May 5, 2026, Item #8
~)', AGENDA REPORT CityofPovvay
\.\· / I
~~ CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
SUBJECT:
Summary:
May 5, 2026
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Julie Procopio, Director of Development Servicescy
Sara Trunzo, Senior Civil Engineer
858-668-4622 or [email protected]
Appeal 26-0001-An Appeal of the Denial of Boundary Adjustment Application 25-0002, Located South of Ahwahnee Way and North of Cree Drive (APNs 317-611-01 and 314- 440-38)
Boundary Adjustment (BA) 25-0002 was a request from the applicant, Jonathan Volfson, to modify the shared property boundary between two adjoining parcels located on the east side of Starridge Park in the Rural Residential-A (RR-A) zone (Attachment A). The action of a boundary adjustment was Mr.
Volfson's first step to facilitate future subdivision and development on the two vacant parcels. The City Engineer denied the application on January 7, 2026, citing inconsistencies with the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code (PM() related to parcel shape, minimum dimensions, depth-to-width ratio, and potential impairment of access (Attachment B). The applicant filed an appeal on January 15, 2026, stating the proposed adjustment is consistent with broader General Plan policies, housing goals, and environmental objectives, and asserting the cited standards do not apply to existing legal parcels (Attachment C). The appeal also asserts the adjustment would enable future subdivision, improve fire safety access, and preserve open space through proposed easements.
Recommended Action:
It is recommended the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the denial of BA 25-0002, pursuant to the attached Resolution (Attachment D). Should the City Council instead decide to grant the appeal, in whole or in part, staff will return at a future date with a new resolution with revised findings in accordance with the City Council's decision.
Discussion:
Project Description
BA 25-0002 requested to modify the shared property line between two adjoining vacant parcels.
Parcel A, identified as APN 317-611-01 (approximately 7.3 acres), and Parcel B, identified as APN 314- 440-38 (approximately 10.1 acres), are located on the east side of Starridge Park in the Rural 1 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Residential-A (RR-A) zone (Project). The boundary adjustment process, governed by the California Subdivision Map Act and the PMC Title 16, Chapter 16.14, allows reconfiguration of parcel boundaries between 4 or fewer existing adjoining parcels without creating new parcels.
The parcels are located in the RR-A zone which requires minimum parcel sizes of 4 acres per lot when the average slope of the parcels to be subdivided is less than 15%, and 8 acres per lot when the average slope is between 15% and 25%. The average slope of Parcel A is 16.5% and the average combined slope of Parcels A and Bis estimated to be 25%. Based on the combined slope of the parcels, the minimum required lot size is 8 acres. With a combined size of 18.4 acres, two parcels is the maximum number of parcels allowed per the PMC.
The boundary adjustment proposed a reduction in the size of Parcel A to 8.2 acres and an increase in the size of Parcel B to 9.29 acres. The proposed adjustment sought to consolidate steep slopes onto Parcel B and reconfigure the northern parcel (Parcel A) for a potential future subdivision while maintaining legal access from Ahwahnee Way and Cree Drive, both improved public roadways. The applicant states the adjustment is intended to facilitate a future subdivision, align ownership boundaries, improve access for fire management zone maintenance and establish open space easements for riparian habitat. The proposed configuration would result in changes to parcel width, depth, shape and ratio.
Denial of Application
On January 7, 2026, the City Engineer denied BA 25-0002. The denial was based on findings that the proposed adjustment does not comply with applicable provisions of the PMC, the General Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66412(d)), which require parcels resulting from a boundary adjustment conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, and zoning and building ordinances. Specifically, the proposed boundary adjustment was found to be inconsistent with Goal 1, Policy B.5 of the Community Development Element of the General Plan, which states that parcel sizes and shapes should follow a rectangular pattern with a parcel depth-to-width ratio between 2:1 and 3:1. The proposal would create irregularly shaped parcels by transferring an area of slopes from the northeastern portion of the northern parcel (Parcel A) to the southern parcel (Parcel B) and introducing an irregular parcel line between the two properties.
In addition, the proposed adjustment does not meet the minimum parcel width and depth standards established in PMC Section 17.08.160, which require a minimum parcel width of 110 feet and a minimum parcel depth of 150 feet. The proposed configuration includes areas where the parcel width is reduced to approximately 80 feet or less.
The proposed adjustment also exceeds the maximum depth-to-width ratio allowed under PMC Section 17.08.170(A), which states the ratio of parcel depth to parcel width shall not exceed 3:1. Parcels exceeding this ratio are considered unusually shaped and may only be allowed within certain residential zones where the City Council finds that such configurations are necessary to preserve unique topographic or environmental features. No such findings were made in this case.
Finally, the City Engineer determined the proposed adjustment would impair access to portions of the property, contrary to PMC Section 16.14.01 O(C), which prohibits boundary adjustments impair existing access or create a need for new access. The proposed configuration would create a constrained access point between the southerly and northerly portions of the southeastern parcel, limiting movement 2 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
within the property.
Appeal Filing
On January 15, 2026, the City received a letter of appeal from the applicant. The applicant is appealing the City Engineer's denial of BA25-0002 on the basis the findings and determinations made in the denial letter are incorrect, as outlined in the summary section of this report. On March 17, 2026, the applicant requested a two-week delay of the appeal hearing, which resulted in May 5, 2026, as the next available City Council hearing date. The following is a summary of the applicant's appeal and staffs evaluation:
1) The Boundary Adjustment Does Not Comply with General Plan Parcel Shape and Depth to Width Ratio Requirements
The applicant cites Goal 1, Policy B.5 of the Community Development Element of the General Plan, which states parcel sizes and shapes should follow a rectangular pattern with a parcel depth-to-width ratio between 2:1 and 3:1. The applicant argues the subject parcels are existing legal parcels that do not currently conform to this guideline and the proposed adjustment is intended to reconfigure two existing nonconforming parcels, not create new parcels. The applicant also notes the General Plan language uses "should," not "shall," and cites Goal 1, Policy B.3, which encourages variety in parcel design and orientation. The applicant asserts the adjustment does not conflict with these policies and would facilitate future subdivision of one parcel into two legal parcels, supporting housing goals.
City Staff Evaluation:
Staff maintains Goal 1, Policy B.5 establishes an important design principle for parcel configuration to ensure orderly development. The parcels, as they are currently configured, are roughly rectangular.
The proposed boundary adjustment results in parcels that exceed the allowable depth-to-width ratio and are not roughly rectangular. Government Code 66412 (d) requires parcels resulting from a lot line adjustment conform to the General Plan and zoning code. The proposal conflicts with multiple General Plan policies and zoning code standards that are both required and recommended.
Therefore, staffs denial of the boundary adjustment conforms with state and local regulations. 2) The Boundary Adjustment Does Not Comply with Minimum Parcel Width and Depth Standards
The applicant contends that minimum lot width and depth standards established in the PMC apply only to new subdivision parcels to ensure there is adequate space for building pads and required setbacks. Both parcels substantially exceed minimum overall dimensions (approximately 500 feet by 650 feet). The applicant acknowledges the adjustment creates a narrow portion of one parcel but states this area is undevelopable due to slope and does not affect building pad placement or setbacks.
The applicant also emphasizes the adjustment would improve access for fire management zone maintenance and align ownership boundaries with the adjacent Heritage Hills subdivision parcels to the east.
City Staff Evaluation:
Per state law, PMC Section 17.08.160 applies to parcels modified by boundary adjustment, to maintain minimum standards for parcel usability. The proposed adjustment creates narrow areas along steep slopes with widths of approximately 80 feet, which do not meet the required 110-foot minimum. This noncompliance is a basis for denial. Additionally, the proposed boundary adjustment does not result in an operational benefit for fire management zones and would hinder maintenance as the northerly 3 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
portion
of
Parcel
B
is
only
accessible
through
slopes
greater
than
45%
. The
slope
and
existing
habitat
are
more
appropriately
retained
within
the
northern
parcel
where
they
can
be
accessed
from
the
flat
pad
area
for
maintenance
purposes.
For
these
reasons,
the
adjustment
does
not
comply
with
the
design
standard
established
in
the
zoning
code.
3)
The
Boundary
Adjustment
Creates
Unusually
Shaped
Parcels
The
applicant
references
PMC
Section
17.08 .170(A},
which
states
unusually
shaped
parcels
may
only
be
allowed
within
certain
zones
and
only
where
the
City
Council
finds
they
are
necessary
to
preserve
unique topographic
or
environmental
features
. The
applicant
argues
this
standard
applies
to
new
subdivisions
or
parcel
maps,
not
boundary
adjustments
between
existing
legal
parcels.
The
applicant
states
the
adjustment
consolidates
steep
slopes
onto
one
parcel,
supporting
long-term
management
of
topographic
constraints.
The
applicant
also
proposes
an
open
space
easement
to
preserve
riparian
habitat,
further
advancing
environmental
goals.
City
Staff
Evaluation:
PMC
Section
17.08 .170(A)
and
related
provisions
require
the
ratio
of
the
depth
of
a parcel
to
the
width
of
a parcel
shall
not
exceed
a maximum
ratio
of
3:1.
lfthe
ratio
is
exceeded,
the
parcel
shall
be
deemed
an
unusually
shaped
parcel.
Unusually
shaped
parcels
may
only
be
allowed
within
the
RR-A
through
Rural
Residential
C (RR-C)
and
Residential
Single
Family-1
(RS-1)
zones
and
only
where
the
City
Council,
in
its
discretion,
finds
unusually
shaped
parcels
are
necessary
to
preserve
unique
topographic
or
environmental
features.
As
currently
configured,
the
parcels
are
not
considered
unusually
shaped
as
each
parcel's
depth-to-width
ratio
is
less
than
3:1.
The
proposed
incorporation
of
the
slopes
along
the
eastern
property
line
into
Parcel
B
creates
a
parcel
that
exceeds
the
allowable
parcel
depth-to-width
ratio.
The
proposed
adjustment
would
introduce
an
irregularly
shaped
parcel
without
serving
to
preserve
unique
topography
or
environmental
features.
The
long,
narrow
portion
of
this
parcel
will
create
difficulty
for
access
and
vegetation
maintenance
and
burdens
a
single
property
owner
with
substantial
wildfire
defensible
space
clearing
for
the
adjacent
homes
along
the
eastern
and
southern
perimeter
of
the
site.
4)
The
Boundary
Adjustment
Impairs
Access
The
applicant
cites
PMC
Section
16.14.01 0(C),
which
prohibits
boundary
adjustments
that
impair
existing
access
or
create
a
need
for
new
access.
The
applicant
asserts
both
parcels
have
legal
access
from
existing
public
roads
(Ahwahnee
Way
and
Cree
Drive)
and
the
identified
constrained
area
is
approximately
54 feet
wide,
sufficient
for
access
and
potential
agricultural
use.
The
applicant
argues
the
adjustment
does
not
create
a
meaningful
limitation
on
access.
City
Staff
Evaluation:
The
proposed
adjustment
would
impair
access
to
the
eastern
portion
of
the
property
by
creating
a
constrained
access
point
between
portions
of
the
parcel,
contrary
to
PMC
Section
16.14.01 0(C).
The
area
connecting
the
northeastern
slopes
to
the
southern
parcel
contains
slopes
covered
with
native
vegetation
that
is
a
barrier
to
gaining
access
to
the
area.
The
existing
parcel
configuration
complies
with
the
code
requirement
whereas
the
parcel
configuration
proposed
does
not.
5)
Additional
Considerations
The
applicant
notes
the
adjustment
would
allow
for
modest
expansion
of
a
planned
single-family
home
and
facilitate
the
future
subdivision
of
one
parcel
into
two
legal
parcels,
contributing
to
housing
opportunities.
The
applicant
also
cites
benefits
such
as
creation
of
an
additional
taxable
parcel,
4 of
27 May 5, 2026, Item #8
integration of a trail connection to Starridge Park, and preservation of riparian habitat through proposed easements.
City Staff Evaluation:
The proposed boundary adjustment must independently meet the General Plan and zoning code requirements for approval. Staff has suggested the property owner work with his neighbors to consider if they might be open to boundary adjustments that address property encroachments while forming parcel lines that comply with the zoning code.
Community Outreach and Response
The applicant sent out a letter (Attachment E) and organized a neighborhood meeting on April 9, 2026 to introduce the proposed development, answer questions, and listen to any concerns, with the goal of building community support for the proposal. Following this outreach, the City received several responses from neighboring property owners (Attachment F).
Environmental Review:
A request for City Council appeal of an administrative decision itself is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines. Should the City Council grant the appeal the project can be found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The activity is covered by the commonsense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adjustment of the parcel line will not in itself create a physical impact on the environment.
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Public Notification:
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Poway News Chieftain on April 23, 2026, and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Project site and to anyone who expressed interest in the Project. Notice was also posted on the City's website and on the property.
Attachments:
A Existing Feature Map
B. BA 25-0002 Denial Letter dated January 7, 2026
C. Appeal Letter dated January 15, 2026
D. Resolution
E. Jonathan's Letter to Residents within 500 feet of Boundary Adjustment F. Emails Received by City Staff RE: Appeal
5 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Tracy
St
ens
Assistant
City
Manager
6 of
27 Reviewed
By:
Alan
Fenstermacher
City
Attorney
Chris
Hazeltine
City
Manager
May 5, 2026, Item #8
b
0 N
II
• ,....
EXISTING FEATURE MAP
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT -APN 314-440-38 & 317-611-01
~stJ~
-FE ., -lY
Hi
NCING,;
PICAL
• ' EX. 8" SEWER
MAIN AND 8"
WATER MAIN y '-./
\ PL
\
X:\W02502AHWAHNEEWAYGP\BAEXHIBITS\BA PLAT.DWG
7 of 27 ATTACHMENT A
May 5, 2026, Item #8
STEVE
\/AUS,
Mayor
CITY
OF
POWAY
JENNY
MAEDA,
Deputy
Mayor
PETER
DE
HOFF,
Councilmcmbcr
CHRISTOPI
-IERJ
. PIKUS,
Councilmcmbcr
SENT
VIA
EMAIL
January
7,
2026
Bill
Yen
Bill
Yen
&
Associates,
Inc
13071
Poway
Rd
Poway,
CA
92064
RE:
Ahwahnee
Way
Boundary Adjustment
No
. BA25-0002
. APN
317-611-01-00
and
314-440-38-00
.
Dear
Mr.
Yen,
This
letter
is
to
notify
you
that
the
application
for
Boundary
Adjustment
No
. 24-0001
has
been
denied
. Staff
mailed
property
owners
within
500
feet
of
the
proposed
adjustment
to
inform
them
in
accordance
with
Section
16.14 .050A
of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code.
Comments
were
received,
however,
none
that
would
disqualify
the
boundary
adjustment
application
from
proceeding.
The
Boundary
Adjustment
No.
BA
24-
0001
is
denied,
due
to
the
following:
Pursuant
to
Government
Code
Section
66412(d)
the
parcels
resulting
from
a
boundary
adjustment
shall
conform
to
the
local
general
plan,
any
applicable
specific
plan,
and
zoning
and
building
ordinances.
The
proposed
boundary
adjustment
does
not
comply
with
Goal
1. Policy
B. 5.
Subdivision
Design
of
the
Community
Development
Element
of
the
General
Plan
which
states
that
lot
sizes
and
shapes
should
follow
a
rectangular
pattern
with
a
lot
depth
to
lot
width
ratios
between
2:1
and
3:1.
The
proposal
would
change
·
the
lots
to
an
irregular
shape
by
placing
an
area
of
slopes
in
the
northeastern
area
of
the
northern
parcel
(Assessor
Parcel
Number
314-440-38)
in
the
southern
parcel
(Assessor
Parcel
Number
317-611-01)
in
addition
to
creating
an
irregular
parcel
line
as
the
boundary
between
the
two
parcels
.
Section
17.08.160
Property
Development
Standards
states
the
minimum
lot
width
and
lot
depth
are
11 0'
and
150'
respectively
.
The
proposed
boundary
adjustment
doesn't
meet
the
minimum
lot
dimensions
as
it
shows
a
lot
width
of
80-feet
or
less
in
some
areas
.
The
proposed
Boundary
adjustment
creates
a
lot
that
exceeds
the
maximum
depth
to
width
ratio.
Per
Section
17 .08.170
(A)
Minimum
Lot
Sizes
and
Dimensions
of
the
residential
zoning
code
states:
4. The
ratio
of
the
depth
of
a
lot
to
the
width
of
a
lot
shall
not
exceed
a
maximum
ratio
of
3: 1. If
that
ratio
is
exceeded,
the
lot
shall
be
deemed
an
unusually
shaped
lot.
Unusually
shaped
lots
may
only
be
allowed
within
the
RR-A
through
RR-C
and
RS-1
zones
and
only
where
the
City
Council,
in
its
discretion,
finds
that
unusually
shaped
lots
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
preservation
of
unique
topographic
features,
riparian
woodland
areas
and
other
areas
of
significant
community
importance
as
open
space.
This
development
standard
shall
apply
to
all
lots
proposed
to
be
created
by
the
subdivision
or
parcel
map
process.
8 of27
City
Hall
Located
at
13325
Civic
Center
Drive
Mailing
Address
:
P.O.
Box
789,
Poway,
California
92074-0789
,vww
. poway.org
ATTACHMENT
B
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Bill
Yen
Boundary
Adjustment
No
. BA25-0002
January
7,
2026
Page
2 Under
the
boundary
adjustment
findings,
the
City
Engineer
determines
the
proposed
boundary
adjustment
will
not
comply
with
Section
16 .14.01
0(C)
which
states:
C.
Impair
any
existing
access
or
create
a
need
for
new
access
to
any
adjacent
lots
or
parcels
.
The
proposed
boundary
adjustment
will
impair
access
to
the
eastern
portion
of
the
property
due
to
the
constrained
access
point
created between
the
southerly
portion
and
northerly
portion
of
the
proposed
south-easterly
lot.
Should
you
have
any
questions
, please
contact
me
by
email
at
[email protected]
by
phone
at
(858)
668-4623
.
Sincerely, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
Tracy
Beach,
PE
City
Engineer
C:
Andrea
Palacios,
P.E.,
Associate
Engineer
Shahram
Fozoonmehr
, Owner
Jonathan
Volfson,
Applicant
9 of
27 May 5, 2026, Item #8
January 15, 2026
Ms. Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92064
[email protected]
Subject: Appeal of Boundary Adjustment BA25-0002 Denial On January 7, 2026, Tracy Beach, City Engineer, issued a letter denying my proposed boundary adjustment, BA25-0002. The application requested a modification to the shared property boundary between two adjoining parcels identified as APNs 314-440-38 (approximately 10.8 acres) and 317-611- 01 (approximately 7.3 acres). Both parcels are vacant, zoned Rural Residential-A (RR-A), and located on the east side of Starridge Park.
The denial was based on perceived inconsistencies with several provisions of the General Plan and Poway Municipal Code. I have responded to each code section cited:
City Comment:
The boundary adjustment does not comply with Goal 1. Policy B. 5. Subdivision Design of the Community Development Element of the General Plan, which states that lot sizes and shapes should follow a rectangular pattern with a lot depth to lot width ratios between 2:1 and. 3:1.
Rebuttal:
The subject parcels are believed to be remnant lots associated with the 1989 Heritage Hilltop subdivision. These parcels were not developed at the time due to steep topography and ridgeline constraints that were either cost-prohibitive and/or inconsistent with the subdivision's ridgeline theme. The southern lot is rectangular in shape, while the northern lot is square; neither conforms to the City's 2:1 to 3:1 ratio guideline. The proposed boundary adjustment is not intended to create new conforming lots, but rather to reconfigure the shapes of two existing nonconforming parcels. The noted General Plan citation also provides flexibility in stating lot sizes (should), not shall, follow rectangular patterns. Additionally, Goal 1. Policy B. 3. states: Lot size and spacing should encourage a variety in design, orientation, and placement of structures, thus providing added options to parcel configuration.
The proposed boundary adjustment does not conflict with these policies.
The primary purpose of the adjustment is to facilitate the future subdivision of the northern parcel into two legal, conforming lots. This would allow for the potential construction of two single-family residences, and possibly an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), thereby contributing additional housing opportunities consistent with the City's housing goals.
City Comment:
Section 17.08.160 Property Development Standards states the minimum lot width and lot depth are 110 feet and 150 feet, respectively. The proposed boundary adjustment doesn't meet the minimum lot dimensions, as it shows a lot width of 80 feet or less in some areas.
Rebuttal:
10 of 27 ATTACHMENT C
May 5, 2026, Item #8
The minimum lot width and depth standards are generally intended to apply to the creation of new subdivision lots to ensure general uniformity of the subdivision, and there is adequate space for building pads and required setbacks. In this case, both parcels are existing legal lots with overall dimensions of approximately 500 feet by 650 feet, substantially exceeding the minimum lot width and length standards.
While the proposed adjustment creates a narrow "offshoot" portion of the southern parcel with a reduced width, this area is removed from the primary developable portions of the site, does not affect the ability to place properly-sized building pads and setbacks, and will not be developed because of the slope. The central building area for the northern parcel remains approximately 500 feet by 600 feet (4.5 acres), and the southern at 450 feet by 650 feet (6. 7 acres), providing sufficient area to accommodate future single-family homes. Additionally, the adjustment aligns ownership boundaries to a single parcel with the adjacent Heritage Hillside subdivision parcels to the east. This will assist in providing access rights and vehicle circulation to conduct annual maintenance of the City-required 100- foot fire management zone buffers on our property, which protect the Heritage Hillside homes above.
City Comment:
Unusually shaped lots may only be allowed within the RR-A through RR-C and RS-1 zones and only where the City Council, in its discretion, finds that unusually shaped lots are necessary to ensure the preservation of unique topographic features, riparian woodland areas, and other areas of significant community importance as open space. This development standard shall apply to all lots proposed to be created by the subdivision or parcel map process.
Rebuttal:
Per the code section, the subject lots already exist as legal lots and are not part of any new subdivision or parcel map process. This proposal seeks only to modify the boundary between two existing lots. The adjustment consolidates the adjoining topographic steep slopes on one lot onto the other, which supports long-term management of topographic constraints and furthering the maintenance of the aforenoted required fire management zones. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish an open space easement to preserve a riparian area located on the site, further advancing the City's environmental and open space goals.
City Comment:
Under the boundary adjustment findings, the City engineer determines the proposed boundary adjustment will not comply with Section 16.14.0lO(C), which states: C. Impair any existing access or create a need for new access to any adjacent lots or parcels.
The proposed boundary adjustment will impair access to the eastern portion of the property due to the constrained access point created between the southerly portion and the northerly portion of the proposed south-easterly lot.
Rebuttal:
The northern parcel has legal access from Ahwahnee Way, and the southern parcel has legal access from Cree Drive. Both are 36-foot-wide improved asphalt roadways and will continue to serve as the primary access points/driveway entrances for any future single-family development on these lots. 2 11 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Under
the
proposed
boundary
adjustment,
the
City
asserts
that
an
approximately
54-foot-wide
"constrained
access
point"
would
inhibit
movement
between
portions
of
the
parcel.
However,
the
existing
width
of
the
Ahwahnee
Way
roadway
could
easily
fit
within
th
is
access
point
with
room
to
spare.
The
primary
developable
area
of
the
parcel
remains
centrally
located.
The
northern
extension
of
the
southern
parcel
consists
of
steep
slopes
and
is
not
anticipated
to
be
developed.
Accordingly,
the
identified constrained
area
remains
sufficiently
wide
to
allow
access
and
potential
agricultural
or
other
uses,
and
therefore
does
not
create
a
meaningful
inter-parcel
limitation.
As
such,
the
City's
concern
regarding
constrained
access
is
not
a valid
issue
or
concern.
Additional
Note/Request
For
Consideration:
Both
parcels
are
owned
by
our
families.
Our
original
intent
was
for
my
father-in-law
to
construct
a
single-family
residence
on
the
northern
parcel,
while
my
family
would
build
an
adjoining
ADU.
Under
current
City
regulations,
an
ADU
is
limited
to
1,500
square
feet.
With
our
third
child
on
the
way,
there
is
a
need
for
a
slightly
larger
home.
To
address
this,
we
proposed a
boundary
adjustment
between
the
two
parcels
that
would
reduce
slope
constraints
on
the
northern
parcel
and
allow
it
to
be
subdivided
into
two
legal
lots.
This
would
enable
a
modest
expansion
of
the
existing
plans
(just
5 feet
South
and
East)
and
the
construction
of
a
single
family
home
suitable
for
our
growing
family.
The
denial
of
the
boundary
adjustment
has
been
discouraging,
as
it
prevents
us
from
pursuing
this
minor
housing
adjustment.
I respectfully
request
reconsideration
of
the
boundary
adjustment
in
light
of
the
existing
legal
status
of
the
parcels,
the
limited
scope
of
the
proposed
boundary
modification,
and
its
consistency
with
the
broader
General
Plan
policies,
the
Poway
Municipal
Code,
and
the
City's
housing,
access,
fire
safety,
and
environmental
management
objectives.
Approval
would
also
result
in
the
creation
of
an
additional
taxable
parcel,
the
integration
of
a
trail
connection
through
our
parcels
to
Starridge
Park,
and
the
preservation
of
riparian
habitat
and
coastal
sage
scrub
through
proposed
open
space
easements.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
of
this
appeal.
Sincerely, Jonathan
Volfson
Jonathan
[email protected]
28701
Highridge
Rd
Rolling
Hills,
90274
858-945-7763 Attachments:
1. City
letter
of
denial
of
BA
25-0002
2. Proposed
Boundary
Adjustment
25-0002
3. Property
Aerial
4. Examples
of
other
irregularly
shaped
lots
in
Poway 3
12 of
27 May 5, 2026, Item #8
CITY
C
F
PO\X'
AY
l
1•
llT
SENT
VIA
EFI
IL
Ja
r
y
7, ?.
b
dj
o.Bil\2
"
002.A
13 7-
i-0
1-
;;in
De
a
/r. Y~
n.
o
i::rop
o
y
a
_-c
li
, 17
~ i
i
·:ir .'
l.dl
I o,;1t
1•,I ;,
l 3.
_
C1
vt.:
~
nt
c-
D,r
.-
M:
11:t~
r\
dr • ·:
f''.
111;.1~-
4~7
1 13
of
27 • -4-44
1 -3
-00 ar
• 1
1e
sio
n.
;i
!':
i.
tio. onl n
il
•
ue ce
ff;
I I
May 5, 2026, Item #8
ary
ju
me
No
,,,7,
2.2 6
C
Im
ha
·-an_ q
SER.
✓IC
E
14 of
27 eC"
C)
~,
ic
e
y
e
5 s
th
.
sec!
p
r:e
a· (8
5'8)
May 5, 2026, Item #8
i::AHIBIT B
BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT PLAT -CITY OF POWAY
AHWAHNEE WAY~ SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS
0 MJ--\P ~12276 \. / --( ~--~lJ-\P .v7-432 -
_,,.,.-.,...---~ _N89"08'14"W 681.38' t,) 0
N
II
• ~
*FOR BASIS OF BEARING,
LINE DATA AND LEGEND,
SEE SHEET 3
POR £ -112, S.E
-1;.4, S.ECT -J-1, T-1-4S,
fl2W, S.8.M.
ROS, cH583
.
/
I
,-
r---• ,I')
r---N 'Sj-•
CD ~
3: I()
• <Xl
.!O
I()
I")
b
0 z
---- ----- --------( -1-1 -12 _. I
-14 -1"3 P.O.C. FOR
' PCL A, P.O.B
FOR PCL B
S.ECrJON 0
I[)
CX)
CX)
r---
tu ,-
W -112 OF S -J12
OF SW -1;.4 SW
-Jilt OP S.ECT -12
T.P.O.B.
FOR PCL A
/
/ EXISTING
LINE TO BE
'l
NEW
LINE
<oi REMOVED
io I 3.84'
295.66'
Q
c.O
L9 -BASIS OF BEARING N88"50'59"W -/ fl OS T.328
680.67 ?\-\
\
\
?L
/
.0
CD
N
,-
0 z \8808
sj
N85·oo·oq"E Q1 I
\ 311.81 I / 10/27/2025
"-
I
L-12,__ __ ~ C~-E-E_._..D-~ / /
PARCEL A OWNER: SHAHRAM FOZOONMEHR AND JILLA FOZOONMEHR ADDRESS: 28701 HIGHRIDGE ROAD, ROWNG HILLS ESTATE, CA 90274
THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITH MY /OUR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT 10/28/2025
SHAHRAM FOZOONMEHR
PARCEL B OWNER: SHAHRAM FOZOONMEHR AND JILLA FOZOONMEHR ADDRESS: 28701 HIGHRIDGE ROAD, ROWNG HILLS ESTATE, CA 90274
THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITH MY/OUR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT 10/28/2025
SHAHRAM FOZOONMEHR
MAP PREPARED BY: WILLIAM YEN, RCE 33730, 13071 POWAY ROAD, POWAY, CA 92064 6 15 of 27
z ""'CJ
or . )>
-I
May 5, 2026, Item #8
LOCATIONAL AERIAL OF SUBJECT PARCELS
7 16 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
EXAMPLE
OF
OTHER
IRREGULARLY
SHAPED
PARCELS
IN
POWAY
8 17
of
27 RESOLUTION NO. 26-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
POWAY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL (APL) 26-0001
OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION ( BA) 2 5-0002
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 317-611-01 AND 314-440-38
WHEREAS, BA 25-0002 is a proposal to modify the shared property boundary between two adjoining parcels, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 317 -611-01 and 314- 440-38, to facilitate future subdivision of the northern parcel into two parcels and development of the parcels located on the east side of Starridge Park in the Rural Residential–A (RR-A) zone (“Project”); and WHEREAS, BA 25-0002 was denied by City staff on January 7, 2026; and WHEREAS, Section 2.20.20 of the Poway Municipal Code (PMC) provides for the appeal of administrative decisions, and on January 15, 2026, an appeal was filed regarding the denial of BA 25-0002 (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, the City Council at a public meeting considered comments from the public, both pro and con, relative to this appeal, including written materials and oral presentations by the appellant /applicant, and incorporates all the Agenda Report for the May 5, 2026 public hearing on the appeal and all materials attached hereto into this resolution by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows:
SECTION 1: A request for City Council appeal of an administrative decision itself is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 2: The Appeal of the denial of BA 25-0002 is denied. In support of the City Council’s denial of the Appeal, the City Council incorporates by reference all the factual determinations and findings made by City Staff in its original denial of BA 25-0002, as well as of City Staff Evaluations to the Appeal set forth in the Agenda Report for the May 5, 2026 Appeal hearing, as if fully set forth herein. The City Council also makes the following further findings in support of its denial of the Appeal:
A. Boundary Adjustment Does Not Comply with General Plan Parcel Shape and Depth to Width Ratio Requirements. Goal 1, Policy B.5 of the Community Development Element of the General Plan establishes an important design principle for parcel configuration to ensure orderly development. The proposed boundary adjustment would increase the number of irregularly shaped parcels by altering the square shaped northern parcel and significantly increasing the irregular configuration of the southern parcel . In addition, the proposed southern parcel dimensions exceed the recommended depth -to-width ratio, contrary to the intent of the General Plan. Therefore, the adjustment does not comply with subdivision design policies.
B. The Boundar y
Adjustment Does Not Comply with Minimum Parcel Width and Depth Standards. Poway Municipal Code Section 17.08.160 applies to all parcels, including 18 of 27 ATTACHMENT D
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Resolution No. 26-
those modified by boundary adjustments, to maintain minimum standards for parcel usability. The proposed adjustment creates areas with widths of approximately 80 feet, which do not meet the required 110- foot minimum. Additionally, existing access provisions appear adequate for ongoing fire management activities.
C. The Boundary Ad
justment Creates Unusually Shaped Parcels . Poway Municipal Code Section 17.08.170(A) requires that the depth of a parcel to the width of a parcel shall not exceed a maximum ratio of 3:1. If that ratio is exceeded, the parcel shall be deemed an unusually shaped parcel. The City Council in its discretion finds that unusually shaped parcels are not necessary to preserve unique topographic or environmental features.
The existing parcel configuration does not exceed the parcel depth to width ratio and is not an unusually shaped parcel. In addition, the slope and existing habitat are more appropriately retained within the northern parcel for maintenance and access purposes, as currently configured, rather than modifying the southern parcel boundaries to incorporate these features.
D. The Boundar y Ad
justment Impairs Access. The proposed adjustment would impair access to the eastern portion of the property by creating a constrained access point between portions of the parcel, contrary to PMC Section 16.14.010(C). The area connecting the northeastern slopes to the southern parcel contains slopes covered with native vegetation that is a barrier to gaining access to the area. The existing parcel configuration complies with the code requirement whereas the parcel configuration proposed does not.
SECTION 3: The City Council’s decision to deny the Appeal is final, and the denial of BA 25-0002 by City staff on January 7, 2026, remains in full force and effect.
SECTION 4: The City Council’s decision to deny the Appeal is subject to judicial review under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
19 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Resolution No. 26-
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 5th day of May, 2026 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
______________________________
Stev
e Vaus,
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Car
rie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
20 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
May 5, 2026, Item #8
Dear
Neighbor,
My
name
is
Jonathan
Volfson,
and
my
family
and
I wanted
to
introduce
ourselves
and
share
some
information
about
a boundary
adjustment
application
we
submitted.
The
City
of
Poway
sent
out
notices
regarding
our
application
and
will
also
be
sending
notices
regarding
our
appeal
of
their
decision,
so
we
thought
it
might
be
helpful
to
explain
what
we
are
proposing.
My
father-in-law
purchased
the
parcels
shown
to
the
right;
East
of
Starridge
Park,
South
of
Awhahnee
Way,
and
West
of
Catawba
and
Pequot.
He
invited
our
family
to
build
an
ADU
alongside
his
future
home
. Per
City
of
Poway
code,
ADUs
are
maxed
at
1500
square
feet.
At
the
time,
we
were
a family
of
four
and
are
now
expecting
our
fifth
family
member
in
August.
Planning
for
the
years
ahead,
we
want
to
extend
two
walls
of
our
ADU
five
feet,
This
will
add
a little
space
and
a bedroom
for
our
third
child.
The
parcel
must
be
split
into
two
lots
before
the
expansion
is
allowed,
and
the
steep
natural
features
necessitate
a
boundary
adjustment
to
meet
City
slope
criteria
prior
to
said
lot
split
21 of
27 ATTACHMENT
E
May 5, 2026, Item #8
The
two
residential
structures
proposed
are
already
allowed
under
the
current
zoning.
The
purpose
of
the
boundary
adjustment
and
lot
split
is
to
modestly
expand
the
home
so
it
better
fits
the
needs
of
our
growing
family.
We
are
NOT
proposing
additional
buildings,
increased
density,
or
any
change
to
the
overall
residential
character
of
the
property.
In
conjunction,
we
are
proposing
an
open-space
easement
for
all
the
land
on
the
parcel
(outside
of
fire-zone
mitigations),
to
preserve
animal
habitat
&
a wet
meadow,
and
maintain
the
current
character
of
the
neighborhood.
We
have
heard
several
rumors
that
a
large
housing
complex
or
major
development
is
planned
for
this
property,
and
we
want
to
reassure
our
neighbors
that
this
is
simply
not
true.
The
proposal
involves
two
homes
only,
which
are
already
permitted
under
existing
zoning.
Separately,
neighbors
may
be
aware
of
an
existing
informal
walking
trail
through
our
property
used
for
hiking
access.
The
main
dwelling
will
obscure
part
of
the
existing
path,
making
hiking
access
unavailable.
In
an
effort
to
help
maintain
community
access,
we
offered
to
work
with
the
City
of
Poway
to
establish
a
replacement
hiking
trail
connection
to
Starridge
Park
(professionally
blazed
and
maintained).
The
hiking
path
easement
is
tied
to
the
boundary
adjustment
proposal.
The
city
denied
the
boundary
adjustment
because
the
proposed
boundaries
were
not
"square
enough."
Meaning
no
trail
and
the
community
loses
hiking
access
to
Starridge
Park.
We
filed
an
appeal,
and
the
City
Council
will
make
the
final
decision.
The
Council
may
approve
unusually
shaped
boundaries
when
they
ensure
preservation
of
unique
topographic
features
(open-space
easement)
and
areas
of
significant
community
importance
(Starridge
Hiking
Trail
Access).
With
your
support,
we
are
hopeful
the
City
Council
will
reconsider
the
denial.
The
appeal
only
relates
to
adjusting
lot
lines
between
our
two
parcels,
and
prepares
for
a lot
split.
The
end
result
is
6+
acres
of
dedicated/preserved
habitat,
a professional
hiking
trail
for
the
community,
and
a long-term
home
for
our
family.
We
would
love
to
connect
with
neighbors,
answer
any
questions,
and
hear
any
concerns.
We
will
be
hosting
a
neighborhood
meeting
to
talk
through
the
proposal
and
share
more
details
on
April
9th
in
Willow
Room
306
at
the
Poway
Community
Park,
13094
Civic
Center
Dr,
Poway
92064
from
5:30-7:00pm.
Our
family
will
be
there,
pizza
and
drinks
will
be
provided,
and
we
would
love
to
meet
our
future
neighbors.
Please
come
say
hello
and
introduce
yourselves!
We
need
neighborhood
support
for
the
appeal
to
be
granted,
and
the
easiest
way
to
do
that
is
by
emailing
to
[email protected].,
or
showing up
in
person
at
an
upcoming
City
Council
Meeting
(7pm
on
May
5 th
,
you'll
receive
a
notice).
Please
see
sample
below
..
Please
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
anytime.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
read
this,
and
we
are
truly
excited
to
become
part
of
this
community.
22 of
27 May 5, 2026, Item #8
Warm
Regards,
Jonathan
and
Family
[email protected] Sample
E-mail:
[email protected] Dear
Mayor
and
City
Council
Members,
I live
near
the
Volfson
property
and
support
their
appeal.
I don't
see
their
small
request
affecting
my
home
or
daily
life,
and
the
hiking
trail
is
of
real
importance
to
the
community.
I hope
you
will
consider
approving
it.
Thank
you,
{Name] {Address]
23 of
27 May 5, 2026, Item #8
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
steve walls
Sara Trunzo
Volfson boundary adjustment proposal
Tuesday, March 31, 2026 10:22:24 AM
I You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAfL
Poway Mayor and City Council Members,
Regarding the Volfson boundary adjustment proposal. ..
My wife and I, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Walls, Live at 12972 Cree Dr.
Our backyard overlooks the canyon and Starridge Park. We have resided here for many years. We feel that if the Volfson's are willing to include a professionally built and maintained hiking trail access to the park, and their boundary adjustment does not include additional residential properties, while maintaining easements and setbacks. That agreement seems like a win for all the residents, current and future.
We hope you all see it to grant their request.
Respectfully, Steven and Dawn Walls.
24 of 27 ATTACHMENT F
May 5, 2026, Item #8
From: Sent: To: Subject:
Marian
Crofts
<[email protected]>
Monday,
March
30,
2026
12:21
PM
Sara
Trunzo
Volfson
Property
I
You
don't
often
get
email
from
mariancrofts@gmai
l.com
. Learn
why
this
is
important
EXTERNAL
EMAIL
Dear
Mayor
and
City
Council
Members,
I reside
near
the
Volfson
property
and
support
their
appeal.
Their
request
will
not
affect
my
home
or
daily
life,
and
I support
keeping
hiking
access
to
the
Starridge
Park.
Please
consider
approving
the
appeal.
Thank
you,
Marian
Crofts
12937
Cree
Ct,
Poway
CA
25 of
27 May 5, 2026, Item #8
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
RQn..KQb_l
Sara Trunzo
Volfson property proposal
Wednesday, April 1, 2026 9:15:20 AM
0utlook-fooba4du.png
High
I You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL
I am very against the Poway property proposed for the Volfson family. If this went thorough, the open space will very much missed by many of US.
The open-space is used to walk by many in the StarRidge and Heritage Hills communities. Please deny any buildings in that area, as it would ruin the open-space.
Thank you,
Ron
Ron Kohl
Rotary District 5340 Assistant Governor 2023-26
Rotary Cruise to Change Lives, benefiting The Rotary Foundation 2023, 24, 25 & 26 Expedia Cruises
San Diego, California
Email: [email protected]
Web site: https://www.ExpediaCruises.com/ronkohl
Phone: 858-518-0983
The highest compliment I can receive is when you refer your family, friends and business associates.
Hotels -Tours -Land Packages -Expeditions -Luxury Vacations -Adventure Travel -All Inclusive Resorts -Flights -Corporate/Group Travel -River Cruises -Wine Cruises Rotary~
CST: 2163720-40. This business has a trust account and participates in the California Travel Consumer Restitution Fund. www.tcrcinfo.org
26 of 27
May 5, 2026, Item #8
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Gerald Southard
Sara Trunzo
Volfson Property
Thursday, April 9, 2026 7:33:52 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https-Uaka ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification]
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I live near the Volfson property and support their appeal. I do not see their small request affecting my home or daily life, and the hiking trail is ofreal importance to the community. I hope that you will consider approving it.
Thank you,
Gerald and Leah Southard
13632 Catawba Dr.
Poway, CA. 92064
I will sail my vessel
'Ti! the river runs dry
27 of 27