Apr 21, 2025 Planning Commission

[00:00:06]

NOW

[Call To Order]

THE NOTICE AGENDA AND INFORMATION ON THE NA CITY OF NATIONAL CITY'S WEBSITE INFORM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THEY MAY SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENT ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.

FIRST, BY EMAIL AT PLC P-U-B-C-O-M-M-E-N T@NATIONALCITYCA.GOV, NO LATER THAN FOUR HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING.

SECOND VIA ZOOM BY PREREGISTERING ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, NO LATER THAN FOUR HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING.

AT HTTPS SLASH SLASH WWW.NATIONALCITYCA.GOV/PUBLIC COMMENT SEC.

SECOND, OOPS.

THIRD, THE PUBLIC CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS IN PERSON.

ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS APPROPRIATE PRIOR TO THEIR RESPECTIVE MEETINGS AND PUBLISHED ON THE CITY WEBSITE.

IF RECEIVED BY THE DEADLINE, I REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY, NOW PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL.

OKAY.

GOT IT.

VICE CHAIR CASTLE.

CASTLE PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER MENTA PRESENT, COMMISSIONER KIONE PRESENT, COMMISSIONER FOREMAN PRESENT, COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA HERE BY, UH, CHAIR MILLER AND COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ.

ABSENT.

THANK YOU, SECRETARY.

UM, I WILL NOW LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE ALL STAND RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEARTS.

READY TO BEGIN.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

WE WILL NOW HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS OR MATTERS THAT ARE NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA UNDER STATE LAW.

WE CANNOT RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ITEMS REQUIRING PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.

THESE ITEMS MUST BE BROUGHT BACK ON A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA UNLESS THEY ARE OF A DEMONSTRATED EMERGENCY OR URGENT NATURE.

MADAM SECRETARY, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT RELATED TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA? YES, WE DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS.

THANK YOU.

UH, THE, THE SPEAKERS ARE NOW GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE MINUTE ON ALL COMMENTS THIS EVENING.

WE WILL NOW BEGIN CONSIDERATIONS.

NO.

SO YOU WILL HAVE TO CALL, SO YES.

AND THEN HAVE THEM COME UP, AND THEN WE'LL START THE TIMER.

PERFECT.

I CALLED DOYLE MORRISON TO BE FOLLOWED BY ALICIA MORRISON.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, UH, PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE.

UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE, UM, THE DECEMBER 2ND MEETING VERY, VERY MUCH THE DEPTH THAT ALL OF YOU COMMISSIONERS, UH, WENT INTO TO LOOK AT A PARTICULAR PROJECT, UM, WITH MANY QUESTIONS TO BRING UP YOUR CONCERNS AS WELL.

SO I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I ALSO HAVE BROUGHT UP AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK ON THAT PROPERTY AS SWEETWATER AND ORANGE AND, UM, STAFF.

I, I KNOW IT'S REAL DIFFICULT, UM, TO NAVIGATE SOMETIMES, UM, LOOKING THROUGH ALL OF THE STUFF ONLINE, BUT, UM, MYSELF AND MY WIFE, WE'VE BEEN DOING SOME RESEARCH AND, UM, WE'VE BEEN FINDING SOME STUFF THAT WE'RE, UM, PRESENTING TO Y'ALL.

I HOPE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THAT.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE COMES UP, WE'LL BRING THAT IN FRONT.

YEAH.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, ALICIA MORRISON.

SO

[00:05:01]

UM, LIKE MY HUSBAND SAID, WE DID, UH, WE'VE BEEN DOING SOME RESEARCH BECAUSE I KNOW AT THE DECEMBER MEETING, UH, VICE CHAIR CASTLE, YOU DID ASK STAFF IF, IF RESEARCH HAD BEEN DONE.

SO I THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN, IN TRYING TO FIND WHAT WE CAN, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE.

SO I DID GO TO THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND I PULLED UP SOME OF UNCLE HOWARD'S MECHANICS LIENS THAT HE HAD, UM, INDICATING THAT HIS BUSINESS WAS IN EXISTENCE.

AND THEN I HAD ALSO, UH, SUBSCRIBED TO ARIEL PHOTO SURVEYS, AND YOU CAN SEE AN ASPHALT AREA GOING TO THE QUONSET HUT WHERE THE GAS DISPENSER WAS INSTALLED.

UM, AND OVER TIME, YOU CAN SEE WHEN THE GAS, UH, THING WAS REMOVED, YOU CAN SEE VEGETATION GROWING WHERE IT HAD BEEN REMOVED TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE WILL NOW BEGIN CONSIDERATION ON THE ITEMS OF TONIGHT'S REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

AGENDA ITEM ONE IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR.

RANDY, I'M SORRY, CAN I SPEAK JUST A, UH, IS, UH,

[PUBLIC COMMENT]

CAN I PUT MY, YOU COULD PUT IT, UM, I'LL, YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

PLEASE DO IT RIGHT AFTER.

YEAH, SO YOU CAN TALK RIGHT NOW AND THEN JUST GIMME THE SLIP AFTER.

ALRIGHT, THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S FINE.

MIKA, COME ON UP.

THANK YOU.

UM, I HAVE POLICY NUMBER 1 0 4 UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, MANUAL THAT SAYS, UH, SPEAKER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ITEMS WHICH APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.

SUBJECT UP TO THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT AT EACH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, UP TO 30 MINUTES SHALL BE RESERVED FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS. THE CITY CLERK WILL REVIEW THE SPEAKER SLIPS AND INFORM THE PRE PRESIDING OFFICER.

30 MINUTES IS ALLOTTED TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND YET WE'RE BEING REDUCED TO ONE MINUTE.

IF THERE'S ONLY 10 SPEAKERS HERE, SHOULDN'T WE AT LEAST HAVE TWO MINUTES, THREE MINUTES? I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ONLY GET ONE MINUTE.

THAT'S A CONCERN OF CENSORSHIP, OF WE HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE FREEDOM OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO EXPRESS OURSELVES.

AND ONE MINUTE IS JUST NOT ENOUGH.

SO I'M JUST ASKING ALL OF YOU TO PLEASE RECONSIDER THE THREE MINUTE.

DON'T DO IT LIKE RON IS DOING IT WHERE HE TRIES TO CENSOR US.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL NOW BEGIN CONSIDERATION ON THE ITEMS OF TONIGHT'S REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

AGENDA ITEM

[1. Approval of the Agenda for the Meeting on April 21, 2025 ]

IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DO I HEAR A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION BY CLAUDIA VALENZUELA AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AMINTA TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE MOTION APPROVE FOR YES.

ONE ABSTAINED BY COMMISSIONER FOREMAN AND COMM, UH, CHAIR MILLER AND COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ OPSIN.

THANK YOU, MS. SECRETARY.

ITEM

[2. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of March 3, 2025 ]

IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, VICE CHAIR.

WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE SO WE CAN TAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS FIRST AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO VOTE.

OKAY? MM-HMM .

OKAY.

I DO HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO.

UH, FIRST STEP IS DOLE MORRISON.

HI.

I BELIEVE, UM, ON THAT AGENDA, YOU WERE, UH, IT WAS GONNA BE TO, UH, ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION, AND I MAY BE MISTAKEN ON THAT, BUT IF I'M NOT, UM, THE RESOLUTION THAT I'VE SEEN, UM, WAS NEVER SIGNED.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE A SIGNED COPY OF IT WHERE THE VOTES WERE ADMINISTERED ON IT.

UM, RIGHT HERE, THE COPY I HAVE, THERE'S

[00:10:01]

AND, UM, ALSO, THERE WAS SOME MISTAKES.

I BELIEVE, UH, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WERE IN OPPOSITION AND IT WAS PUT THAT THEY WERE, UH, NEUTRAL OR IN FAVOR.

THANK YOU.

NEXT UP I HAVE ALEXANDER UTI, G GURU.

OKAY.

JOB GUT.

OKAY.

GOT IT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

UM, TO GO OFF WHAT DOYLE WAS SAYING, I HAVE RESOLUTION, IT'S 2024 DASH 20 MM-HMM .

UM, AND IT'S FOR THE SWEETWATER ROAD PROJECT THAT WAS DEEMED BY THIS COMMISSION TO BE A PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCE.

HOWEVER, IF YOU FLIP TO THE LAST PAGE, THERE'S NO NAYS, THERE'S NO EYES.

IT'S NOT SIGNED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

WHAT WE NEED IS A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT THAT'S DENYING THIS PROJECT THAT WAS DEEMED TO BE A PUBLIC HEALTH NUISANCE.

AND FURTHER ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY, THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES, IT STATES THAT LUISA MCCARTHY, MCKAYLA PALANGO, AND FRANK RIVERA WERE IN FAVOR OF THE ITEM.

HOWEVER, THIS IS FALSE.

UH, SO IT NEEDS TO BE A CORRECTION FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

NEXT UP I HAVE, UH, LOUISA MCCARTHY.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.

UH, YES.

I JUST WANNA PIGGYBACK WHAT ALEX HAS MENTIONED, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING CLEAR, BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR QUESTIONS.

AND SO IF WE'RE ALL ON THE RIGHT PAGE, THIS IS SOMETHING I'M LEARNING.

IT'S TAKEN ME MONTHS TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS, AND THIS IS WITH AN, A FIRM OF, OF AN ATTORNEY.

AND, UH, IT'S STILL TO ME QUITE QUESTIONABLE ON HOW THE PROCESS HERE IN NATIONAL CITY IS DONE.

IT NEEDS TO BE DETAILED, IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR, AND IT NEEDS TO BE CONCISE.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT STEP.

I HAVE ALICIA MORRISON TO BE FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL AGUIRE.

OKAY.

SO SAME THING.

I DID WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN OF THAT DECEMBER 2ND MEETING, AND, UH, THERE WAS A VOTE ON IT AND THE PROJECT WAS DENIED.

AND THEN I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN IS THAT THE, THE COPY THAT'S PRESENTED, THERE'S NO VOTES ON THERE, AND IT'S NOT SIGNED OFF.

AND I THOUGHT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS ONCE A VOTE GOES IN, IT GOES TO THE CLERK AND IT GETS SIGNED AND CERTIFIED OR SOMETHING, UM, BEFORE IT GETS, UM, SO THAT WHEN PUBLIC RECORDS ARE REQUESTED THAT IT'S VERIFIED THE SAME, LIKE WHEN THEY DO A PUBLICATION, THEY CERTIFY, YES, I'M THE ONE THAT CERTIFIED THIS AND, AND PUBLISHED IT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MICHAEL AGIRI TO BE FOLLOWED BY MLA POLANCO, THAT COMMISSIONER NUS I SEE OVER THERE.

I THINK WE HAVEN'T SEEN EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME.

SPECIAL, SPECIAL, HELLO TO YOU.

UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION AFTER DECEMBER 2ND BECAUSE THE, UH, GAS STATION SWEETWATER PROJECT WENT TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING, NOT THE REGULAR MEETING.

AND IT WENT THERE WITHOUT THE BACKUP AND WITHOUT THE RESOLUTION SIGNED.

AND THERE WAS CONFUSION.

WE WON'T GET INTO WHETHER WHO WAS RIGHT OR WHO WAS WRONG, BUT THERE WAS CONFUSION ON MARCH THE THIRD, WHICH WE FELT THAT'S WHEN THE, UH, SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL.

MARCH THE THIRD, UH, IT CAME BACK AND IT HAD, UH, A LOT OF THE CLARIFICATIONS.

THERE WERE A FEW MISTAKES.

IF THIS CAN GET SIGNED AND THE VOTE IS CAST, IT'S GONNA HELP A LOT.

AND WE'LL, WE'LL PUT, IT'LL PUT IT TO BED.

SO IF, IF YOU TIME, IF YOU'LL DO THAT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MIC POLANCO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS WHAT THANK YOU.

HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED.

THANK YOU.

[00:15:05]

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

UM, WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THESE RESOLUTION 2024.

UH, WHY HASN'T BEEN SIGNED? WE DON'T KNOW.

THERE'S A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED, AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION.

AND YOU'RE NOT TO BLAME.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BLAME ANYBODY.

I'M TRYING TO ATTACK THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE PEOPLE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO YOUR VERY, VERY BEST, BUT YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE DIVED INTO A LOT OF THESE THINGS MYSELF AND TO YOUR OWN POLICIES THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IMPARTIALITY IN, IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO.

SO, UM, I'M JUST WANTING TO GET, UH, TIME RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MUCH APPRECIATED.

AND THAT IS ALL THE SPEAKERS THAT WE HAVE ON ITEM NUMBER TWO.

UM, IF I CAN REQUEST, EXCUSE ME, DEPUTY ATTORNEY.

UM, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? ARE YOU ABLE YEAH, I'VE, IF THAT'S THE C THE, IS IT THE RESOLUTION? IT'S, THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MLA.

IF YOU'VE SEEN THAT.

YEAH.

DO YOU KNOW, DO WE HAVE A SIGNED COPY OF THAT SOMEWHERE? YEAH, IT HAS BEEN SIGNED.

UM, I BELIEVE IT'S ONLINE UNDER OUR LASER FISH PROGRAM.

OKAY.

IF WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE IF MAYBE, UM, SECRETARY, UH, ESSENTIA HERE CAN GET, GET A LINK OF THAT AND BE ABLE TO POSSIBLY GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE REQUESTING THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

THAT'S FINE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

MOVING ON.

UM, ITEM TWO ON, UM, ON, THIS IS ITEM ONE, ITEM TWO ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 3RD, 2025.

IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, UH, COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I DO HAVE, UH, I, I CALL, I CALL COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA.

YEAH.

SO DO, DO WE HAVE A CORRECT, DO WE NEED TO MAKE AN, UM, AN ADJUSTMENT OR AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES? WAS THERE A MISTAKE? NO, THERE WAS NOT.

THEY WERE TALKING IN REGARDS TO THE DECEMBER 2ND MINUTES.

GOT IT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

I, I CALL, UH, COMMISSIONER ARMA.

UH, THINK MR. DOYLE, YOU OR ALICIA, ONE OF YOU, UH, MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A PROPOSED VACATION THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING INCORRECT ABOUT THAT ON TO, ON THE MEETING MINUTES.

NO.

DID I JUST UNDERSTAND WRONG? IT WAS ON THAT MEETING.

THAT WAS THE DECEMBER 2ND, DECEMBER MINUTES SECOND, AND THAT ONE WAS ALREADY FIXED.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL.

DO I HAVE A, UH, A MOTION BY ANY COMMISSIONER TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? I HAVE A MOTION BY, UH, COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? BY ARMENTA? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMM COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA, AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ARMA TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COMMISSIONER ARMA.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE, UH, MOTION APPROVED FOUR YESES, ONE ABSTAINED BY COMMISSIONER, FOREMAN AND CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ EPSON.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL

[3. CEQA Training. ]

ITEM NUMBER THREE IS CQA TRAINING.

I INVITE THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.

OKAY, , MAKE SURE I KNOW HOW TO USE THE CLICKER.

UH, GOOD EVENING.

UH, VICE CHAIR CASTLE AND COMMISSIONERS.

I'M ASHLYN LUTZ.

I'M THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY.

UH, TONIGHT'S PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING IS GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS CQA.

TONIGHT IS JUST GONNA BE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF CQA.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE, HOW IT WORKS,

[00:20:01]

UM, SO THIS IS JUST GONNA BE VERY HIGH LEVEL.

UH, SO TONIGHT'S TRAINING, OR WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON CQA, LIKE I SAID, AND WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS THE HISTORY SLASH PURPOSE, THE PROCESS, AND THEN SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTIONS, AND THEN LEVELS OF REVIEW.

SO FIRST, UM, THE QUA WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, 1970.

A LOT HAS CHANGED BETWEEN THEN AND NOW.

UH, CQL REQUIREMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN STATUTE, IN THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, AND IN THE STATE CQL GUIDELINES CAN BE FOUND IN THE TITLE 14 CALIFORNIA CODE OF OF REGULATIONS.

AND ALSO IN CASE LAW, AN AGENCY BY LAW MUST NOT MAKE A DISCRETIONARY DECISION THAT MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT BEFORE THE AGENCY HAS COMPLIED WITH CQA.

THE CQA PROCESS IS INTENDED TO INFORM GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF A PROPOSED ACTIVITY, AS WELL AS IDENTIFY THE WAYS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE AVOIDED OR SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THAT PREVENT SIGNIFICANT AVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE BY REQUIRING CHANGES IN PROJECTS BY EITHER ADOPTING ALTERNATIVES OR IMPOSING MITIGATION MEASURES, AND TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC WHY A PROJECT WAS APPROVED.

IF THAT PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.

SO THE VERY FIRST STEP IN THE SQA PROCESS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTION IS CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER CQA.

A PROJECT IS DEFINED UNDER CQA AS AN ACTION SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC AGENCY'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDING OR APPROVAL THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EITHER CAUSE A DIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT OR CAUSE A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE INDIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE VI IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

UH, CQA ONLY APPLIES TO DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS.

UH, IF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS DETERMINED TO BE A PROJECT UNDER CQA, THE FOLLOWING THREE STEPS ARE USUALLY TAKEN.

ONE, THE DE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT FALLS, FALLS UNDER A STATUTORY OR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.

IF IT'S NOT EXEMPT, PREPARE, PREPARE AN INITIAL STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT MIGHT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

AND THEN, DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE INITIAL STUDY, PREPARE EITHER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

AND I'M GONNA GO INTO MORE DETAIL INTO EACH OF THESE STEPS NEXT.

SO, STEP ONE IS, DOES AN EXEMPTION APPLY? THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXEMPTIONS.

THERE'S STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.

UH, STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM CQA CONSIDERATION BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE QUALIFY FOR STATUTORY EXEMPTION.

THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE EXEMPT FROM CQA REGARDLESS OF THE PROJECT'S POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

SOME EXAMPLES OF A STATUTORY EXEMPTION IS FOR FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES, SOME ADOPTIONS OF COASTAL PLANS AND PROGRAMS, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS AND EMERGENCY PROJECTS.

UH, STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT AS COMMON, SO YOU WILL NOT SEE THEM AS OFTEN.

THE ONE THAT YOU WILL SEE THE MOST AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.

UH, THESE ARE CREATED THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS AND ARE FOUND IN THE SQA GUIDELINES.

UH, THERE ARE 33 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.

UM, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS GENERALLY WILL NOT APPLY, THOUGH IF THERE'S A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR THE COMMUNAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT OR THE PROJECT WILL HAVE IMPACTS ON A UNIQUELY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT.

AND ON THE NEXT SCREEN, I'M GONNA HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE THAT CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS THAT WE SEE A LOT HERE IN THE CITY.

BUT IF THE PROJECT IS DETERMINED TO BE STATUTORY EXEMPT OR CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, AND THE PROJECT IS APPROVED, A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IS TO BE FILED, UM, WITH THE COUNTY CLERK AND THE STATE CLEARING HOUSE, UM, THAT IT'LL TRIGGER A 35 DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

IF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IS NOT FILED WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS FROM THE APPROVAL, THEN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHALLENGE UNDER SQL IS 180 DAYS.

SO THE THREE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS THAT WE WILL SEE THE MOST HERE IN THE CITY.

UM, THE FIRST ONE IS THE CLASS 32 INFILL PROJECTS.

UH, THIS WILL, THIS IS MAY BE USED FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE ON SITES THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN CITY LIMITS, SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES.

THE PROJECT MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

THEY MUST, THE PROJECT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE, APPLICABLE

[00:25:01]

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ON A PROJECT SITE OF NO MORE THAN FIVE ACRES, SUBSTANTIALLY SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES.

AND THE PROJECT SITE HAS NO VALUE AS HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED, RARE, OR THREATENED SPECIES.

AND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS RELATING TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY, OR WATER QUALITY.

AND LASTLY, THE SITE CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ALL REQUIRED UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES.

I WANNA NOTE THAT DURING THIS, IF ANY MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED DURING THIS PROCESS, THAT WILL IMMEDIATELY MAKE THE PROJECT NOT EXEMPT ANYMORE, IT WOULD REQUIRE A HIGHER LEVEL OF REVIEW AT THAT POINT.

UH, THIS NOT ONLY APPLIES TO THE CLASS, 32 APPLIES TO ALL, UM, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.

SO CLASS ONE IS ONE THAT WE ALSO SEE QUITE FREQUENTLY.

IT'S FOR EXISTING FACILITIES.

IT CONSISTS OF THE OPERATION REPAIR, MAINTENANCE PERMITTING, LEASING LICENSING, OR MINOR ALTERATION OF EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES.

AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IF THIS ONE COMES BEFORE YOU, AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS EXEMPTION IS THE LINE HERE.

THE USE MUST NOT INVOLVE NEGLIGIBLE, OR EXCUSE ME, THE EXEMPTION IS, INVOLVES NEGLIGIBLE OR NO EXPANSION OF EXISTING OR FORMER USE.

SO I RECOMMEND IF THIS IS BEFORE YOU AND YOU WANNA EVALUATE, THAT IS THE KEY LINE TO REMEMBER TO LOOK AT, TO DETERMINE IF THAT, IF WE'VE COVERED THAT IN THE RECORD APPROPRIATELY.

AND THEN JUST AN EXAMPLE, WE USE THIS A LOT FOR ALCOHOL CS.

THE NEXT ONE IS CLASS THREE, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES.

UH, THIS CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATION OF LIMITED NUMBER OF NEW SMALL FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES, INSTALLATION OF NEW, OF SMALL, NEW EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES, AND THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING SMALL STRUCTURES FROM ONE USE TO ANOTHER, WHERE ONLY MINOR MODIFICATIONS ARE MADE TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO THIS WOULD ALLOW EITHER A ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT OR A SECOND UNIT, OR A DUPLEX OR SIMILAR MULTI-FAMILY USE WITH NO WITH UP TO FOUR UNITS.

HOWEVER, IN URBANIZED AREAS, ADDITIONAL UNITS ARE ALLOWED, SO UP TO THREE SINGLE FAMILY OR SIX MULTI-FAMILY UNITS.

AND I DO KNOW THAT I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PROJECT UPCOMING THAT IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS EXEMPTION.

SO NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS IF THE EXEMPTION, IF THE PRODUCT DOESN'T FALL UNDER EXEMPTION, THE LEAD AGENCY GENERALLY WILL PREPARE AN INITIAL STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTION WOULD RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

THE INITIAL STUDY IS A KEY STEP IN THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW PROCESS BECAUSE IT HELPS THE LEAD AGENCY DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF SQA DOCUMENTATION WILL BE REQUIRED, EITHER A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.

IT ALSO HELPS SCOPE OUT CERTAIN TOPICS FROM AN EIIR ANALYSIS OF THE INITIAL STUDY MAY IDENTIFY CERTAIN RESOURCES THAT WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT, THUS ELIMINATING THOSE TOPICS FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

SO AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE IF THERE'S A PROJECT ON A LAND THAT'S IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT, IT'S NOT ZONED FOR AGRICULTURE, IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURE, THEN THE EIR WOULD NOT REVIEW AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE EIR ANALYSIS IN RELATION TO THAT PROJECT.

SO THE FOLLOWING THE INITIAL STUDY, UH, IT'LL, THE NEXT STEP IS THE, IS DEPENDING UPON THE INITIAL STUDY, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MAY BE REQUIRED.

A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS IF THE PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE LEAD AGENCY CAN PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS A WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT AN EIR IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

THE SECOND DOCUMENT IS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

IF A LEAD AGENCY ATTACHES CONDITIONS TO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MITIGATING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, THEN IT'S KNOWN AS AN MND OR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

AN MND WILL STATES THAT THE REVISIONS IN THE PROJECT MADE OR AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT WOULD AVOID THE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, THAT THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE REVISED PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

WITH THIS, UH, EXCUSE ME, WITH THIS, IF, IF A CITY DETERMINES THAT THEY'RE GONNA GO THIS ROUTE, THERE'S GONNA BE PUBLIC REVIEW.

UH, FOR A LOCAL PROJECT, TYPICALLY ALL DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

IT MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR AT LEAST 20 DAYS, UM, 20 CALENDAR DAYS.

IF IT'S A STATEWIDE IMPACT PROJECT, IT'LL BE A 30 DAY, UH,

[00:30:01]

AND THEN FOLLOWING THE, THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT THE CITY GOES AND THERE'S AN APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION MUST BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.

SO IF THE INITIAL STUDY DE DETERMINES THAT THOSE, THAT THOSE MITIGATING NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECLARATION AREN'T THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS, THE LEAD AGENCY DETERMINES THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MUST BE PREPARED.

SO, UM, IT MUST, SO AN EIR MUST DETERMINE, SO, EXCUSE ME, SORRY.

IT MUST DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE EIR WITH CON CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES, THE PUBLIC AND THE APPLICANT.

THIS IS KNOWN AS THE SCOPING PROCESS.

AND THEN AN EIR MUST BE DRAFTED AND RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS, BUT NOT MORE THAN 60 DAYS UNLESS THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AN EIR MUST CONTAIN A PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AN ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, AND AN EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATION MEASURES IF APPLICABLE.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.

UH, THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE SECTION MUST INCLUDE MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

UM, A DRAFT EIR IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE ALT ALTERNATIVES, SORRY, I'M JUMPING AHEAD.

EXCUSE ME.

SORRY, MY, THAT .

UM, AND THEN I, AND THEN THE, WITH THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE NEEDS TO BE IDENTIFIED.

AND I, I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THIS COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UM, RECENTLY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE DRAFT EIR IS NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE AL ALTERNATIVES IS, SORRY, , I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.

UM, A DRAFT IEIR IS REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE AL ALTERNATIVES IS THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE, NOT INCLUDING THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE.

SO THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE THAT ON THE WHOLE WOULD HAVE THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

I WANNA NOTE THAT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.

THE LEAD AGENCY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THAT ALTERNATIVE IN PLACE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED, ONCE THE DRAFT EIR IS COMPLETE, IT MUST BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

DURING THAT TIME, THE LEAD AGENCY WILL RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, OTHER STATE, OR LOCAL AGENCIES.

AND PUBLIC COMMENTS COULD INCLUDE, UM, DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF THE METRICS OR THRESHOLDS, UH, THAT WERE USED IN THE EIR, IF THERE WERE ANY ERRORS OR INCONSISTENCIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED.

AND THE LEAD AGENCY MUST RESPOND TO ALL COMMENTS THAT ARE RECEIVED DURING THE DRAFT EIR PROCESS.

SO ONCE THAT, ONCE THE DRAFT EIR IS COMPLETE AND CIRCULATED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ARE DRAFTED, THE FINAL EIR THEN IS DRAFT COM COMPILED THE DRAFT.

IT MUST INCLUDE THE DRAFT EIR, AND THEN COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT.

EIR, THE RESPONSES OF THE LEAD AGENCY TO THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL POINTS RAISED IN THE REVIEW AND CONSULTATION PROCESS.

AND THEN A LIST OF PERSONS AND AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT, EIR, AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S ADDED BY THE LEAD AGENCY MUST BE IDENTIFIED.

SO ONCE THE FINAL EIR IS COMPLETE, THEN IT'LL GO ON TO, UM, POTENTIALLY AN APPROVAL.

SO PRIOR TO TAKING ACTION ON A PROJECT, A LEAD AGENCY MUST CERTIFY THE EIR AND ADOPT FINDINGS THAT SUMMARIZE EACH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RESULTING FROM A PROPOSED PROJECT AND JUSTIFY THE FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT.

SO, EIR CERTIFICATION SIGNIFIES THAT THE EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CQA AND THE DECISION MAKERS, SORRY FOR THE TYPO, HAVE REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ITS CONTENTS AND CONCLUSIONS PRIOR TO APPROVING THE PROJECT.

TYPICALLY, THIS OCCURS JUST BEFORE APPRO PROJECT APPROVAL AT THE SAME PUBLIC MEETING.

HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.

IT CAN COME, THE CERTIFICATION HAS TO COME FIRST, BUT THE PROJECT APPROVAL CAN COME AT A LATER TIME IN A SEPARATE MEETING, IT'S UP TO THE CITY.

AND THEN FOR THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, THE LEAD AGENCY MUST ALSO MAKE WRITTEN FINDINGS FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR, INCLUDING A BRIEF RATIONALE FOR EACH FINDING.

FINDINGS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND DESCRIBE SPECIFIC REASONS WHERE MITIGATION MEASURES OR ALTERNATIVES ARE BEING REJECTED.

AND THEN FOR THE, AND, AND IF THE LEAD AGENCY TENDS TO APPROVE A PROJECT WITH ONE

[00:35:01]

SO THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IS A WAY THAT THE LEAD AGENCY CAN BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AGAINST SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, OR OTHER FACTORS.

THE LEAD AGENCY MUST INCLUDE SPECIFIC WRITTEN STATEMENTS OR REASONS SUPPORTING THE APPROVAL SUCH AS ECONOMIC, LEGAL, SOCIAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, OR ANY OTHER BENEFITS THAT THE PROJECT COULD PROVIDE.

UH, BUT HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

SO WHEN REVIEWING THIS, THIS IS THE KEY SECTION.

I RECOMMEND REVIEWING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IF YOU HAVE A EIR BEFORE YOU TO JUST TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DETERMINATION.

SO THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION AND THAT WAS VERY HIGH LEVEL .

SO THIS IS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.

UM, QUICKLY BEFORE I TAKE QUESTIONS, I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL TRAININGS COMING UP, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING AGAIN YOU GUYS WANT ME TO, TO ELABORATE ON, LET ME KNOW.

UM, SO I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND THEN DAVID ALSO CAN, WE'LL BE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TOO FROM THE STAFF SIDE FOR CQA.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THAT WAS A VERY GOOD TRAINING.

UM, CA ADVANCED FOR US .

UM, DOES, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? YES.

I CALL COMMISSIONER LEN SMITH.

JUST TO CONFIRM, I MEAN, I THINK AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE, WE'VE MOSTLY JUST SEEN THE INFILL PROJECTS OR SOMETHING THAT'S JUST, UM, UH, CATEGORICALLY, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

CORRECT.

SO, UM, WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME TO A FULL I WITH A FULL EIR OR LIKE A, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT HAS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO A PLANNING COMMISSION? JUST, UH, JUST FOR REFERENCE, SOMETHING MAYBE IN THE PAST THAT'S COME, JUST SO I CAN KIND OF VISUALIZE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, OR DOES THAT NORMALLY JUST HEAD TO THE COUNCIL? UM, NO.

SO THERE, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

SO THERE'S CERTAIN EIR THAT HAVE TO BE DONE.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE JUST REVIEWED ONE RECENTLY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.

UM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WILL REQUIRE EERS AT SOME POINT.

UM, THAT WILL, IF FOR EXAMPLE, THE CLASS 32, IF SAY THE INFILL, I'M SPIT BALLING, BUT IF, IF THE SITE, SAY THEY FIND THAT THERE IS A THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ON AN EMPTY SITE, THAT WILL TRIGGER AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND IT WILL KICK IT OUT OUT OF THE, UM, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.

UM, BUT IT MIGHT NOT RAISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN EIR, IT COULD BE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

IT WOULD JUST REALLY DEPEND ON WHAT'S FOUND DURING THE INITIAL STUDY PROCESS.

OKAY.

IT'S JUST MY EXPERIENCE, MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE PROFESSIONALLY WAS ALWAYS WITH A FULL EIR ON THE UTILITY SIDE OF THINGS.

BUT, UM, SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO US OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SEEN.

I MEAN, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF COURSE, BUT YES.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THERE IS A, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL, BUT THERE IS A PROJECT COMING UP IN THE PIPELINE THAT WE ARE REVIEWING AN EIR FOR.

OKAY.

UM, SO THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE YOU.

UM, IT'S BECAUSE THIS NATIONAL CITY IS ALREADY VERY DEVELOPED.

UM, A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT WOULD IMPACT OTHER JURISDICTIONS JUST DON'T APPLY HERE.

YEAH.

THANK YOU.

WE CALL COMMISSIONER ARMA.

ACTUALLY, I APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE TRAINING.

UM, CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A QUICK, UH, EXAMPLES ON THE STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED IT, BUT YOU, YOU SAID THERE WAS THREE AND THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S SEVERAL, BUT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES I GIVE WERE MINISTERIAL PROJECTS.

MM-HMM .

AND THEN EMERGENCY PROJECTS.

MM-HMM .

SO AN EXAMPLE, UM, IS IF THIS WON'T HAPPEN HERE, BUT IF THERE'S A LANDSLIDE AND THE ROAD IS WASHED OUT AND WE HAVE TO CLEAN IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE S QL PROCESS FOR THAT.

UM, SOME ADOPTIONS OF SOME COASTAL PLANS AND PROGRAMS OR FEASIBILITY AND PLANNING STUDIES.

SO IT'S VERY SPECIFIC AND IT'S VERY NARROW.

UM, THEY'RE NOT SUPER COMMON.

UM, YOU WON'T SEE VERY MANY OF THOSE.

APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THEN JUST FOR MY CONFIRMATION, UM, WHEN THERE'S MENTION OF 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS OR 100, THEY DID WHATEVER THE DAYS, IS IT CALENDAR OR BUSINESS DAYS? IT DEPENDS.

SOME ARE CALENDAR, SOME ARE WORKING.

IT JUST REALLY DEPENDS ON WHICH, WHICH DOCUMENT WE'RE UNDER.

OKAY.

YES.

GOT IT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER BURL COMMISSIONER? BURL, BURL? SORRY.

UH, SO JUST FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEETING DECEMBER 10TH, THAT DID NOT TRIGGER AN EIR, SO THAT WAS DETERMINED TO BE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE INFILL, UM, INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

AND THEN WHEN WE OPPOSED IT WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, IS IT NOW TRIGGERING AN EIR? BECAUSE I LIKE WHAT STANDS OUT TO ME? ARE THOSE THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A, AN ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS PROJECT?

[00:40:01]

WELL, SINCE THE PROJECT ITSELF WAS DENIED, ANY CQA DETERMINATION IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THE PROJECT ITSELF IS NO LONGER, SO THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SQL DETERMINATION IF THERE'S NO PROJECT.

I KNOW IT WAS, DOES NOT DENIED HERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT IT IS, AND NOW IT'S OFF THE TABLE COMPLETELY.

YEAH.

THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE, THE APPLICATION.

SO IT IS NO LONGER A PROJECT THAT THE CITY IS REVIEWING.

YOU THINK IF, UH, THERE WAS A TURN OF EVENTS THAT IT WOULD TRIGGER ANY IR IT REALLY WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE ANALYSIS IS UNDER THE, THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION.

SO IF SAY THAT THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND IT FOUND THAT IT WAS, THERE WAS GONNA BE MINIMAL, NO TRAFFIC IMPACTS, IF THAT HAD FOUND THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACTS, THEN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY TRIGGER HIGHER LEVEL OF REVIEW.

BUT IT REALLY WILL DEPEND UPON WHAT IS ACTUALLY AT THE TIME LOOKED AT FURTHER.

AND IT DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT TOO.

SO IF THERE'S A NEW PROJECT, TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO OR FACT PATTERNS, IT COULD EQUATE TO DIFFERENT IMPACTS THAT WE JUST WOULDN'T KNOW AT THIS TIME.

UH, IT, A, A QUESTION THAT I HAVE, UM, IS AS, AS COMMISSIONERS, IF A PROJECT DOES COME BEFORE US AND THERE IS, UH, QUESTIONS OR SAY, SAY LIKE THE DECEMBER 2ND, THE PROJECT ON ORANGE AND SWEETWATER, UM, IF WE WERE, UM, SAYING, OKAY, WE WANTED THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT WE WANT AN EIR DONE FOR THIS PROJECT, COULD THAT BE A CONDITION THAT COMMISSIONERS COULD POTENTIALLY PUT ON A DEVELOPMENT, UM, TO, TO, TO HELP MITIGATION EFFORTS OR JUST TO DO A MORE IN DEPTH, UM, ANALYSIS ON, ON, ON THE PROJECT? SO YEAH, IT'S WELL WITHIN YOUR, THE COMMISSIONS TO DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S EVALUATION.

SO YOU, THEY, YOU COULD DISAGREE AND SAID THAT, THAT YOU DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ACCURATE AND YOU COULD REQUEST STAFF TO DO FURTHER STUDIES.

UM, SO YOU WOULD JUST CONTINUE THE ITEM, UM, PENDING ADDITIONAL REVIEW UNDER CA.

AND SO YES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH STAFF'S DECISIONS.

UM, YOU CAN DIRECT THEM TO DO ADDITIONAL REVIEW IF YOU NEED TO.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

YES.

UH, CO COMMISSIONER VALENZUELA, BUT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, I MEAN, IT'S JUST NOT BASED ON OPINION, RIGHT? I MEAN THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF, LIKE, THERE'S DIFFERENT LIKE FINDINGS THAT YOU, WE HAVE TO FIND.

WE CAN'T JUST BE LIKE, I DON'T LIKE IT.

SO I WANT YOU TO DO MORE RESEARCH.

CORRECT, CORRECT.

YES, YES.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM,

[4. Determination that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under Class 15 of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) and a Tentative Parcel Map Dividing One Lot into Two on a Property Located at 639-643 E 21st Street. Case File No.: 2024-22 LS APN: 560-310-21-00.]

WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON, UH, DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CQA UNDER CLASS 17 OF THE CE A GUIDELINES SECTION 1 5 3 1 5 MINOR LAND DIVISIONS AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP DIVIDING LOT ONE INTO TWO ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 39 THROUGH 6 43 EAST 21ST STREET, CASE FILE NUMBER 2024 DASH 22 LS A PN NUMBER 5 6 0 3 1 0 2 1 OH OH.

BEFORE WE BEGIN, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY DISCLOSURES RELATED TO THIS HEARING? THIS IS EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' OPPORTUNITY TO DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, PROPERTY INSPECTIONS, EX PARTE CONTACTS OR COMMUNICATIONS, ET CETERA.

MY APOLOGIES.

WHAT WAS THAT QUESTION? OH, I WAS SIMPLY ASKING IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAD DISCLOSURES.

THANK YOU.

UM, I, I HAVE DONE A, UH, A DRIVE-BY SITE VISIT.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY.

MADAM SEC SECRETARY, HAVE THE NOTICES AS REQUIRED BY LAW BEEN GIVEN? AND DO WE HAVE A COMPLETE FILE OF EXHIBIT CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTS? YES.

THANK YOU.

WILL STAFF PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SUMMARIZE THE ITEM FOR US.

GOOD EVENING, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THE PUBLIC.

MY NAME IS SOPHIA DEPUY AND I'M THE ASSISTANT PLANNER.

TONIGHT I WILL BE PRESENTING ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, DIVIDING ONE LAW INTO TWO ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 39 6 43 EAST 21ST STREET, CASE FILE 20 24, 20 22 LS.

UM, SO AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6 39 AND 6 43 EAST 21ST STREET.

IT'S WITHIN THE RM THREE

[00:45:01]

THE EXISTING LAW IS APPROXIMATELY 20,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A WIDTH OF 162 FEET AND A DEPTH OF 130 FEET.

UM, THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE LOT CURRENTLY FRONTS EAST 21ST STREET.

UM, EACH RESULTING LOT WILL HAVE INDEPENDENT ACCESS FROM EAST 21ST STREET.

SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IS PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.

UM, HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S BETWEEN F AND HIGHLAND AND NORTH OF EAST 21ST.

AND THEN HERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL SITE PHOTOS.

SO THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT IS 6 39 AND THEN, AND THEN MOVING OVER, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE SECOND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND THEN HERE'S JUST SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO PARCEL.

ONE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 7,477 SQUARE FEET WITH 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON EAST 21ST.

AND THAT PARCEL WILL HAVE AN EXISTING 1,845 SQUARE FOOT.

SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO REMAIN.

PARCEL TWO WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 13,387 SQUARE FEET WITH ABOUT 103 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON EAST 21ST.

AND PARCEL TWO WILL HAVE AN EXISTING 822 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO REMAIN.

AND NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.

HERE'S THE PARCEL MAP.

UM, YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO.

SO MOVING ON TO STAFF'S ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSED SPLIT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFICALLY LAND USE POLICY 2.3, WHICH ENCOURAGES HOUSING TYPES THAT ARE MORE AFFORDABLE, SUCH AS ADUS.

UH, THE SPLIT, THE PROPOSED SPLIT WOULD ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL ADUS.

UM, THE SPLIT ALSO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT SINCE IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY.

AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, UM, WHICH ALLOWS UP TO 75 DWELL UNITS PER ACRE.

THIS PROJECT CURRENTLY HAS A DENSITY OF 4.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

CONTINUING WITH THE ANALYSIS, UH, THE PROPOSED LAW SPLIT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

TITLE 17 HAS REQUIREMENTS FOR DEDICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS, DESIGN STANDARDS, AND CONFORMANCE WITH TITLE 18.

UH, THIS SITE IS ON AN ESTABLISHED BLOCK WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FRONTING EAST 21ST STREET.

NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREETS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED, UM, PURSUANT TO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE SIDE LOT LINE OF THE SIDELINE OF LOTS SHALL BE AS NEARLY AT RIGHT ANGLES OR RADIAL TO THE STREET UPON WHICH THE LOTS FACE AS PRACTICAL.

UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SIDE LOT LINE WITH A SLIGHT JOG THAT'S FOLLOWING AN EXISTING FENCE ON THE PROPERTY.

STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A CONDITION OR STAFF INCLUDED A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES A MORE STANDARD LOT CONFIGURATION.

SO BASICALLY STRAIGHTEN OUT THE LOT LINE.

UM, AND THEN HERE'S JUST A IMAGE KIND OF REPRESENTING WHAT STAFF IS REQUESTING.

THE RED LINE KIND OF SHOWS THE STRAIGHT LINE INSTEAD OF THE JOGGED LINE.

AND THEN HERE'S JUST SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FENCE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT.

SO CONTINUING WITH THE ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSED SPLIT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAND USE CODE.

UH, THE RM THREE ZONE ALLOWS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES.

AGAIN, IT MEETS THE PRESCRIBED DENSITY FOR THE AREA.

IT ONLY HAS A DENSITY OF 4.3 AND THAT ZONE ALLOWS UP TO 75 UNITS PER ACRE.

AND, UH, IT ALSO MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE RRM THREE ZONE.

SO MINIMUM LAW AREA, MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE, AND ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS.

SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT BE FOUND EXEMPT FROM CA PURSUANT TO CLASS 15, WHICH IS MINOR LAND DIVISIONS.

UM, IF APPROVED STAFF WILL FILE THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.

UH, ADDITIONALLY, STAFF IS REQUESTING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL RELATED TO FILING THE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.

UM, JUST STANDARD LANGUAGE ABOUT TIMELINES FOR GETTING THAT IN.

YEAH, SO STAFF INCLUDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADDRESSING ALL OF THE COMMENTS FROM ENGINEERING BUILDING AND THEN ADDITIONALLY SWEETWATER AUTHORITY.

WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED CONDITIONS RELATED TO FINAL MAP REQUIREMENTS

[00:50:01]

AND THEN WE INCLUDED THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL RELATED TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

UM, IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED LAW SPLIT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND THE LAND USE CODE.

SO THE OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM QUA AND APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, OR FIND THE PROJECT NOT EXEMPT FROM CQA AND OR DENY THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP BASED ON THE FINDINGS OR CONTINUE THE ITEM FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE REVISED CONDITIONS.

UH, IF APPROVED, IT WILL GO AS A NOTICE OF DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL.

AND HERE'S THE PROCESS MAP AGAIN, UH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION UNLESS THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.

DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, COMMISSIONER QUINONES.

JUST CURIOUS, UM, IF IT'S APPROVED AND IT'S DIVIDED, I SEE THEY ALREADY HAVE FENCES.

HOW ARE THEY GONNA DIVIDE IT? THEY'RE JUST GONNA PUT A FENCE ACROSS OR WHAT, UH, THE PROPOSED LOT LINE THAT YOU SEE THERE IS FOLLOWING THE EXISTING FENCE LINE.

SO THE FENCE WOULD STAY WHERE IT IS.

SO IT'S GONNA BE REMAIN THE SAME.

THEY'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A, A FENCE, RIGHT, WITH THE FENCE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

YEAH.

STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THEY STRAIGHTEN THE LOT LINE.

AND A REQUIREMENT BEFORE FINAL MAP WOULD BE TO HAVE THE FENCE LINE FOLLOW THAT NEW LOT LINE, AND THEN IT'S GONNA BE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, CORRECT? CORRECT.

SO JUST FOR VERIFICATION, JUST FOR VERIFICATION, THIS CURRENTLY SITS AS ONE LOT THE WAY, THE WAY THAT IT IS NOW.

THERE'S TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT.

THERE'S ALREADY A FENCE THERE.

IT'S ALREADY DIVIDED TWO, BUT IT'S ONE LOT.

SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A DIVISION OF THE LOT AND THE STAFF IS REQUESTING FOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FENCE IS STRAIGHT FOR WHERE THE LOT LINE WILL BE DRAWN.

THE PROPOSED LOT LINE AND THE FENCE.

YES.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WE WILL NOW HEAR? UM, I, I INVITE THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GIVE THEIR 15 MINUTE PRESENTATION.