I pulled up a table that shows all of the properties that are currently residential only.
[1:16:32] So the next seminal that will come in, they'll use this table and if this project's approved, it will be added as well.
[1:16:39] Right, so quick summary, how far along are we to the 25% is that say 10% on the bottom right hand?
[1:16:46] Yeah, 98%.
[1:16:48] Perfect, thank you. That's a very good slide. Good reference.
[1:16:52] So just to play that out, if you are the five more developers go residential and that moves to 25% and you're the sixth person that come in,
[1:17:01] and you're out of luck, you don't get to do residential.
[1:17:04] Correct, residential only, what do you do?
[1:17:07] Yes, right, right, okay.
[1:17:08] Well, you can do an ADU because that's exact, no, I'm just gonna say.
[1:17:14] So they're coming in as a condominium
[1:17:16] and they're not using SB9 as an urban lot split for this process, right?
[1:17:22] They're just coming in under a condominium, okay?
[1:17:28] That's all I have, okay, thank you.
[1:17:30] thank you Megan. I believe the applicant is here. Would you like to address the commission?
[1:17:39] Okay, applicants is here. If there's any questions, are there any questions? Okay, are there any
[1:17:45] public speakers? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the public comment and open it to Commissioner
[1:17:52] Deliberation. Anybody want to start this off? I'll jump in here. So yeah, again initially I thought
[1:18:01] this fit well within that particular area. I was interesting to see that it was the first
[1:18:06] one we had that I had seen that used the mezzanine interior to create a, a, the ability to do
[1:18:15] height, you know, go higher. Yeah, that was quite interesting and, uh, in development. But,
[1:18:23] in general, I thought that there was, uh, well within the, um, the developments within that area
[1:18:29] in the types of units we see going up in that area so I'm supportive. I didn't have
[1:18:35] any specific concerns and I was happy to see the level of landscaping that was being
[1:18:43] provided was adequate in that type of thing so. Okay thank you. Any other comments?
[1:18:50] I do. Like Commissioner Whitaker it seems comparable to a lot of the development that's been
[1:18:58] done over the last 10 years or so in that area. I do appreciate the parking that was put in.
[1:19:05] I know, you know, regulations sometimes say you don't have to, well, it's often say they don't have
[1:19:09] to, but I appreciate that the applicant did put parking in so that there is some off-street parking
[1:19:15] for whoever ultimately owns those. With regards to my earlier comment about short-term rental
[1:19:22] requirements as these become I guess have to file a covenant in the way she just
[1:19:30] may describe it when the HOA documents are put together is it are we able to
[1:19:38] condition that we'd like a called out that unit insinious municipal code doesn't
[1:19:42] allow short-term rentals in the the ADU unit so that whoever is purchasing them
[1:19:49] understands what methods they can operate those if they don't intend to live in
[1:19:54] them full-time. I guess the question for our legal
[1:20:02] Putting that statement where? I don't know if there's a way to condition that when, so from my
[1:20:09] finder's stand from Megan, the condos, the main units can be a short-term rental, but the
[1:20:15] ADUs cannot. They can, they have a 30-day minimum on the rental, if they are, and is there
[1:20:22] a way to condition the approval or to request that when those are, as assume, put up for sale
[1:20:30] that that's documented that that is a current requirement for the city.
[1:20:35] Yeah, it's already a covenant on, it's on the property, right?
[1:20:40] Yeah, so the covenant is placed on the title of the property, similar to kind of HOA documents.
[1:20:46] So that's kind of the mechanism that we control, kind of no short temperamentals within the ADUs.
[1:20:52] Presumably, if you get your title report when you buy this thing, it would say here a list of
[1:20:56] easements or covenants recorded against this property?
[1:20:59] Product and can we put it?
[1:21:01] Well, I'm just saying, I just want to confirm
[1:21:03] that is recorded somewhere.
[1:21:05] HOA doc, I mean, this is new.
[1:21:07] So obviously whatever document is created
[1:21:09] will be new and current at the time.
[1:21:11] HOA documents don't often get updated once they get put together.
[1:21:15] And so I'm just trying to think about for the future
[1:21:19] that at least the state of what was required with these
[1:21:23] were built and eventually sold is documented.
[1:21:29] And also from the, you know, I think that realistically these will be very popular for short-term
[1:21:34] rentals.
[1:21:35] This is a great location, I mean if I was going to go rent somewhere for a beach vacation
[1:21:39] I would, but if it's not allowed, I think we need to be clear that it's not allowed.
[1:21:47] That's my only comment, otherwise the project seems to fit the neighborhood.
[1:21:52] Good, there are fair amount of trees and I'm happy to see that the old trees are being preserved which is great for the community character so I don't have any issues with the development as it is.
[1:22:06] Any comments? I think, you know, I applaud you for a white roof. We haven't had too many people do the white roof and that does kick in a lot of different things for the climate action plan and, you know, the fact that Commissioner Grinderger brought up the solar.
[1:22:18] or also one will applaud the fact that you're doing 83% natives, and you only have to do 50.
[1:22:25] The last applicant came in and only did the minimum.
[1:22:27] I don't know why you would do less than that because it is a drought-prone area, maybe not this year.
[1:22:33] But historically, we're a pretty dry place, so thank you for exceeding the minimums.
[1:22:39] I appreciate that a lot.
[1:22:42] Also, we talked about, we've already passed the urban forest codes and
[1:22:47] things of keeping the extra trees and finding room for them on your site.
[1:22:51] Other projects have come before us and found a raise not to put trees on their site on El Camino Real and some other places, so they asked for waivers to do that and you did not, so I applaud you for doing the best you can under the site that you have and doing more than what the code is asking for.
[1:23:08] I do think that it does fit the neighborhood and I would support the project and I appreciate you guys coming in and putting something like this before us.
[1:23:18] Okay. I also support the project. I think it's a nice design and it's a neat concept of putting in a number of units in a tight space.
[1:23:29] But I feel like the space between the ADUs and the main houses kind of creates a little more air and light that filters in throughout the project.
[1:23:38] So I like the project, and I would support it tonight to loop back Commissioner Kimbell's concern about HOAs and the covenants.
[1:23:48] I don't share the same concern only that I think that is a state rule, it will be conditioned that way when it's approved, they have to submit the covenant.
[1:23:59] And I feel like it's a little beyond our purview to make sure that they communicate that when they sell it.
[1:24:05] whether they communicated or not, doesn't change the fact that it is a recorded covenant against the property.
[1:24:12] And someone that does buy it, presumably gets a title report that tells them what kind of restrictions are on thing.
[1:24:20] And if they wanted to, I mean, someone can always break the law and rent it without notifying the city, but
[1:24:28] we can't control that behavior either, or we can enforce it after that.
[1:24:34] So the question council, I have to follow up on both Commissioner Adolten and Kimball is all right.
[1:24:44] We, the rules are, the state laws are that they can't do an ADU for short term rentals.
[1:24:50] That's just a law.
[1:24:52] But an HOA is a private covenant on private property, and it has to follow the laws, but do you
[1:24:59] You
[1:25:00] We have to explicitly state things that are already stated in the state law. In other words, you have to reiterate some of that. Or is it to Commissioner Adolph as a position that it's there so you don't have to restate it? Which one is it?
[1:25:20] Yeah, so the HOA is the owners association,
[1:25:29] the CCNRs are the, it's an agreement amongst
[1:25:33] all of the owners at the, or the developer at the time of subdividing, right?
[1:25:42] As Mr. Manard has been telling me, there might not be an HOA per se, but there would still
[1:25:48] will be covenants placed on the property at time of subdivision.
[1:25:55] Your approval has a requirement that certain items be in the covenant.
[1:26:02] To your point, do the laws that are applicable to this particular topic need to be placed in there?
[1:26:10] no, that state law exists, but that state law could change.
[1:26:19] So if what you want is this to have that state law, in a fact, and the reason why you're
[1:26:33] approving it is because of an issue like no long term rental or no short term rental or
[1:26:41] particular unit that's right now it's covered by state law but who knows it could happen in the future.
[1:26:45] That state law that code section could be removed and then it would not be enforceable
[1:26:51] unless you had it in your covenant.
[1:26:56] But if it's removed from state law it's unenforceable so it's not voidable but it's
[1:27:01] it's it's even though if it's in the specific covenant it's not an enforceable
[1:27:07] That's my point is that if you're relying on state law you're not going to have it in the approvals and you're saying state law has it covered and state law changes it well then you can't impose it.
[1:27:21] But if you impose it and state law is there now you have you have imposed it state law goes away.
[1:27:29] a year in position of that still remains.
[1:27:34] State law, you have not preempted,
[1:27:37] you're not preempted by doing that.
[1:27:39] It exists currently.
[1:27:40] State law, then in the future changes,
[1:27:42] it would remain on this.
[1:27:48] Okay.
[1:27:48] In that scenario in my mind, if the state law changes
[1:27:51] and we have relied on the state law
[1:27:52] to prevent this activity,
[1:27:56] I feel like that is a policy decision of the council
[1:27:59] to decide whether we would create a local ordinance
[1:28:02] to restrict short-term rentals, if there's not already a local ordinance that restricts rentals.
[1:28:08] I know that there's a short-term rental policy that limits X number of percentage of the units,
[1:28:14] assuming that people apply for a permit, right?
[1:28:17] We debated that, and I think we passed an ordinance a few years ago, and it was not in this
[1:28:22] hex.
[1:28:22] I remember going back through and negotiating the percentages or discussing the percentages
[1:28:27] of how many units were applied.
[1:28:28] So could you, I see Megan leaning in, could you guys refresh us to kind of where we are with that?
[1:28:33] Just to add back to the.
[1:28:35] Unfortunately, that specific ordinance, we did take it to the California Coastal Commission as part of our local coastal program amendment.
[1:28:42] Coastal Commission did approve that with a change to requiring a minimum night's day.
[1:28:48] And it's a reduction from what we currently have.
[1:28:50] So when it went back to city council, that was denied.
[1:28:53] So that ordinance related to the percentages is actually not applicable at this time.
[1:28:59] There are limitations related to what can be a short-term rental versus what can't be a short-term rental.
[1:29:04] It's limited to single-family or two-family residences.
[1:29:08] And there are a number of requirements and inspections that need to go through it.
[1:29:12] However, the percentage cap is not currently in place.
[1:29:18] my intent with the question was not to impose additional requirements over what
[1:29:23] exists in state law or municipal code was just to make sure and it sounds like
[1:29:28] from what was said earlier that when it's in the covenant it will spell out what
[1:29:36] the requirements are and as long as that's documented that's adequate I just
[1:29:42] want to make sure that there is some traceability that at the time this is
[1:29:47] the municipal code and the rule and that that's documented that this is subject to it.
[1:29:54] I can't predict what will happen in 20 years.
[1:29:57] No, no.
[1:29:57] Not sure.
[1:29:57] No, this can.
[1:30:00] I hear them chattering, but I think there is a standard covenant that the city enforces, and that's what's required. If I may, um, senior planner, Christina Bustamonte, if I can help with this question a little bit. So I hear your conversation. I hear your concern that, hey, I want to make sure that future owners know that this rule is in place that it's written down somewhere, and it's going to be on the property and perpetuity. Our standard process is we today are going to create a
[1:30:29] a resolution that's going to go with the condition of approval, with that has several conditions
[1:30:35] for this particular question that you have. We have 80U01, which is a standard condition
[1:30:41] for us that limits the accessory dwelling units to 30-day rental periods. It can be less
[1:30:49] than that. It can be more than that, but it can't be less than that. And so that resolution
[1:30:54] is going to get coupled with a covenant.
[1:30:58] So the covenant essentially is a real property covenant.
[1:31:00] It describes the permits that were placed
[1:31:03] for this particular property.
[1:31:05] As an exhibit, that's an attachment
[1:31:07] that will get placed with it, is the resolution.
[1:31:10] So that resolution will get coupled altogether.
[1:31:13] All of the conditions of approval,
[1:31:14] all of the tax from it will be all included.
[1:31:17] And then that gets recorded as a document against the property.
[1:31:21] So unless somebody rescinds it, that will be their imperpetuity.
[1:31:27] Does that help?
[1:31:28] That answers it perfectly.
[1:31:30] Thank you.
[1:31:30] Welcome.
[1:31:32] Okay.
[1:31:33] Okay.
[1:31:34] For staff.
[1:31:35] So a quick nuance on that item.
[1:31:37] So 80-01 does require that we do that covenant recordation.
[1:31:43] So that is something that we would do in the standard language that we have in a covenant
[1:31:48] that we utilizes, requires that 30-day minimum consistent with state law.
[1:31:53] That explicit language isn't in ADU01.
[1:31:56] If you would like to amend that condition of approval with this resolution,
[1:32:00] you could make that amendment for that language to be more explicit.
[1:32:04] But as Senior Planner Bustamante just stated, that condition is in the covenant,
[1:32:09] and that language is explicitly stated in that, and that would be recorded with the title.
[1:32:14] Well, also just to identify in chapter 30 point or 30 point 48 we are a covenant section within our local code.
[1:32:24] It also has a provision in terms of the rentals no more less than 30 days.
[1:32:29] It's also in the local code in addition to state law or in my provision.
[1:32:38] Bob, you had a question.
[1:32:39] Yeah, I had one more question for staff on let's see.
[1:32:45] on page 12 of 97 of the staff report. Under section, under EMC section 30.48.040.15,
[1:32:59] 80 use are not required to additional parking and floated within 1.5 mile of a major transit stop.
[1:33:04] This project is located 1.5 mile of the incident station.
[1:33:07] So, under SB, it's 79, in terms of a TOD, they measure it by not a concentric circle, but a walking distance.
[1:33:19] So, it's really, he's providing the parking, so it's really not a question for that.
[1:33:22] It's really more of the question of, how did you make that statement?
[1:33:25] Was it walking 90 feet, then turning left 90 feet, then going 90 feet?
[1:33:30] Or did you use a concentric circle measurement for that statement?
[1:33:34] So we have
[1:33:41] it might come up on other TODs. That's why so for AB 2097 it is a half mile walk to the transit station. So this little dot right here is the property. And then the purple is and
[1:33:55] needed a station and then separately under state law the ADU just needs to be within a half mile walking distance of a transit stop. Not necessarily a major transit stop.
[1:34:08] and the closest bus stop is on H and 101.
[1:34:12] So it doesn't have to be, there's been a lot
[1:34:15] of controversy over, not controversy, a lot of discussions
[1:34:18] over what defines a transit stop in terms of the frequency
[1:34:22] of the bus stops because this comes up in other places.
[1:34:27] So this qualifies obviously for the direction
[1:34:30] of the bus stop, it sounds like it qualifies
[1:34:32] from the locking distance that you measured.
[1:34:35] It wasn't a concentric circle.
[1:34:37] And is the, can you just help me understand what the frequency, what defines then the transit stop, maybe not for this project, but going forward, it's just a note defile for me.
[1:34:51] Is it have to be because this comes up under the potential development areas around the train station and around a transit stop.
[1:35:00] In terms of height and certain state laws that are before us. So the bus stop, does that mean it's like sevens, the level of service qualifies?
[1:35:16] Let me jump in first. This is very complex. In very coming on now. If it really matters, if it really matters for your approval, absolutely, we can answer the question. No, I'll have a sidebar at another time. Yeah,
[1:35:34] Yeah, just to answer your question, there are several different statutes, each with terms
[1:35:41] that sound similar, transit stop, major transit stop, high frequency railways, all of these
[1:35:49] different things that are layered that really are loaded words and get very complicated
[1:35:57] very quickly and people use them kind of interchangeably and get confused by them and so I'd be
[1:36:03] He really has an int that we any one of us really start talking definitively right now
[1:36:07] about it unless it's something you absolutely need for this.
[1:36:10] No, I think the answer is they measured it by a walking distance and it qualifies to
[1:36:14] the bus stop in the train station plus it doesn't really matter because he's got the extra
[1:36:17] parking.
[1:36:17] And it looks like they have a map that shows that in the red blue or the one that's on the
[1:36:23] screen.
[1:36:23] Exactly.
[1:36:23] Yeah.
[1:36:24] Answer my question.
[1:36:25] Great.
[1:36:27] I'm going to make a motion that we approve the project.
[1:36:29] I'll second that.
[1:36:32] Okay.
[1:36:33] I'll call the vote.
[1:36:33] Okay.
[1:36:39] Sorry to put you through that. I had to approve 5-0.
[1:36:55] Okay. The next item is I usually
[1:37:00] take a break if we get to 8 o'clock. Is everybody okay to finish this last one? Yeah. Okay.
[1:37:07] Item 8-D, the Brooks Residence Case Number Multi-007-164-2024. Are there any commission
[1:37:17] and disclosures,
[1:37:22] thank you.
[1:37:24] I've walked by there before, not recently.
[1:37:28] Okay, nothing to disclose.
[1:37:29] Nothing.
[1:37:30] Nothing.
[1:37:31] All right, Christina Bustamonte,
[1:37:34] this is a big night for you,
[1:37:37] is our staff senior planner
[1:37:39] and she's gonna present the case.
[1:37:43] Good evening commissioners, members of the public.
[1:37:45] My name is Christina Bustamonte.
[1:37:47] I'm a senior planner and I'll be presenting
[1:37:49] this project this evening. The project is for a design review permit and
[1:37:53] costot development permit to construct a 5,943 square foot single family single
[1:37:58] residents with an attached 899 square foot three car garage and a
[1:38:05] detached 1,136 square foot one bedroom one bathroom accessory dwelling unit on a
[1:38:12] vacant lot. The project includes encroachment into steep slopes and grading that
[1:38:17] That is eight vertical fee or less of cut and two vertical fee of fill.
[1:38:23] The project is currently vacant.
[1:38:25] The Planning Commission shall be the authorized agency for reviewing and
[1:38:30] granting discretionary approvals for proposed development within the hillside inland bluff overlay zone.
[1:38:37] The site slopes downward from west to east with steep slopes of greater than 25% grade at the east of the half of the parcel.
[1:38:47] I just heard the buzz, like, oh, yep, that's for me.
[1:38:53] Back to the sentence I was in.
[1:38:55] Thank you for letting me know.
[1:38:56] I wasn't presenting my presentation.
[1:38:59] The site slopes downward from west to east with steep slopes of greater than 25% gradient
[1:39:05] at the easterly half of the parcel.
[1:39:08] A jurisdictional wetland is present at the base of the slope near the easterly perimeter of
[1:39:14] the site. The subject property lies within the residential R3 single-family
[1:39:19] residences are permitted as a primary use in the subject zone.
[1:39:26] The project
[1:39:27] requires a design review permit for encroachment into natural steep slopes and
[1:39:33] landscaping and site improvements. It also requires a coastal development permit
[1:39:37] to review the project for compliance with the local coastal program.
[1:39:42] The project
[1:39:43] site is within the scenic visual corridor overlay zone, given their proximity to the interstate
[1:39:48] five. Section 3034-08-0 of the municipal code provides that for projects within the scenic visual
[1:39:57] overlay corridor zone. Consider
[1:40:00] Administration shall be given to the overall public visual impact of the project. It also allows certain conditions or limitations pertaining thereto to be applied to the project. The project proposes a single story residents and a single story accessory dwelling in. The project will feature a modern architectural style. The bulk and mass of the home is relatively low profile and design in that it is a single story and is situated on the
[1:40:29] western most portion of the parcel. More than 312 feet away from the interstate
[1:40:35] fly freeway. Several existing adjacent residences are two story and feature a
[1:40:41] variety of architectural styles such as farmhouse, traditional and craftsman. The
[1:40:47] new residents will not have more of a visual impact than existing adjacent
[1:40:52] residences. The grading of the property will be limited to the western most
[1:40:56] portion of the site. Reducing the visual impact on the existing slopes and preserving the steep
[1:41:02] slopes in an open space easement, the slopes are located adjacent to Interstate 5, preserving them
[1:41:08] would preserve the view within this portion of the visual corridor. The project features
[1:41:15] stone veneer, smooth finished echo, wood siding, metal fascia, and black window trim and mullions.
[1:41:23] The structures will be located on the western side of the parcel.
[1:41:29] The easterly side of the parcel contains a jurisdictional wetland that will be protected
[1:41:34] in perpetuity with a recorded open space easement that includes an additional area that
[1:41:39] provides a 50-foot buffer as measured from the outermost limits of the wetland habitat.
[1:41:46] The property contains steep slopes that are 25% or greater gradient.
[1:41:50] All Steve slopes that are not developed within this project will be placed within a Steve
[1:41:57] slopes easement that will preserve the slopes and perpetuity.
[1:42:01] And I'm going to take a quick pause here just to point out what we're looking at here on
[1:42:04] the screen.
[1:42:05] The existing wetland area is outlined in green and I apologize it's probably really hard
[1:42:11] to see from here what that looks like, but it's here on the usually side of the site.
[1:42:17] Thank you.
[1:42:18] And then the 50-foot buffer is going to be from the outermost limits of that wetland.
[1:42:25] And then the reason why this red outline is even larger than what the buffer is, is
[1:42:33] this red outline is also including the steep slopes that are on the property.
[1:42:38] So any steep slopes that were not part of the development got placed in this easement.
[1:42:43] So, to clarify this easement will be recorded against the property, the easement will include
[1:42:53] an exhibit that looks a lot like this shape on this parcel and will include a legal description
[1:43:00] as well that will describe the meets and bounds of this particular area in red. So just wanted
[1:43:06] to take a moment to explain that. The yellow that you see here on the exhibit are the radial lines
[1:43:12] for fire access for hose pool in particular.
[1:43:17] I just wanted to explain that it is here on this image.
[1:43:23] Okay, the residence includes four bedrooms,
[1:43:27] four bathrooms, a laundry room, a living room,
[1:43:30] kitchen, pantry, dining room, office, lounge,
[1:43:36] and an attached garage.
[1:43:38] The subject property is zoned R3,
[1:43:41] which allows for a maximum building height of two stories and 22 feet measured
[1:43:47] to the top of the roof above the exterior building wall and 26 feet measured
[1:43:52] to the peak of a pitched roof with a minimum 312 pitch. The project also has an
[1:43:58] average lot soap that is greater than 10% with a 15.5% average lot slope as
[1:44:05] documented in the plans and therefore a subject to an additional height restriction
[1:44:10] in limiting flat roof structures to 12 feet tall
[1:44:14] as measured from the highest uphill property line.
[1:44:17] In this case, the southern property line
[1:44:19] is the highest property line.
[1:44:22] The height of the proposed structures
[1:44:23] is measured from the lower of the existing or proposed grade.
[1:44:28] The project proposes a one-story residential residence
[1:44:32] with a maximum height of 21 feet and seven and a quarter inches
[1:44:36] to the top of the roof material as measured from the east elevation of the primary residence
[1:44:42] and that's highlighted in yellow here on the slide. I know the number is really tiny, but that's
[1:44:47] what it says. Although the roof elements of the 312 pitch are not considered pitch roof elements
[1:44:54] and are instead considered a shed roof subject to the flat roof height requirements.
[1:45:00] Each portion of the residents and the accessory dwelling unit is below the additional 12-foot height limit as measured from the tallest property line. This project complies with the applicable height restrictions and will be required to provide a height certification from a licensed land surveyor during construction to demonstrate compliance with the plans and height limitations. These are some additional elevations of the home with the rear and the
[1:45:30] left elevation there. That will be facing the street.
[1:45:37] And these are the ADU elevations. Again, it's a single story.
[1:45:41] It does go below that 12 foot property line.
[1:45:45] So what's interesting here, and I guess I should pause a little bit
[1:45:48] and explain what that 12 foot height line means
[1:45:51] because I think it might be helpful.
[1:45:53] If we were to go back over here on this site plan,
[1:45:56] that's the other property line that we're talking about
[1:45:58] is this one here.
[1:45:59] There's a bunch of little dots and elevation measurements because we have taken those and
[1:46:05] matched them to the corners of the building to measure that 12 foot above property line.
[1:46:11] And so if we were to go here on these elevations, these elevations then have the property line
[1:46:19] measurement and what that is and it would match and then 12 feet above that.
[1:46:23] So that's where these dotted lines are, they're the 12 and the 16.
[1:46:27] In this case, because the project has flat roof elements and not pitched, we were looking
[1:46:32] at the 12-foot line.
[1:46:35] So with all of that, the project is complying essentially.
[1:46:40] But I wanted to explain that a little bit because especially when we come here to the accessory
[1:46:43] dwelling units, and you see where the property line is drawn versus where the 12-foot height
[1:46:48] line is very clearly under that.
[1:46:51] And so this project is very much complying with the requirements that they need.
[1:46:55] So moving on, the citizen participation program was held on June 2nd, 2026, for attendees
[1:47:04] from the public came to the meeting.
[1:47:06] They were in general support of the project, and there were general questions that were
[1:47:11] received, mostly just curiosity about the project.
[1:47:14] And a public hearing notice was mailed on August 20th, 2026, and no comments were received.
[1:47:21] The project has been determined to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to California
[1:47:27] Environmental Quality Act guidelines, 15303A, which exempts the construction of small structures,
[1:47:34] including a single family residence and an accessory dwelling in it.
[1:47:38] The proposed project, with conditions incorporated, is consistent with the objectives and policies
[1:47:44] of the general plan and local cost of plan and demonstrates compliance with applicable sections
[1:47:49] of the Incinitas Municipal Code and objective design standards in the city of
[1:47:54] Incinitas, design standards, and guidelines document. The findings can be made
[1:47:59] to support the project staff recommends approval of the design review permit and
[1:48:04] the coastal development permit. Myself and the applicant are here at the meeting
[1:48:09] and available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time.
[1:48:14] Thank you, Christina. Any commissioner questions for the staff?
[1:48:18] I had one, please. Thank you for the presentation. If you could go back to the slide where you were showing the outline of the easement, I had a question regarding that.
[1:48:38] Okay. Is this the image you're looking for? Yes.
[1:48:44] Right above the lower left part of the easement, it looks like there's a little somewhat triangular
[1:48:51] piece of land that's excluded from the easement.
[1:48:55] It has two little boxes in it, but it looks like it's kind of stranded because there's a
[1:49:02] property line, so there's additional property adjacent property next to it.
[1:49:07] I'm curious why that is not part of the easement or and it doesn't have any intended use.
[1:49:16] Yeah, so for that, yes and yes, let me go to a different image really quickly and get my help.
[1:49:29] Let's see, let's wait for it. Okay, there we are.
[1:49:31] So this is the sleep slope analysis in the why we're seeing slopes that are less than 25% grade, the yellow are 25% to 40% grade, and then the red is over 40% grade.
[1:49:47] So where is our red outline on this particular project or this particular sheet? This time it's not a red outline, it's rather just kind of a dotted outline that if you can kind of imagine.
[1:50:00] What it was in the previous slide. There is a little pocket here where there are no steep slopes. The applicant has decided to take advantage of that and add for themselves a small footpath to these little sheds here that they use for whatever reasons they use it for. And so they are allowed to do that. The reason why they would want to do that now, and maybe not leave that off the plan
[1:50:29] is because it would make more sense to create a boundary for this easement that is as simple
[1:50:39] to explain as possible and doing a little pocket like this isn't really that advantageous
[1:50:45] to us. However, it is to the property owner. And because it's not steep slopes, we say, hey,
[1:50:52] why don't we go ahead and utilize that for our future use for whatever reason they would
[1:50:57] like to, as long as it's when the thing code. So that's why does that help?
[1:51:04] It does. Thank you. So then for them to access that flat part of the slope, they will
[1:51:14] access it that through the the easement that the so they it's very hard to tell here, but it's
[1:51:24] Why it enough for a footpath so just a tiny little area here where you can kind of walk between the property line and the easement line
[1:51:32] I know it's hard to look at in this particular document, but
[1:51:37] Let's see if we go back. I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I can tell that from the drawing. It just looked like a stranded piece of
[1:51:44] Landon I it struck me as odd that it was there. So I understand that. Oh, thank you
[1:51:51] While that image is up on the screen, or it was, can you explain the area that's crosshatched?
[1:51:59] It looks like there's yellow slope area that is crosshatched.
[1:52:05] So that is steep slope that is part of the development.
[1:52:09] Yes, so it's an excellent question.
[1:52:12] These are steep slopes that were on the property.
[1:52:14] These are the steep slopes that they are indicating was part of the encroachment that they calculated.
[1:52:22] And so in order for us to understand, okay, where was that spatially?
[1:52:27] They've put this cross hatch pattern on for us.
[1:52:30] What's important to know because I'm seeing on the screen there are some yellow spots that are like in the driveway sections.
[1:52:36] We do have within our code that encroachment into steep slopes for purposes of accessing the property
[1:52:42] or for coming into, say, your garage or something like that, it doesn't count towards the encroachment.
[1:52:50] And so, even though we may see some small portions that are within the driveway,
[1:52:53] they did not count towards encroachment.
[1:52:56] What is the allowed encroachment?
[1:52:59] 10%.
[1:52:59] 10%.
[1:53:00] And are they at 9.9?
[1:53:03] Yes.
[1:53:05] Is it common to put the remaining slope into an easement?
[1:53:09] Yeah, so our code requires any steep slopes that were not disturbed as part of the property development
[1:53:17] be preserved into an open space easement, and so that's why we're doing what we're doing.
[1:53:24] Thank you.
[1:53:26] Any, go ahead.
[1:53:28] I'd like to ask about the connection to the sewer, which runs along the east portion of the property
[1:53:34] and how that will be developed.
[1:53:41] So that's a good question.
[1:53:43] There is a sewer easement that runs along the cow trans right away, which is on the easterly part of the property.
[1:53:49] It's kind of between the property and the freeway, if you will.
[1:53:53] They are not connecting to sewer from there. I think that's a good thing to clarify.
[1:53:59] This particular image that we have on the screen now is essentially showing that the property is going to take sewer connection from the ocean view avenue.
[1:54:08] so I can zoom in just a little bit because it looks like it's hard to see out
[1:54:11] there. This blue line is the sewer line and so that's where they're going to take
[1:54:17] it from. Does that require a sump pump? I will leave that to the applicant. I don't
[1:54:23] recall off the top of my head.
[1:54:33] Let's can keep that one up. My question is up at the
[1:54:37] northern property line. The distance between the property line and the corner of
[1:54:45] the ADU. Looks like it's according to your it's four feet. That's pretty tight. I think
[1:54:59] I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
[1:55:00] So identified on page 6 of the plan of the municipal code analysis, and it's compliant. No one commented on that, and is that the code just 4 feet from a property line on a site as large as this? So it is a good thing to clarify. This particular zone is required to have a 10 foot side yard setback and that portion that you're looking at here on the north, that is a side yard. The 4 feet comes
[1:55:29] from the state code and the allowances for accessory dwelling units so the
[1:55:35] only reason why this is as close as it is the four feet is because the state
[1:55:41] codes allow for it. Okay and no we did not get any public comments on the
[1:55:47] proximity of that ADU to the property line. All right
[1:55:55] and it's the ADU size is when
[1:55:59] we don't see a lot of ADUs come across so usually those are done
[1:56:02] administratively or ministerially.
[1:56:05] So this is the last ADU that came before us a few minutes ago was 456 square feet and
[1:56:12] I think the other one was approximately the same size.
[1:56:15] This is a 1100 square foot ADU.
[1:56:19] What do our codes say about the size of an ADU or is it a state mandate or could you just
[1:56:24] give me some clarification on our codes versus city codes or state codes to allow an ADU to put
[1:56:30] something four feet from our property line?
[1:56:33] Yeah, so an accessory dwelling unit at maximum could have been 1,200 square feet.
[1:56:38] So they actually could have done even larger than they did by 100 square feet.
[1:56:42] And so yes, that is something that's also regulated by the state as well as our code.
[1:56:48] And so that's the size that it could have been.
[1:56:50] It's not that much.
[1:56:52] And so yes, it's following the codes that are applicable.
[1:56:57] Okay, and is there a fence that runs along the northern property line as submitted as it means to it can be as high as six feet. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you.
[1:57:10] Let's see if I had another one that was code setbacks
[1:57:18] on the inland the hillside inland bluff overlay zone on page eight of 103 of the report.
[1:57:27] I think you mentioned this, it says the site is composed of 65.7% parcel are area with less than 25% slope capacity, 27.6% of the parcel area with 25% of 40% slope capacity and 6.7% of the area with over 40% slope capacity.
[1:57:50] The total area of the property within the steep slopes that are 25% or greater is 34%.
[1:57:56] So it's a lot there for me.
[1:58:00] How does that get incorporated into our approval process?
[1:58:07] You mentioned maybe pull up the hash, the one that Commissioner with the yellow and the red
[1:58:13] on it.
[1:58:17] And I guess does that all just kind of then go into the stew pot.
[1:58:20] And as long as they're under 10% or there's two different things you're at 9.9% but it seems like
[1:58:28] This is a very steep site site and is there anything of your concern in the hillside in limb left over a zone that we're too steep to build
[1:58:41] So this particular property you are correct a majority of the site or at least a large portion of the site is within steep slopes
[1:58:47] maybe more than some of the other properties that we look at on a regular basis and
[1:58:53] to answer your question, the 34.3% isn't exactly a key factor.
[1:59:02] What is a key factor is, and it gets kind of confusing here the way that we articulate the numbers.
[1:59:11] But if there is more than 10% of the whole lot that are steep slopes or 25% are more gradient,
[1:59:22] then they get an additional height restriction.
[1:59:25] Okay.
[1:59:26] So that's one criteria.
[1:59:28] All right.
[1:59:28] Another criteria that comes into play is, okay,
[1:59:32] all of this area, the 34.3% portion,
[1:59:37] the percent so much isn't as much of an interest
[1:59:40] for this particular thing I'm about to explain,
[1:59:44] but it isn't that there's a lot here that's steep.
[1:59:49] and so of these steep slopes only 10% is allowable to be encroached within. So mapping all of the
[2:00:00] Soap's on to a parcel like this is helpful because it allows us to visually see where is that, especially, and where is the encroachment that the applicant is asking for in order to accommodate their development. And so the two different things, the criteria one is the height, the next one is the encroachment, the 34.3% is a little bit arbitrary in here because it's not directly linking towards anything. It's more of just information.
[2:00:29] It's a statement, it's just identifying facts of the property.
[2:00:33] But those are the two things, why we would be interested in some of this information.
[2:00:37] And for Commissioner Dalton, the next paragraph, beginning with the proposed encroachment into steep slope.
[2:00:44] Is that the hatched area that we're talking about that, is that being the 9.9%?
[2:00:49] That is correct.
[2:00:50] And is that 9.9% over the gross acreage, or the buildable area because if it's the buildable area,
[2:00:57] Yeah, it looks like it's more than 9.9%.
[2:00:59] So, is it 9.9% of the state's lower area or the yellow areas?
[2:01:08] Yeah, so anything that's red or yellow of those square foot areas, 10% of that, so it's
[2:01:17] not the whole lot.
[2:01:18] It's just the colored areas in this case and this exhibit.
[2:01:21] That was very helpful.
[2:01:22] Thank you.
[2:01:25] I think I just discovered a new term that I didn't know before but can you explain to me what the stirred rutter roll is?
[2:01:37] You know, I don't know that I know that term very well either and I feel like I would be giving you a guess if I give you an answer.
[2:01:45] I'm going to default here and ask for a line. Do you happen to know Denise? No? Does anybody on the dius now?
[2:01:53] Oh hey, if you don't mind Mr. Books, if you could speak in the microphone otherwise we don't get it on the record.
[2:02:01] Thank you.
[2:02:05] Not going to say this is 100%.
[2:02:06] But this used to be an avocado orchard.
[2:02:09] And so basically this land has all been disturbed.
[2:02:11] It's not native wild wild land.
[2:02:14] So there's still existing avocado trees from the avocado orchard down closer to the wetlands.
[2:02:21] That the roots reach down to the water table and they're able to survive naturally.
[2:02:24] But all this land has been farmed.
[2:02:27] It is all irrigated from the officolor orchard.
[2:02:30] The actual pre-these owners of the officolor orchard once still lives on the southeast corner
[2:02:37] and her daughter lives on the northwest corner, you know, and so there's still the family
[2:02:44] and then the brother owns the house behind the mother.
[2:02:48] So they had a five acre parcel, partial and ports off, sold off some acres and this was
[2:02:54] remained off. I got a orchard till 1950s or 60s. And then they turned off the irrigation and
[2:03:01] most of the trees died. But so it's not native undisturbed land. So that's what the
[2:03:07] disturb. So it's when you plant over it's native.
[2:03:13] It's all the native plants are gone. They've
[2:03:15] till they've planted, they've irrigated, so it's nothing native is left when the drainage
[2:03:24] from the highway went through the base, which used to be, you know, the daughter used to ride
[2:03:29] her horses on here, but when the highway five was built and expanded, that became a drainage
[2:03:36] ditch, which that drainage ditch then brought wildlife from the occasional rain, you know, from the
[2:03:42] highway runoff that goes through that wetland but that's just one more related to that there's
[2:03:52] some existing old irrigation is that just going to leave that I mean it's going to have to be torn
[2:04:00] out in order to it to I mean so we're basically need to excavate even for the driveway so all that's
[2:04:07] going to be torn out. They're still in the steep slopes. There's still irrigation in there.
[2:04:14] I don't believe I'm allowed to tear that out. So wherever there's building, it'll be torn out.
[2:04:20] Wherever it remains, it needs to remain just because I don't think I'm allowed to touch it.
[2:04:26] Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Sure. No problem.
[2:04:32] Two quick questions. Well, quick questions. One in the biology report, they noted
[2:04:38] an endangered species that the Vero, the least Vero turn, I think, or the least Vero.
[2:04:44] That's was found down in the scrub area, and that's not going to be disturbed, is that
[2:04:51] right?
[2:04:52] You are correct.
[2:04:53] Okay, great.
[2:04:54] Thank you for that.
[2:04:55] And then, since you just, just propped into my head, drainage was-
[2:05:00] Another project, it's a pretty steep slope. There's going to be natural rain this year that's going to come down the slope. Does the applicant, does the, do the drawings require any sort of, I mean, we have stormed in requirements, so everything that's buildable kind of has to be part of the stormwater management program, but is the applicant required to do any grading or any adjustments to the slopes to make sure that they're stable? Or is that just going to remain natural?
[2:05:29] And it's natural. It just is what it is.
[2:05:35] It's going to remain the way that it is. And that's part of the open space easement is that it will just remain that way in perpetuity. And the idea being that over time, the natural landscape will begin to recover and come back. I think that probably take a while, but that is the idea.
[2:05:55] Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much, Christina.
[2:06:02] The applicant is here. Would you like to address the commission?
[2:06:12] Hi, my name is John Brooks and this is my civil engineer, Joel Weymire. Appreciate everyone's time tonight. I know it's getting late.
[2:06:20] Just wanted to explain the background of the project just so I know it sounds like there's a lot of developers that come in here.
[2:06:26] I have two small children.
[2:06:28] I'm looking to build a house for me, my family.
[2:06:31] I have one remaining parent, my wife has one remaining parent.
[2:06:34] We're still planning to do a multi-generational house.
[2:06:37] There are ADA requirements for our living situation,
[2:06:41] which is why we've been looking for a place to build a single story house.
[2:06:46] The size of this lot, as well as the restrictions on high restrictions,
[2:06:51] and to merge together where this tends to be a good place.
[2:06:56] We, because of the highway noise, we tried to build as far west as possible to minimize
[2:07:01] that as you go down the slope, noise increases the closer you get to the highway.
[2:07:06] Staying away from the wetlands has also been important.
[2:07:09] In terms of the, you know, grading and how far down, that's the sewer, the question about
[2:07:14] the sewer drainage to ocean you having was one of the important things.
[2:07:19] In that, in terms of where we're grading to in order to be able to still naturally slope
[2:07:26] and Joel knows all the technicalities, but that was one of the requirements.
[2:07:32] I think that's all I have, I don't know, do you have anything to add Joel or available for questions?
[2:07:37] Available for questions if you have any.
[2:07:39] Okay, thank you for coming tonight and thank you for that explanation.
[2:07:43] Are there any public comments on this?
[2:07:46] Thank you.
[2:07:46] All right, I'm going to close the public comment portion, open up to Commissioner deliberation.
[2:07:54] Anyone want to start?
[2:07:59] Start.
[2:08:00] Okay.
[2:08:00] Happy to.
[2:08:01] Yeah, I found that property would be very interesting.
[2:08:04] It's got a variety of aspects to it, the interesting architecture.
[2:08:09] We don't see very many single stories spread out so wide.
[2:08:14] And in a position where it was presented, I found that very interesting.
[2:08:19] and including the dedicated natural habitat space with wetland in it, that also has a major
[2:08:26] sewer line running right outside of it and left by freeway. So, all very interesting.
[2:08:31] And I didn't find anything specifically outstanding as far as concerns, and so I was fairly supportive
[2:08:44] of the design and the support of the project moving forward.
[2:08:49] Okay.
[2:08:52] Yeah, I, you know, the context of the ADU and the single story,
[2:08:58] we rarely get that because of the densities and people tend to go vertical.
[2:09:02] So it makes a lot of sense now a little bit more because we haven't seen too many of those.
[2:09:06] So I agree with Commissioner Whitaker.
[2:09:08] I think it's a good project for the site.
[2:09:10] You've tried to accomplish as much as you can as far away from the freeway as possible.
[2:09:16] for both personal and for, you know, just in the slope issue also.
[2:09:20] And, you know, you came in, you squeaky, you squeaked right under the 10% rule.
[2:09:25] I'm sure that took a lot of deliberation by your consultants and well done.
[2:09:30] It seems to meet everything and this is a complicated deal.
[2:09:34] And so I appreciate staff's clarification on a lot of these items.
[2:09:39] We don't see them all the time, so thank you for your time tonight.
[2:09:41] Thanks, staff. That was a good one.
[2:09:44] I would support the project.
[2:09:48] I also support the project.
[2:09:51] I think it, on first blush, it looks like a tough site to build on, because it is so
[2:09:55] steep.
[2:09:56] and to see that you're able to fit large singles
[2:10:04] I appreciate the, you know, conformance to the regulations and it will be nice to have that large slope preserved.
[2:10:17] Some of those avocado trees at the bottom will survive, but that's not, you know, that I think that era is over for that property. But it will provide a nice kind of a migratory path for other animals that are in the area. So, I think that's a good thing.
[2:10:29] I'm happy to see so much of it staying as it is and eventually rewilding so overall I think it's a good project for the area.
[2:10:47] You're pointing out that there's a correspondence submitted to us on this property or project for some organization about housing.
[2:10:57] I was confused why that applied to a single family home.
[2:11:02] but I don't want to distract. I also support the project. I don't find that
[2:11:08] that letter has with anything it's asking us to support the project and I
[2:11:12] already support it for other reasons and so let me just say I concur with your
[2:11:20] comments and I hope you get a nice house for your family out of it but we're not
[2:11:25] quite, quite there. Any other final comments or I would suggest a motion?
[2:11:33] I'll move approval. Seconded. Thank you. Let's call the vote.
[2:11:47] Okay. Thank you for staying late tonight and you're approved 5-0.
[2:11:51] I look forward to seeing your house bill.
[2:12:01] Okay.
[2:12:04] Item 9 tonight is future agenda items added by the Planning Commissioners.
[2:12:09] Are there any future agenda items? Mr. Whitaker.
[2:12:14] Chair Dalton, I was wondering if perhaps we could get in.
[2:12:18] I don't have a future agenda item to propose to be added to the agenda at this time, but
[2:12:23] I was wondering if perhaps we could just get updated about the work plan, perhaps some
[2:12:27] of the progress with things on the work plan as well as the work plan itself being presented.
[2:12:33] I know that we're having a switch over with Andrew now stepping in for Secretary and I
[2:12:43] thought maybe some discussion about process and moving forward would be helpful.
[2:12:47] Sure.
[2:12:48] Let me, I'll let this bleed into commission reports of some sort, but we're scheduled to go,
[2:12:56] I'm scheduled to go to the City Council September 23rd, I believe you said.
[2:13:02] That's correct.
[2:13:02] Okay, September 23rd, you know, this commission approved the work plan at the two meetings
[2:13:13] ago. I think it was two of you were missing. I think there was a quorum of three. We
[2:13:19] voted approved it as it was written amended by Megan. And so that's in the works to go to
[2:13:26] the city council.
[2:13:31] And could I get is there any update with the inclusionary housing since
[2:13:37] we've approved it any any movement with that. So the resolution and the attachment which
[2:13:45] is exhibit A has been circulated for a signature. So before I circulated it I ensure that I
[2:13:50] included those additional links related to the local agencies. And so once we finalize signatures
[2:13:56] on our side, then we'll go ahead and route it through to the appropriate channels.
[2:14:01] Great, thank you.
[2:14:02] And the only other one that I was wondering about is that the code review, are we still expecting some sort of
[2:14:16] agendas topic on that?
[2:14:18] Yes, before the end of this year, this will come back to the commission.
[2:14:27] Okay,
[2:14:31] great. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other planning commission reports?
[2:14:38] All right, secretary reports. Nothing to report tonight. Okay.
[2:14:43] With that, I'm going to adjourn the meeting until the next planning commission hearing on September 17th with that we're done.