Vista staff present draft Mar Vista Specific Plan; residents press sewer, grading and housing concerns

City of Vista planning staff presented a draft Mar Vista Specific Plan at a community meeting on 2023-12-01 in Mar Vista, outlining zoning, setbacks, uses and development standards intended to preserve the neighborhood's semi-rural character while memorializing prior County of San Diego A-70 allowances. Residents raised questions about sewer access, unpermitted grading and grandfathering, accessory-structure permitting, and statewide laws that allow lot splits.

Associate Planner Rafi Mangasirian opened the presentation, saying, "My name is Rafi Mangasirian. I'm the associate planner and the project manager for this project, P24-three 54." He told residents the draft covers about 143 acres and 108 parcels and that, if adopted, the document would create a Mar Vista Specific Plan implementation zone that largely adopts the county's A-70 agricultural standards rather than intensifying density.

The plan would set a minimum lot size of 1 acre and a minimum density of one unit per acre, with a two-story or 35-foot height limit. Staff said parking requirements would be two spaces per unit and that the draft carries through county standards for accessory buildings, including a chart that sets accessory-structure square footage by lot size and a general limit tied to a percent of a residence's living area. Setbacks described in the draft include a 60-foot front setback measured from the street centerline; side interior setbacks of roughly 10'15 feet; side exterior setbacks of about 35 feet; and rear setbacks addressed in the draft (the document contains a chart with specifics by lot size).

The draft also carries over county animal-keeping standards and lists permitted and conditional uses. Staff said some county uses were judged unsuitable for the Mar Vista area and could be excluded or require public hearings: special uses such as packing and processing of crops, public stables, cemeteries and shooting ranges would go to the planning commission; minor use permits (for kennels, limited agricultural processing, sports and parks, radio antennas, schools) would be heard by the zoning administrator.

On environmental review, staff said the city attorney is reviewing whether a negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is appropriate; it is being considered but not yet final. Mangasirian said the city would not require property owners to connect to sewer upon adoption of the specific plan and that septic permitting remains under the county health department when applicable.

Residents pressed staff on several implementation issues. At the meeting, Bob Raul of 1031 Marine View Drive asked whether the plan would "grandfather in unlawful grading" and argued that unpermitted grading on adjacent properties had encroached on his septic reserve area. Mangasirian responded that unpermitted uses and grading would be reviewed by engineering and sewer staff and that engineering would assess compliance with stormwater and soils standards; he said staff would review Raul's detailed materials with the engineering division.

Other questions focused on accessory structures and permits. Multiple residents cited a county allowance that they said permits certain carports or patios up to 300 square feet without a county permit; staff said the specific-plan accessory-structure allowances were taken from county standards but that the city's building-permit thresholds (for example, small sheds that may be exempt at very small sizes) differ and that staff would verify specific permit exemptions with county code.

Several residents raised broader housing concerns. A resident who identified himself as Aaron said, "Plans like this kind of slap us in the face," arguing the draft's one-acre minimums do not address Vista's housing shortfall. Staff noted that the Mar Vista plan is intended to preserve the character of a neighborhood that was annexed into the city under commitments to retain county-era standards; staff also pointed attendees to concurrent city processes, including a city general plan update and areas where higher densities are being considered, and said the city's housing element is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Staff addressed legal preemption from state law. Mangasirian explained that state laws such as SB 9 (and related provisions) allow certain lot splits and that those state provisions would apply where they are legally applicable; staff said the city has not adopted any local sale-of-parcel allowances tied to SB 9/SB 10 that would convey title automatically and that maps (fire hazard, wetlands, etc.) can limit SB 9 applicability in specific locations.

Residents also asked about sanitation and annexation history. Staff said the Mar Vista area was approved for annexation by LAFCO and that the reorganization was recorded on April 11, 2023; staff said the neighborhood was detached from the Buena Sanitation District and is now under Vista's sanitation jurisdiction, but that timing and property-tax billing questions about past charges may require coordination with the sanitation engineering group.

Code enforcement questions surfaced as well. A resident asked whether the city would step up proactive enforcement in the neighborhood; staff said code enforcement in Vista acts on complaints and is not a proactive patrol function, and that enforcement actions generally follow complaints and investigations to protect health, safety and welfare.

Next steps outlined by staff: the draft specific plan will be revised as staff receives comments, then go to the planning commission for public hearing and recommendation and ultimately to the City Council for adoption. Staff asked residents to use the sign-in and speaker-slip process, said they would attach the draft more directly to future e-blasts for easier access, and offered to follow up with engineering or records staff on specific sewer, grading and parcel-history questions.

No formal actions or votes were taken at the community meeting; staff described the session as an information and public-comment opportunity ahead of the formal planning commission and council hearings.