[00:00:07] GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE JANUARY 15TH, 2025 MEETING. [CALL TO ORDER] MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. MINUTES. CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE ROLL? . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. ALRIGHTY. WE HAVE A NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER. JUST WAS APPOINTED LAST NIGHT BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND SO I WANT TO WELCOME NICHOLAS FOSTER. WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU ABOARD AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF RESPONSIBILITY. WOULD YOU PROVIDE US THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE THIS EVENING? SURE. THANK YOU. WE ALL STAND. FOR THE PLEDGE OF 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 HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY MADE A STATEMENT AT THE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE APPRECIATE THAT. ALRIGHTY. NEXT ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE THE MINUTES OF THE [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] DECEMBER 4TH MEETING. AND IS THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS BY ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS THIS EVENING ON THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING OKAY, I SEE NONE. THEREFORE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING? SO MOVED. OKAY. COMMISSIONER STINE MAKES THE MOTION. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER MERTZ MAKES THE SECOND. THANK YOU. NEXT IS THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING FOR DECEMBER 18TH. MOTION ON THAT. OH. I'M SORRY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT, PLEASE. HOLD ON. SO, YOUR MOTION ON THE FOURTH. ON THE FOURTH? SHOULD WE VOTE ON THE FOURTH? YES. OKAY, SO YOU WANT TO VOTE ON THE FOURTH INSTEAD OF MOTION? I'M SORRY, I DO, YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS VOTING. YES. AND COMMISSIONER HUBINGER WAS ABSENT THAT EVENING. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 18TH MINUTES. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS OR EDITS TO THE DECEMBER 18TH MEETING? NO, NO. NOTHING TO ADD OR SUBTRACT OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. OKAY WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONERS JOE, MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. YEAH. COMMISSIONER MERZ, YOU'RE APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 18TH AND YOU'RE MAKING THAT MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A VOTE ON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 18TH MEETING. OKAY. WE HAVE FOUR. YES, AND TWO ABSTAIN. BEING THAT THEY WERE NOT HERE AT THE MEETINGS AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER FOSTER IS NEW THIS EVENING. SO THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING AS WELL. THANK YOU. THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT THIS EVENING WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM FROM THE MINUTES CLERK. SHE HAS SLIPS THERE FOR SPEAKING. IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO, REQUEST TO SPEAK. MUST BE TURNED INTO HER BEFORE THE MEETING STARTS. THIS WILL ALLOW THE SPEAKER TIME TO MANAGE AND FOR A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER. THIS WILL. ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON. SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. GROUP TIMES WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA. THE REPRESENTATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE GROUP AND AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP MUST BE PRESENT DURING THAT MEETING. THOSE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP HAVE TEN MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS CHANGED BY THAT CHAIRPERSON. THE MINUTES CLERK WILL CALL THE NAMES OF THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN THAT ORDER. WITH THAT IN MIND, THE COMMENTS THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBER IN THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. [00:05:01] PLEASE TREAT OTHERS WITH COURTESY, CIVILITY AND RESPECT. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS AGENDA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED UPON THE TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ALL OTHER NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD AT THE END OF THE MEETING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT. NO ACTIONS CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES. CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS FOR THE NON-AGENDA ITEMS? NO, VICE CHAIR, WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, WE WILL BEGIN THE MEETING THIS EVENING. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A WE DO NOT HAVE. [1. PALOMAR AIRPORT AND AVIARA OFFICE PROJECT - SDP 2023-0022/CDP 2023-0034] BY THE WAY, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING MEETING, AND THAT'S WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA. AND WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR THAT ITEM NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS THE PALOMAR AND AVR OFFICE PROJECT. AND THAT AGENDA ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT IF WE BEFORE I DO THAT. EXCUSE ME. I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT REGARD. OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE CONTINUANCE OF ITEM NUMBER 1-8? NEXT ITEM FOR UNDISCLOSED OR UNCERTAIN DATE. OH, OKAY. CLARIFICATION. YES. OKAY, SO THE FACT THAT IT WAS ON THE AGENDA AT ONE TIME MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT TO ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE. THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO ALLOW BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT TO BE CONTINUED AT SOME OTHER TIME. THAT IS CORRECT. SO I MAKE THAT MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO CONTINUE THIS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER RUBINGER MADE THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. CAN WE VOTE ON THAT? SO, WE'LL JUST WAIT. ONE MOMENT. FOR IT TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT AGAIN. THERE'S TWO WAYS TO GO, STOP. OKAY, GOOD. SORRY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, GO AHEAD AND DO IT AGAIN. OH, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. OKAY. WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF ALL PRESENT TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO AN END TO ANOTHER ITEM TO UNCERTAIN AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE. OKAY, WITH THAT IN MIND, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. THAT WAS THE ONLY ITEM THAT WE HAD ON PUBLIC ON THE YEAH. PUBLIC HEARING. AND SO WE MOVE ON TO DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS WITH IS ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA. [2. OVERVIEW OF CEQA AND DISCUSSION OF PROSPECTIVE CHANGES TO CHAPTER 19.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE – INFORMATIONAL REPORT & DISCUSSION] AND MR. LARDY WILL YOU PRESENT, AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE THAT ITEM. YES. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. THIS ITEM IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE CEQA DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19. GIVING OUR PRESENTATION IS MIKE STRONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. THANK YOU, CITY PLANNER LARDY. AND GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, MIKE STRONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. I WILL BE PROVIDING PRESENTATION ON THIS AS A SECOND AGENDA ITEM. PUBLIC AGENCIES WAIVE A VARIETY OF FACTORS WHEN CONSIDERING LAND USE DECISIONS, SUCH AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ONE SUCH FACTOR IS THE TYPE OF IMPACT THAT THAT PROJECT MAY HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT. SO PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CEQA AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD IS NO EXCEPTION. SO IT HELPS TO HAVE A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF CEQA TO ENSURE THAT THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF CEQA ARE COMPLIED WITH AND ENSURE PROPER CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BEFORE AN AGENCY OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDES TO CARRY OUT OR UNDERTAKE A PROJECT OR ACTIVITY. THE BASIS OF THIS REPORT IS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, CEQA. THE OTHER COMPANION ELEMENT TO THIS PRESENTATION IS TO PROMOTE PROJECT AWARENESS OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT UNDER THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW, [00:10:09] AND THAT IS PROSPECTIVE CHANGES TO CHAPTER 1904, WHICH COMPRISES THE LOCAL PROCEDURES IN PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED A MINUTE MOTION ACTION IN SEPTEMBER TO BRING BACK AMENDMENTS TO THAT CHAPTER, SO THAT THE DECISION MAKING BODY OF A PROJECT WOULD BE CONCURRENTLY CONSIDERING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THAT DOCUMENT, WHICH I'LL GET INTO WITH THIS PRESENTATION. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STATE LAWS AFFECTING PROJECT RELATED PROCESSING AND DECISION MAKING AT A LOCAL LEVEL. CEQA WAS SIGNED INTO LAW IN 1970 AS STATE LAW, SO ITS STATE STATUTE THAT ESSENTIALLY CREATED THE FIRST MEASURE OF CEQA, AND IT CAME AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS INCREASING CONCERN OVER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. CEQA INSTITUTED A STATEWIDE POLICY FOR THE REGULATION, AND IT REQUIRES PUBLIC AGENCY TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ANALYZE AND SHARE THE ANALYSIS WITH THE PUBLIC THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE APPROVING A PROPOSED PROJECT OR ACTION. IT REQUIRES PUBLIC AGENCIES TO LOOK BEFORE THEY LEAP AND CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BEFORE MAKING DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS WITHIN THE CONTENTS OF CEQA AND THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THE TERM PROJECT HAS A SPECIFIC MEANING, AND IT CAN DETERMINE WHETHER A PROPOSED USE OR ACTION IS SUBJECT TO CEQA REVIEW. A PROJECT IS DEFINED IN THE PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE AS AN ACTIVITY WHICH MAY CAUSE EITHER A DIRECT OR PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT, OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE INDIRECT PHYSICAL CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT'S CODIFIED BY SECTION 21065 IN THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. THE LAWS CONCERNING CEQA AND THE CEQA PROCESS ARE CONTAINED BY STATUTE, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER IN THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. THE CEQA GUIDELINES, WHICH IS THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, PUBLISHED COURT DECISIONS INTERPRETING CEQA AND LOCALLY ADOPTED CEQA PROCEDURES, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1904. TO UNDERSTAND THE KEY ELEMENTS, PUBLIC INPUT AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT, AND A CEQA PROCESS, IT'S BEST TO CONSIDER THE INTENT OF CEQA. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVES ARE. CEQA ARE TO INFORM DECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. EFFECTS OF A PROPOSED PROJECT. IDENTIFY WAYS TO AVOID OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. AVOID OR REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BY REQUIRING IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES OR. FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES. DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THROUGH THE USE OF A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, WHERE APPLICABLE, AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE AGENCIES APPROVING THE PROJECT DESPITE THE IMPACTS THAT IT MAY HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A LEAD AGENCY IS A PUBLIC AGENCY THAT HAS A PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT OR APPROVING THE PROJECT. THE LEAD AGENCY PREPARES THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO SUPPORT THE PROCESSING OF THE PROJECT. CERTAIN PROCEDURES AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BEFORE A PROJECT IS APPROVED OR CARRIED OUT. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, YOU CAN REFER TO CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTION 15367. A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IS AN AGENCY THAT PROPOSES TO CARRY OUT OR APPROVE A PROJECT FOR WHICH A LEAD AGENCY IS PREPARING OR HAS PREPARED AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCY INCLUDES ALL THOSE PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT ISSUE SOME SORT OF DISCRETIONARY PERMIT AFTER THE PRINCIPAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. TRUSTEE AGENCIES INCLUDE THE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES WITH REGARD TO FISH AND WILDLIFE, OR LIKE THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION, WITH REGARD TO STATE OWNED SOVEREIGN LANDS SUCH AS BEDS AND NAVIGABLE WATERS. AND THOSE ARE AGENCIES THAT HAVE SOME REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER APPROVING A PROJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION ANALYSIS, IDEALLY, WOULD BE PREPARED AS EARLY AS FEASIBLE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS TO ENABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, EARLY AND INFLUENCE PROJECT DESIGN. AND YET LATE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL INFORMATIONAL VALUE. AND FOR THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, ONCE THE APPLICATION IS DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE, THE CITY PROCEEDS FORWARD WITH INITIATING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT IS PROVIDED BY CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTION 15060 AND 15101. AS PART OF THE PROCESS, THE CITY GENERALLY MUST ASK A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. IS AN ACTIVITY OR A PROJECT AS DEFINED BY CEQA? IS THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA, AND WILL THE PROJECT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT? THE FIRST STEP TO FOLLOW AND ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS COMES IN A SERIES OF TIERS, AND IT'S TO CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT OF A [00:15:01] PROPOSED PROJECT AND ACTIVITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S A PROJECT AND SUBJECT TO CEQA. IF A PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT AS DEFINED BY 15060 OF THE GUIDELINES, THEN CEQA DOES NOT APPLY. THE FIRST TIER IS CONSIDERED JURISDICTIONAL. DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME PHYSICAL CHANGE WILL ALMOST ALWAYS QUALIFY AS PROJECTS UNDER CEQA. IN THE CEQA GUIDELINES ALSO CARVE OUT SPECIFIC CLASSES OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES THAT ARE EXCLUDED OR EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, MEANING THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WOULD BE PREPARED. THIS IS PERFORMED IN THE SECOND TIER, AND THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY SOURCES OF EXEMPTIONS. ONE IS STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS, AND THE OTHER IS CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS. IF SUBJECT TO CEQA, THEN THE AGENCY WOULD DETERMINE IF A PROJECT IS EXCLUDED OR EXEMPT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WITHIN 30 DAYS. FINALLY, ASSUMING NO APPLICABLE EXEMPTION, THE CITY MUST UNDERTAKE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND THAT'S THE THIRD TIER, WHICH INVOLVES ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING AND DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 180 DAYS OR WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF DOCUMENT PREPARED. IF THE PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS NOT EXCLUDED OR EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, THE CITY CONDUCTS AN INITIAL STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT DOCUMENT TYPE IS. OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL POINTS IN THIS THREE TIER SYSTEM, LIKE A DECISION TREE, AT WHICH POINT THE CEQA ANALYSIS REVIEW WOULD EITHER CONTINUE OR END. STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ARE LEGISLATIVE IN ORIGIN. THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS IDENTIFIED CERTAIN TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM ALL OR SOME SKILL REQUIREMENTS. STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS HAVE A PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ARE CATEGORIES OF PROJECTS THAT THE CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY, A STATE AGENCY, HAS IDENTIFIED, WILL NORMALLY NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT. THESE EXEMPTIONS ARE LOCATED IN THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 33 CLASSES OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS IN THE USE OF AN EXEMPTION IN THIS CLASS IS LIMITED BY CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, AND THEN THE THIRD TYPE OF EXEMPTION IS A COMMONSENSE EXEMPTION, WHICH FORMERLY WAS A GENERAL RULE EXEMPTION. AND THAT APPLIES TO PROJECTS WHERE IT CAN BE SEEN WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE ACTIVITY OR USE WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT OR SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THE TWO TYPES OF EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED STATUTORILY OR CATEGORICAL. EXEMPTIONS VERY DIFFER IN PURPOSE AND INTENT. THE MOST NOTABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS THAT THE STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ARE ABSOLUTE, MEANING CEQA ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT APPLY. IN CONTRAST, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO A VARIETY OF EXCEPTIONS, WHICH I'LL COVER LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION. IF AN EXCEPTION APPLIES TO AN OTHERWISE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PROJECT, THEN IT MUST GO THROUGH FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, EVEN IF IT OTHERWISE QUALIFIES FOR THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. THE SCOPE AND ELIGIBILITY OF STATUTORY AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS IS SET BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY. SO, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT ARE EXEMPT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN ADOPT LAWS THAT TOTALLY EXEMPT CERTAIN PROJECTS FROM CEQA. MANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TYPES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ARE LISTED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080 AND SECRET GUIDELINES SECTION 15261 THROUGH 15285. THE SECTION IN THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21080 LISTS 16 TYPE EXEMPTION TYPES, AND ONE IS A MINISTERIAL APPROVAL. MINISTERIAL APPROVALS ARE ACTIONS RELATED TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THAT INVOLVE LITTLE OR NO PERSONAL JUDGMENT BY THE CITY OFFICIAL AS TO THE MANNER IN CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT. IN THIS CASE, THE CITY OFFICIAL COULD INCLUDE CITY STAFF OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY OFFICIAL MERELY APPLIES THE LAWS TO THE FACTS AS PRESENTED, AND HAS NO DISCRETION OR JUDGMENT IN REACHING A DECISION. MINISTERIAL ACTIONS, BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT PROJECTS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS BY A PUBLIC AGENCY. AND TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE ON HOW THIS SCOPE AND INTENT OF THIS HAS CHANGED OVER TIME, SB 35, WHICH WAS RECENTLY AMENDED BY SB 423 APPLIES TO THOSE AGENCIES THAT HAVE NOT MET THEIR STATE HOUSING GOALS. AND SO FOR PROJECTS COMPLYING WITH CODE AND BETWEEN 2 AND 9 DEVELOPMENT UNITS AND SUBJECT TO PREVAILING WAGE COULD BE CONSIDERED A MINISTERIAL PROJECT. SO SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A PROJECT SUBJECT TO CEQA. AND BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW CHANGE, NOW THEY'RE CONSIDERED MINISTERIAL. THE SAME APPLIES TO CITY CITIES OR AGENCIES THAT HAVE INADEQUATE INVENTORY OF LAND TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS THROUGH WHAT THEY CALL REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS. THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WAS ONE SUCH AGENCY, AND AS A RESULT, [00:20:06] THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. ON JANUARY 30TH OF THIS YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A REZONE PROGRAM TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE HOUSING NEED AND PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 683.2. ALL OF THOSE REZONE SITES ARE ALSO CONSIDERED MINISTERIAL BY STATUTE. THE SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES INCLUDE, WITH THE CEQA GUIDELINES, A LIST OF PROJECTS OR CLASSES WHICH ARE DETERMINED TO NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTIONS ONE, FIVE, 301 THROUGH 15333 DESCRIBE 33 CLASSES OF PROJECTS FOR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS. THE MAJORITY OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACTIVITIES, REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, AND POLICY AND PROCEDURE WORK IS LIKELY TO BE EXEMPT UNDER THE CLASS ONE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ARE TYPICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNLESS THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND OR THE STRUCTURE IS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE. MINOR GRADING OR LANDSCAPING REPLACEMENT ARE TYPICALLY EXEMPT UNDER A CLASS FOUR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, UNLESS HEALTHY MATURE TREES WOULD BE REMOVED. THESE ROUTINE FACILITY MODIFICATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR EXEMPTION BY STAFF. ONE ELEMENT ON HERE IS THE FIFTH ENTRY. IT'S FOR THE CLASS 32 INFILL. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SOME PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THEIR PURVIEW, THAT IDENTIFIES AN EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS CHARACTERIZED AS INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THIS EXEMPTION IS INTENDED TO PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN URBANIZED AREAS. THE CLASS CONSISTS OF PROJECTS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLANS AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS, AND THE EXEMPTION MAY BE USED FOR INFILL HOUSING APPROVALS FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ON SITES LESS THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN CITY LIMITS, SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES. IF A PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, THE CITY MUST NEXT EVALUATE WHETHER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE EXEMPTIONS APPLY. THESE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS DEFINE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OVERRIDE OR NEGATE THE AGENCY'S ABILITY TO USE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLIES IN THE PROJECT NO LONGER, OR IF AN EXCEPTION APPLIES, THEN THE PROJECT NO LONGER QUALIFIES FOR THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, AND THE CEQA GUIDELINES 15300.2 IS THE SECTION OF CODE THAT IDENTIFIES THAT CRITERIA BY WHICH IS MEASURED FOR THE EXCEPTIONS. SOME OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE QUALIFIED BY CONSIDERATION OF WHERE THE PROJECT IS LOCATED. FURTHERMORE, ALL CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ARE INAPPLICABLE WHEN THERE COULD BE A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT DUE TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR A CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF SUCCESSIVE PROJECTS OF THE SAME TYPE IN THE SAME PLACE OVER TIME. CURRENTLY, WHEN A PROPOSED USE OR ACTIVITY IS ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE RELIES ON AN EXEMPTION, THE CITY'S PROJECT MANAGER OR DEPARTMENT STAFF FROM THE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT PROCESSING THE PROJECT WILL NEED TO WORK WITH THE CITY PLANNER TO ANALYZE THE APPROPRIATE SCREENING CRITERIA TO MAKE SURE AN EXEMPTION APPLIES. SO THAT APPLIES TO BOTH STATUTORY AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS AND THEN DOCUMENT THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS AND WITH EVIDENCE TO PERMIT TO THE PERMIT CASE FILE. IN THOSE CASES OF STATUTORILY EXEMPTIONS, IT'S ABSOLUTE. THERE'S LESS ANALYSIS NEEDED. IN THE CASE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. THERE ARE SOME EXEMPTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY APPLY. SO USUALLY THERE IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE USE OF THAT CLASS OF EXEMPTION. SO, IF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, SUCH AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCES STUDY OR A TRAFFIC STUDY ARE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR AN EXEMPTION. STAFF WILL ASK THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO PREPARE THE STUDIES. IN SOME CASES, THAT WORK IS PEER REVIEWED BY A CITY CONSULTANT. WHEN THE CITY PLANNER ISSUES A DETERMINATION OF A PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT BY CEQA THAT ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THAT DETERMINATION. TITLE 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CURRENTLY GIVES THE GIVES THE CITY PLANNER THAT AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF A PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT WHEN, WHERE APPROPRIATE, STAFF WILL FOLLOW A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF APPROVING THE PROJECT. THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION REDUCES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR LEGAL CHALLENGES FROM 180 DAYS TO 35. AS MENTIONED EARLIER IN THIS PRESENTATION, THE CITY COUNCIL RECENTLY PROVIDED MINUTE MOTION ACTION TO RETURN WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1904 TO CHANGE THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS SO THE PROJECT'S DECISION MAKER GETS TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION CONCURRENT WITH THE PROJECT, RATHER THAN THE CITY PLANNER. SO THAT MEANS THE PROCESS WOULD CHANGE SO THAT THE CITY PLANNER WOULD NOT BE MAKING THE EXEMPTIONS, [00:25:04] IF APPROVED BY ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE EXEMPTION REQUEST WOULD BE FILED AS PART OF THAT STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF THAT PROJECT IS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S PURVIEW. CHERISH THIS HOUR. IF A PROJECT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, STAFF WILL PREPARE AN INITIAL STUDY ON A CHECKLIST. THE LIST GOES BY MANY NAMES ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTS, INITIAL STUDY OR APPENDIX G CHECKLIST, BUT THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING. THE CHECKLIST FORM MAY BE USED AS A FORMAT FOR THE INITIAL STUDY. THE STANDARD FOR PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT IS WHETHER A FAIR ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. IF THE INITIAL STUDY SHOWS THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. STAFF WILL DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IF THE INITIAL STUDY IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, BUT REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT WOULD CLEARLY AVOID THE EFFECTS OR REDUCE THE EFFECTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. STAFF WILL DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IF THE INITIAL STUDY IDENTIFIES ONE OR MORE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. STAFF WILL DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF AN EIR. NOTE THAT IF STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT AN EIR IS CLEARLY REQUIRED, THEN AN INITIAL STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED. THERE ARE SOME CASES WHERE SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IS TRUNCATED OR ABBREVIATED. STAFF WILL DETERMINE IF A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT INCLUDES A DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF A PROPOSED PROJECT. STAFF WILL REVIEW THE DOCUMENT PREPARED TO DETERMINE IF IT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE PROPOSED PROJECT. REVIEW OF A PRIOR DOCUMENT BY STAFF OR THE CONSULTANT WILL RESULT IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING COURSES OF ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE. FINDING IS A DETERMINATION THAT A PROPOSED PROJECT AND ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IN, AND ADDRESSED BY A PRIOR DOCUMENT. IF NONE OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN CEQA GUIDELINES 15162 HAVE OCCURRED, AND THE CITY MAY RELY ON THE PRIOR DOCUMENT IN APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AN ADDENDUM IS APPROPRIATE WHEN STAFF MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DESCRIBED AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE PRIOR DOCUMENT, BUT MINOR CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AND NONE OF THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN 15162 HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED. IN THIS CASE, AN ADDENDUM APPROPRIATE ONLY WHEN THE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY, BUT MAY BE PREPARED UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTION 15164 ADDENDUM OR AN ADDENDUM CANNOT BE USED WHEN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER IMPACTS REQUIRING NEW MITIGATION MEASURES OR ALTERNATIVES ARE IDENTIFIED. AS STAFF MAKE A DETERMINATION, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DESCRIBED UNDER A PRIOR CEQA DOCUMENT, BUT ONE OR MORE OF THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 HAVE OCCURRED. A SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, OR EIR MUST BE PREPARED. IF AN EIR WAS PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AND CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE CODE HAVE OCCURRED, BUT ONLY MINOR CHANGES ARE NECESSARY, THEN THE EIR WILL FOCUS ON THAT ANALYSIS TO THOSE AREAS OF ANALYSIS. TIERING REFERS TO THE PRACTICE OF ADDRESSING BROADER TOPICS FOR PROGRAM OR, LESS FREQUENTLY, MASTER AIR, WHICH IS THE TYPE OF PROGRAM WHICH IS THEN USED AS THE BASIS TO PREPARE MORE FOCUSED CEQA DOCUMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. A TIERED CEQA DOCUMENT WILL TYPICALLY FOCUS ONLY ON SITE SPECIFIC OR PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPACTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THAT PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. THE USE OF A PRIOR DOCUMENT, OR I SHOULD SAY, A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED OR CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, DOES NOT EXPIRE, AND SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHICH ANY OF THESE TIERING MECHANISMS WOULD BE MADE IS LIMITED TO THAT SCREENING CRITERIA IN THE 15162. BECAUSE THE I SHOULD SAY, THE ONLY LIMITATION ON USE OF A PRIOR DOCUMENT WHICH DOES NOT EXPIRE IS THE MASTER EIR. THE PROGRAM EIR IS VALID AND DOES NOT EXPIRE. THE USE OF INITIAL STUDY TO FOCUS ON THE ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT. IDENTIFYING THE EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR DETERMINING THAT POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, ONE OF THE KEY PURPOSES OF THE INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST IS TO FOCUS THE ANALYSIS ON IMPACTS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AS PART OF THE PROJECT, WHILE ELIMINATING POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT ARE CLEARLY LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. THIS SLIDE SHOW OR SLIDE REPRESENTS A FEW OF THE TOPIC CATEGORIES, BUT THERE ARE NOW 20 CATEGORIES LISTED. MOST RECENTLY, ENERGY AND WILDFIRE ARE TWO TOPIC AREAS THAT WERE RECENTLY ADDED. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHALL INCLUDE THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION. [00:30:01] PROJECT LOCATION PROPOSED FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATION. MITIGATION MEASURES. IF IT IS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AN EIR WILL BE PREPARED IF THE INITIAL STUDY SHOWS THE PROJECT WILL HAVE ONE OR MORE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS. THE REQUIRED CONTENTS OF A DRAFT EIR ARE LISTED IN CEQA GUIDELINES. SECTION 151202, 15131. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS TYPICALLY CIRCULATED BETWEEN 20 AND 30 DAYS. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SHALL BE CIRCULATED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW FOR A PERIOD NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS, AND THOSE TIME LIMITS ARE ESTABLISHED BY CEQA GUIDELINES. 15105 RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED IF, AFTER A PUBLIC REVIEW HAS BEGUN AND BEFORE ADOPTION OR CERTIFICATION, THAT SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED TO THE DOCUMENT, WHICH COMES AT THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND PUBLIC COMMENT, RECIRCULATION IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE NEW INFORMATION ADDED MERELY CLARIFIES, AMPLIFIES, OR MAKES INSIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS IN AN OTHERWISE ADEQUATE EIR. THE APPROVAL PROCESS REQUIRES GENERALLY A DECISION MAKING BODY TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SICA. SICA, THE DECISION MAKING BODY, REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION AS PART OF THE FULL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND THE FILED DOCUMENT BEING PRESENTED BEFORE IT, AND THAT IT REFLECTS THE DECISION MAKING BODIES INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL ARE THE ONLY ENTITIES THAT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW, APPROVE AND CERTIFY THOSE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS SO IT IS NOT DONE AT A STAFF LEVEL. A MITIGATION OR A MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROGRAM IS IDENTIFIED. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES. IMPLEMENTATION MAY OCCUR DURING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF THE OF THE PROJECT, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. CITIES WILL USE THE ADDITIONAL MEASURES AS CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL. AND AS PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. THERE ARE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. CEQA IS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED FOR BROAD PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT. ANYONE WHO HAS OBJECTED TO A PROJECT AND IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE FAILURE OF AN AGENCY OR A PROJECT PROPONENT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA, CAN FILE A LAWSUIT. SO AS IT MAY BE DIFFERENT WITH EXEMPTIONS, WHICH ARE STANDARDS BASED, THERE'S A LOT OF DEFERENCE TO THE CITY AND MAKING SURE CRITERIA IS APPLIED. THE STANDARD REVIEW FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS ARE BASED ON FAIR ARGUMENTS. AND SO, THE COURTS WILL LOOK AT THINGS AS ANEW OR DE NOVO AS WHAT THEY TYPICALLY REFER TO YOU, AND PART OF THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AS USED IN THESE IN THE CEQA GUIDELINES, MEANS THAT ENOUGH RELEVANT INFORMATION AND REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM THIS INFORMATION THAT A FAIR ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION, EVEN THOUGH OTHER CONCLUSIONS MIGHT BE REACHED. AND THAT'S CODIFIED BY SECTION 15384. AND THAT'S WHY NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN EIRS HAVE A LOT MORE EXPOSITION AND NARRATIVE AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO REACH THOSE CONCLUSIONS AND EQUIP THE DECISION MAKING BODIES TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION OF THE OVERVIEW OF CEQA. THERE'S MUCH MORE TO THIS AREA OF LAW, AND I'VE SKIPPED OVER A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A LENGTHY PRESENTATION. BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOT ONLY PROMOTE AND PROVIDE PROJECT AWARENESS OF THE IMPENDING CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL LATER THIS MONTH, BUT ALSO IF THE IF THE RULES DO CHANGE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ASKED TO TAKE A LARGER ROLE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO CONSIDER ALL ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, CITY STAFF FELT IT IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE MOVING FORWARD, SO THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, EQUIPPED TO MAKE THOSE INFORMED DECISIONS. THE STAFF REPORTS THAT WILL BE PREPARED SHOULD THE ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED, WILL SUBSTANTIATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT ULTIMATELY IT WILL BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT, EXERCISING INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED AND EITHER MAKING A DECISION ON THAT PROJECT OR AS AN ADVISORY BODY, MAKING RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I, ALONG WITH THE CITY PLANNER AND THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENTED BY MISS FROST, ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MR. STRONG. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? [00:35:02] COMMISSIONER STINE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO BREAK IT DOWN TO KIND OF SPECIFICS AS TO WHAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE AND MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT STAFF WOULD BE GOING FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL WITH SOME POSSIBLE CHANGES TO OUR INTERNAL PROCESSING. WE CAN'T CHANGE STATE LAW, STATE LAW, STATE LAW AND OUR INTERNAL PROCESSING OF THE EXEMPTIONS. ALL THREE POTENTIALLY STATUTORY, CATEGORICAL AND COMMON SENSE AND THE CHANGE CONTEMPLATED. IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED YET, BUT IT'S BEEN IN CONSIDERATION WOULD BE TO SHIFT THE FUNCTION OF DETERMINING THOSE EXEMPTIONS FROM CITY STAFF TO THE CITY PLANNER TO THE DECISION MAKING BODIES. IN MOST CASES IT WOULD BE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST. EITHER AS TO A FINAL DECISION, SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL, OR IF IT'S AN AREA THAT WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COUNCIL AUTOMATICALLY MAKES THE FINAL JUDGMENT, THEN IT WOULD BE COUNCIL MAKING THAT. SO, I'M UNDERSTANDING A BASICALLY SHIFT FROM CONTEMPLATED FROM STAFF TO DECISION MAKING BODIES. INTERNALLY FOR REVIEWING THESE. AM I ON TARGET, MR. STRONG? I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. OKAY. THE IMMEDIATE REQUEST WAS TO PROCEED WITH AMENDMENTS TO THAT AREA OF CODE. IT IS NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSION ITSELF IS NOT REVIEWING THOSE CHANGES VERBATIM. RIGHT. SO, WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT IS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON WHAT THOSE PROSPECTIVE CHANGES COULD BE. THERE WILL BE OTHER ANCILLARY, ANCILLARY AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT IMMEDIATE CHANGE TO MAKE SURE THAT AREA OF CODE IS UP TO DATE TO REFLECT BEST PRACTICES, ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES OF THE CITY, AND ANY RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW. WELL, THANK YOU. AND THAT CONTEMPLATED POSSIBLE CHANGE WOULD APPLY TO ALL THREE OF THE POTENTIAL EXEMPTIONS STATUTORY, CATEGORICAL AND COMMON SENSE. AM I RIGHT ON THAT? CORRECT. AND AS BEING RECOMMENDED IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE NOT A PROJECT DETERMINATION. SO IF YOU CONSIDER THE THREE TIERS THE PRONG TEST, THAT DECISION TREE THAT I REFERENCED EARLIER IS THE IS IT A USE OR ACTIVITY CONSIDERED A PROJECT BY CEQA. AND THEN IF IT IS, THEN IT'S THEN THERE'S AN EVALUATION. IF THERE IS AN EXEMPTION APPLIES. AND THEN IF AN EXEMPTION DOES APPLY FURTHER ANALYSIS WOULD BE PERFORMED. THE IDEA IS THE WHOLE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS WOULD BE PROVIDED, IN THIS CASE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO BE CONSIDERED AND REVIEWED AS PART OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. OKAY. AND IT STILL WOULD BE CONTEMPLATED THAT STAFF WOULD BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THESE CATEGORIES APPLY. THESE EXEMPTIONS APPLY, BUT THAT THE FINAL DECISION WOULD BE EITHER MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO APPEAL, OR THE CITY COUNCIL IN DESIGNATED AREAS. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY? CORRECT, YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. I THINK WE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT. THAT WAS THAT WAS MY QUESTION, THAT THERE WOULD BE A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YES. THE THE MANNER IN WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS PERFORMED BY THE CITY. SO THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT CHANGE. SO THE SUBSTANTIATION, THE RATIONALE BASIS OF WHETHER AN EXEMPTION APPLIES OR NOT, WHETHER IT MEETS THE SCREENING CRITERIA, ESPECIALLY FOR THE EXCEPTIONS, WOULD BE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD THAT THEN IS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE DIFFERENCE IS DIFFERENCES. WHO IS MAKING THAT DECISION IS THE DECISION MAKING BODY THE CITY PLANNER AS IT STANDS TODAY? OR IN THIS CASE, WOULD IT BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER THE PROSPECTIVE CHANGES? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MERZ? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAD TO SUMMARIZE KIND OF THE REASONS THAT THIS CAME FORTH FOR THIS CHANGE AND WHAT WAS SORT OF BEHIND THE CITY COUNCIL'S MOTION TO DO SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF A QUALITATIVE QUESTION DO YOU THINK KIND OF DROVE THIS, THIS ACTION OR THIS CONSIDERING CHANGING THE WAY IT'S BEING DONE? I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN UNDER THE EMPLOY OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS, AND EVERY NOW AND THEN QUESTIONS COME UP ABOUT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. IT CAME TO A HEAD MORE OR LESS WITH THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE MIXED USE PROJECT. AND AT THAT SAME HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL GAVE DIRECTION TO PURSUE THE AMENDMENTS. SO I THINK THERE WAS JUST SOME CONCERN TO RESPOND TO RESPOND TO THE PUBLIC OBJECTIONS TO NOT BEING MORE ENGAGED WITH THAT PROCESS OR THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS. SO THAT THAT WAS THE GENESIS PER SE OF THE DIRECTION IT WAS RELATED TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT. [00:40:02] BUT EVEN THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS, HAS IDENTIFIED THAT AS A PROCESS RELATED ISSUE FOR SOME PROJECTS PRIOR TO THEM. ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER FOSTER? YEAH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. IS THIS THE CHANGE IN THE INTERNAL PROCESS? IS THIS A SIMILAR LIKE IN THE EVENT THIS WERE TO BE ADOPTED? IS THIS A SIMILAR PROCESS THAT YOU SEE IN OTHER CITIES? AS FAR AS THE BEST PRACTICE? IT IS IN MY UNDERSTANDING, IS IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION, WHICH THERE'S 19 PUBLIC AGENCIES MORE IF YOU INCLUDE THE WATER DISTRICTS OR ANY OTHER DISTRICT OR AGENCY THAT'S SUBJECT TO CEQA MOST HAVE THE, ARE THE ONLY AGENCIES THAT HAVE SOME SORT OF BROKEN DOWN PROCESS WHERE THERE'S A DECISION MADE BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO. SO ALL OTHER AGENCIES TYPICALLY HAVE THE DECISION MADE AS PART OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF THE PROJECT. SO, IT'S DONE CONCURRENTLY. STATE LAW DOES ALLOW AGENCIES TO CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PRIOR TO DECIDING ON PROJECTS. MOST OF THOSE DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE WITHIN LIKE 60 OR 90 DAYS, DEPENDING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TYPE. SO IF THESE CHANGES WERE MADE, TECHNICALLY, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION COULD BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION INDEPENDENTLY AND TO BE FOLLOWED BY A PROJECT AT A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING LATER. BUT MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE DONE CONCURRENTLY. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MOST AGENCIES ARE FOLLOWING A PUBLIC DECISION MAKING PROCESS ON CEQA, SIMILAR TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THE PROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS. ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT? COMMISSIONER. ANOTHER QUICK ONE. SO WILL YOU COME WITH A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, OR WILL IT BE COMPLETELY WIDE OPEN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, MAKE A RULING OR A JUDGMENT ON IT? NOW, YOU COME WITH A THERE'LL BE A RECOMMENDATION JUST LIKE THERE WOULD BE FOR THE PROJECT ITSELF. THANKS. ANY OTHER CLARIFYING. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION, SO THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS. THE BULLETIN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY THOSE IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. BECAUSE THIS BULLETIN THAT WAS PROVIDED ISN'T WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. THIS IS WHAT EXISTS NOW, IS THAT THAT'S AN EXISTING BULLETIN THAT REFLECTS EXISTING POLICIES. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THE. SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT DETERMINATION, A SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION THRESHOLD ON PAGE SIX OF TEN. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT IS AND WHY IF THAT IS IS THAT CHANGING OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS AGAIN GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC BODY, OR IS IT GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION THRESHOLDS? ARE THOSE SOMETHING THAT YOU DETERMINE OR IS THOSE SOMETHING THAT YOU AS THE CITY OR VERSUS THE PUBLIC BODIES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL OR PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S GOING TO BE A MIX OF BOTH. THE, THE WAY THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. SO WHEN IT IS DETERMINED THAT AN INITIAL STUDY MUST BE PREPARED AND THE 20 PLUS CATEGORIES ARE ANALYZED, THE TOPIC AREAS THERE ARE SOME METHODS USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. SOME ARE QUALITATIVE AND SOME ARE QUANTITATIVE. THE CITY HAS ALREADY ADOPTED SOME THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE, SUCH AS VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OR IMPACTS TO HISTORIC RESOURCES. THOSE ARE POLICIES OR RESOLUTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED TO DIRECT CITY STAFF OR OTHER CITY BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS TO UTILIZE IN THE PROCESSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS SEPARATELY, IN THE EVENT THERE IS NOT A ADOPTED THRESHOLD, THE CITY STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO DETERMINE EITHER BEST PRACTICES OR HISTORICALLY APPLIED THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN USED ON OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF UNIFORM PROCEDURE TO CONSIDER IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, OR WHAT MUST BE DONE TO MITIGATE A PROJECT, OR REDESIGN A PROJECT TO REDUCE OR LESSEN OR AVOID THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. [00:45:08] SO, IT WILL BE A MIXTURE OF BOTH IN THIS CASE. AND THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE UNDER THE PROSPECTIVE CODE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS IN EIR OR SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDER THE ANALYSIS AND THE FULL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. SO THAT MEANS, AS PART OF STAFF'S EXHAUSTIVE ANALYSIS, WORKING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, THE APPLICANT SYNTHESIZING INFORMATION COLLECTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PERIOD AND PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD INVOLVING TRUSTEE AGENCIES. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES. THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION AND A DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, WHOEVER THAT DECISION MAKING BODY MAY BE, CAN AGREE OR NOT AGREE WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS. AND PART OF THE ANALYSIS NEEDS TO RELY ON EITHER EXPERT TESTIMONY. AND THAT'S WHY CITY STAFF UTILIZES THE SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS WHO ARE EXPERIENCED IN THAT TRADE OR THAT DISCIPLINE TO PROVIDE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. SO IT WILL RELY ON AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTEXT THAT EVALUATION IN AN OPEN SETTING, WITH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND INPUT THROUGH ORAL TESTIMONY OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY. SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD TO SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE LEAD AGENCY IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. EVERYTHING THAT'S SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT INFORMED DECISION, AND PART OF THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THAT BODY CONSIDERED THE FULL RECORD BEFORE IT. SO MAKING SURE THAT THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE HAS FULL ACCESS TO THE ORAL TESTIMONY, WRITTEN TESTIMONY, ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. ONE GOOD THING ABOUT WHAT THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES WITH ITS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT PROCESSING, IS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS. THE CITY STAFF WILL RESPOND TO EACH COMMENT RECEIVED. THE CEQA GUIDELINES STATE LAW ONLY REQUIRE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS. SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE CITY HAS KIND OF GONE BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW TO PROVIDE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE AND GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP SYNTHESIZE SOME OF THAT INPUT. BUT IT IS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT BY THE DECISION MAKING BODY, AND THE GOAL IS TO IS TO SUBMIT ENOUGH, A SUFFICIENT RECORD SO THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL CAN AT LEAST MAKE THAT DECISION. WELL, ISN'T THAT SO GOING BACK TO THAT, THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BECAUSE IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OR IS IT THE, THE REQUIREMENT OF CEQA THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT A DETERMINATION CAN BE CHANGED IS BY APPEAL? IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO IS UNDER SECTION 2154 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND THAT IS TO APPEAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY PLANNER. IF WE'RE SPEAKING TO NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS, MITIGATED DECLARATIONS, OR EIRS, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BE APPROVING AT A PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKING BODY OF THE PROJECT, AND IN THIS CASE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, IF THERE WAS A DISSATISFIED RESIDENT, BUSINESS OR COMMUNITY MEMBER THAT OBJECTED TO THAT TO THAT DECISION. THEY COULD FILE AN APPEAL AND THEY WOULD DO SO PRIOR TO LIKELY BEFORE CHALLENGING IT IN COURT. WELL, I GUESS THAT THAT'S A EXPENSIVE, LITIGIOUS PROCESS, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS SOME OTHER WAY OR SOME SIMPLER WAY BESIDES YOU KNOW, BUT I GUESS THE SIMPLEST WAY IS YOU RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS THAT ARISE. IS THAT THE SIMPLEST WAY THAT WOULD BE? I MEAN, YEAH, THAT'S A PART OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. SUBMITTING COMMENTS, OBJECTIONS. THERE'S A SCOPING PERIOD WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS THAT OCCURS EVEN BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY BEGINS OR COMMENCES. AND THAT ALLOWS THE PUBLIC, IN THIS CASE TO HELP DEFINE WHERE WHAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS IS NEEDED. BUT THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ARE ALL PART OF THE RECORD THAT COMPRISES THE FINAL, IN THIS CASE, THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. SO THAT IS A NO COST WAY TO PARTICIPATE. A LOWER COST WAY TO PARTICIPATE IS APPEALING DECISIONS AND RAISING OBJECTIONS, WHICH MAY BE LIMITED TO WHAT'S RAISED DURING THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. AND THEN THE LAST RESORT IS FILING A LAWSUIT. YEAH. WHAT ABOUT THE TEN DAY PERIOD YOU MENTIONED? YOU TALKED ABOUT HAVING THAT TEN DAY PERIOD, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY, [00:50:03] OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S DETERMINED BY CEQA THAT'S CODIFIED IN 2154 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE? ANY CITY PLANNING DECISION CAN BE APPEALED WITHIN TEN DAYS. SO WHAT PART OF THE CODE I'M SORRY? 2154, TITLE 21, SECTION 54. YEAH. MUNICIPAL CODE. I THINK IT'S 140. SO HAS THAT BEEN BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN UPDATE TO POLICY 84. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE WAS CORRECT. AND SO IS THAT HAS THAT CHANGED? IS THAT PART OF THAT POLICY 84 OR IS THAT A MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED? POLICY 84 IS SEPARATE FROM THE APPEALS SECTION THAT I REFERENCED EARLIER. OKAY. THAT IS A PRE FILING AND WITHIN 30 DAYS OF FILING REQUIREMENT. SO THERE IS NO CITY PLANNER DECISION I GUESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPEAL. THE ADEQUACY OF THAT DOCUMENT OR SORRY, THE ADEQUACY OF THE MAILERS AND THE CONTENT OF THE FLIERS WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP DURING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT POLICY 84. AND SO, CITY STAFF CONCURRENT WITH THOSE POLICY, 84 REVISIONS HAD TRANSMITTED REVISED TEMPLATES TO CAPTURE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DESIRED FOR THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION OR CONTENT TO BE PROVIDED ON THOSE MAILERS. BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO REAL DECISION THAT'S MADE BY THE CITY PLANNER AS PART OF THAT. THAT'S MORE OF A MINISTERIAL FUNCTION. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO CEQA OR ANY PERSPECTIVE CHANGES OR AN APPEAL PROCESS. YEAH, IT'S ALL PART OF IT. IT'S ALL PART OF THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M WONDERING SO SO WITH ALL THIS SAID, THE TEN DAY PERIOD OF REVIEW OF AN EXEMPTION STILL STANDS IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE RIGHT NOW. THIS ISN'T THAT ISN'T A CONSIDERATION BEING CHANGED RIGHT NOW. THAT WILL NOT BE CHANGING. WHAT IS BEING CHANGED IS THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THE EXEMPTIONS. SO THAT AREA OF CODE INSTEAD OF 2154 140, IT WOULD BE 2154 150, WHICH IS TO APPEAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IN THE EVENT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH THAT TASK TO REVIEW AND APPROVE EXEMPTIONS, IF THERE WAS A DISSATISFIED RESIDENT, BUSINESS OR COMMUNITY MEMBER, THEY WOULD BE APPEALING TO THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RATHER THAN THE CITY PLANNER AS IT EXISTS TODAY. OKAY. THAT'S THAT APPENDIX G. SIGNIFICANCE OF THRESHOLD. SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO GO OVER THE NOTES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. AND, OH, THE SCREENING CRITERIA. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE SCREENING CRITERIA THAT IF IF THIS DOES CHANGE TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OVER APPROVING EVEN CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS? WHAT WOULD THE SCREENING CRITERIA BE AND WHAT WOULD WE NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION MORE ACCURATE WITH RESPECT TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS? SO LIMITING THE SCREENING THRESHOLD TO THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION, THERE'S A SECTION OF CODE 15300.2 THAT IDENTIFIES THE CRITERIA BY WHICH THEY CALL IT EXCEPTIONS. BUT THERE ARE EXCLUSIONS TO UTILIZE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. AND THAT WOULD BE THE SCREENING CRITERIA OR THE CATEGORIES THAT THE CITY WOULD EVALUATE. THERE'S ALSO AN ADDITIONAL 1 OR 2 EXCEPTIONS LISTED IN CHAPTER 1904 OF OUR CODE. BUT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER. SO STAFF WOULD HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO THE ANALYSIS. AND IN THAT CASE, THAT IS A THE STANDARD REVIEW FOR THE EXCEPTIONS ARE A FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD. THE THE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION OR EXEMPTION ITSELF IS EVIDENCE BASED STANDARD. SO IT'S USUALLY BLACK OR WHITE WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA. SO IT'S ALL GOING TO BE CRITERIA BASED SCREENING METHODOLOGIES. AND THAT WILL ALL BE PART OF THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND. [00:55:15] I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MINUTES. CLERK. DO WE HAVE ANY SLIPS FOR SPEAKERS? WE DO. WE HAVE TWO. THE FIRST ONE IS CHRIS WRIGHT. THANK YOU. AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER APPROACHES THE PODIUM, LET ME EXPLAIN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. EACH SPEAKER HAS THREE MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS. TO HELP SPEAKERS STAY WITHIN THAT TIME LIMIT, THE MINUTES CLERK WILL ACTIVATE THE LIGHT TIMER. A GREEN LIGHT MEANS SPEAK. YELLOW MEANS THAT YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE REMAINING, AND THE BLINKING RED LIGHT MEANS YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION. AFTER WE'VE RECEIVED ALL THE TESTIMONY WE WILL ASK THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS. PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MIC AND STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRIS WRIGHT. GOOD EVENING. I REPRESENT NONPROFIT ELWHA EQUITABLE LAND USE AUTHORITY, AND WE STRIVE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AND DECISION MAKERS THROUGH RESEARCH ON POLICIES AND LAWS, NOT ONLY WITHIN THE CITY, BUT NORTH COUNTY AND THE STATE. I APPRECIATE ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU GUYS ASKED, BECAUSE I'M LEARNING A LOT AND I HAVE A LOT TO LEARN, SO I HOPE THAT WHAT I'M SAYING HERE WILL ANSWER. ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WHAT BROUGHT THIS TO EFFECT. I SPOKE AT ALL THREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE PLAZA LAST YEAR, AND WE FOUND MANY FLAWS DURING THE PROCESS AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING LATE LAST YEAR. MANY OF THE LEGITIMATE OBSTACLES WE ENCOUNTERED WERE CHANGED, SUCH AS THE ENHANCED PUBLIC OUTREACH POLICY, SIGN PLACEMENT, AND NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC. HOWEVER, WHAT HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED WAS THE NOTIFICATION BY THE CITY TO THE PUBLIC DURING THE TEN DAY REVIEW PROCESS FOR CEQA FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENTS. THE THE PUBLIC WAS NOT BEING GIVEN THE FULL DATE AND TEN DAY REVIEW PERIOD. TO EXPLAIN FURTHER, AS AN EXAMPLE, THE CITY PLANNER SIGNED THE SIGNS. A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION FOR CEQA ON AN INFILL PROJECT ON A FRIDAY. THE NOTIFICATION BY THE STAFF TO THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT GO OUT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING THURSDAY. THUS SHORTING THE TEN DAY PUBLIC COMMENT FROM TEN DAYS TO THREE AS AN EXCUSE WHEN I INQUIRED FURTHER. STAFF SAID THAT THE PUBLIC DID NOT WANT MULTIPLE EMAILS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, AND ALL NOTIFICATION WENT OUT ON THURSDAYS. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, BUT I DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG THAT PROCEDURE HAS BEEN GOING ON. IT MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY NO LETTERS FROM THE PUBLIC WERE SENT BY SENT DURING THAT TEN DAY PERIOD. THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO REQUESTED THAT A REVIEW BE MADE AS TO REALIGN THE DUTIES OF THE CITY PLANNER TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS MORE CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY. NOT SPEAKING ABOUT SMALL INFILL PROJECTS, SUCH AS THE ADDITION OF AN ADU OR AN ENLARGEMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. BUT THE LARGER PROJECTS, SUCH AS THE VILLAGE PLAZA THAT AFFECTS MULTIPLE RESIDENTS. ANOTHER PROBLEM, CONCERNS AND ISSUES STATED IN THE STAFF PLANNING REPORT ON JUNE 5TH, 2024 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON THE VILLAGE PLAZA. THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARCELS FROM 4 TO 2, THUS ALLOWING FOR A HORIZONTAL MIXED USE PROJECT WHERE THERE IS RESIDENTIAL ON ONE PARCEL AND COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER. THIS ALLOWS FOR A STATE DENSITY BONUS TO USE THE ENTIRE FOUR PLUS ACRES TO CALCULATE FOR THE DENSITY, WHILE ALLOWING TWO SEPARATE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. IF THE APPLICANT SELLS THAT PARCEL. A NEW APPLICANT CAN APPLY FOR ANOTHER MIXED USE PROPERTY, THUSLY DOUBLE DIPPING ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ALTHOUGH AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS APPROVED, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE CITY A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION WHICH THEORETICALLY ENSURES THAT THE PROPERTY ZONING REMAINS INTACT IF THE APPLICANT SHOULD SELL THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. TIME IS UP. OH MY GOD. IT MOVES QUICKLY, DOESN'T IT? THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. WE TRULY APPRECIATE IT. OUR NEXT SPEAKER, STEVE LINKY. THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD PROVIDE YOUR NAME, PLEASE, WE'D APPRECIATE THAT. STEVE LINKY FROM CARLSBAD. SO I THINK THIS WHOLE THING STARTED WITH THE LETTER. I HOPE THAT YOU RECEIVED IT TODAY. THE LETTER THAT I SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. AND THEY DID THE MINUTE MOTION. I WANT TO BRING UP ONE OTHER EXAMPLE. THERE WAS A BMW DEALERSHIP THAT MOVED FROM ENCINITAS TO CARLSBAD A FEW YEARS AGO, AND IN THAT CASE, THEY MOVED. THEY DID TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS, ONE WITH THE SALES AND SERVICE PORTION OF THE BUSINESS AND ANOTHER ONE WITH THE BODY SHOP [01:00:08] PORTION OF THE BUSINESS. THEY PIECEMEAL IT INTO TWO CHUNKS, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO AVOID A CEQA ANALYSIS, AND STAFF JUST RUBBER STAMPED THAT. I WAS VERY UPSET AT THE TIME AND SAID THAT WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. SEVERAL YEARS WENT BY AND THEN THIS CARLSBAD VILLAGE PLAZA PROJECT CAME UP. IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS REPLACING A SHOPPING, A LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER THAT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF MILES THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO TRAVEL, THUS SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT. REPLACE KNOCKING THAT DOWN AND REPLACING IT WITH HUNDREDS OF APARTMENTS WITH OF NEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO TRAVEL. IN MY OPINION, STAFF. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A RIDICULOUS VMT ANALYSIS THAT CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A NET. THEIR PROJECT WAS GOING TO HAVE A NET REDUCTION OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. ABSOLUTELY NOT. OUR PEER REVIEWED CONSULTANTS FOR THE CITY AGREED WITH THE APPLICANT AND OUR STAFF AGREED WITH THE APPLICANT. I TALKED WITH THE STATE AGENCY THAT HANDLES THESE TYPES OF THINGS, AND THEY SAID THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE THAT WAY. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE THAT WE HAVE THIS COME TO YOU. THOSE ARE JUST TWO EXAMPLES OF OF WHERE I THINK STAFF HAS REALLY LET US DOWN ON, ON THESE REVIEWS. AND WHAT I WOULD REALLY THE REASON I CAME TONIGHT IS TO ENCOURAGE YOU AS COMMISSIONERS, AND I'VE WRITTEN LETTERS ON THIS BEFORE, IS THAT WHEN THESE TOPICS COME UP HOPEFULLY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THESE CHANGES SO THAT YOU NOW WILL HAVE THE POWER TO, TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS RATHER THAN HAVE THE PROJECT COME TO YOU WITH THE WITH THE CITY PLANNER ALREADY HAVING MADE THAT DECISION. AND WHEN YOU ADDRESS IT, PLEASE CONSIDER THE PUBLIC INPUT, NOT JUST THE APPLICANT'S EXPERT OR THE CITY'S PEER REVIEWER, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. AS I JUST SAID, THE STATE AGENCY THAT HANDLES THIS SAID THAT THAT'S NOT HOW THE THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED RULES SHOULD BE INTERPRETED. SO SOME PROBLEMS THAT I WOULD SAY WITH THE CURRENT ONE, THE TEN DAY, THE TEN DAY WINDOW IS RIDICULOUSLY SHORT. THERE WERE 548 PAGES OF SECRET DOCUMENTATION. THE NOTICE WENT OUT BY EMAIL WITH SIX DAYS LEFT IN THE TEN DAY WINDOW, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CLARIFIED WITH ME THAT IF WE HAD FILED AN APPEAL, IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVERY TOPIC AND ALL THE EVIDENCE LAID OUT. NO NEW EVIDENCE COULD BE PRESENTED, PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL AFTER THAT. SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF YOU CAN, PLEASE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY ADOPT THESE PROPOSED CHANGES. THANK YOU. MR. LINKY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION THIS EVENING. MINUTES. CLERK. THERE IS NO FURTHER INDIVIDUALS ASKING TO SPEAK. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONERS, FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST US. COMMISSIONER MERTZ. WELL, I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, MR. LINKY AND MISS WRIGHT, FOR COMING OUT, AND THEY'RE WELL PREPARED. COMMENTS. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE INPUT OF THE PUBLIC ON IT, SO THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THANKS. I'M NOT SURE ANY OF YOU WITH THE SHORT NOTICE, I HAD A HARD TIME FINDING THE THE MEETING FROM SEPTEMBER 24TH FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT I THEY WERE GRACIOUS ENOUGH. THE STAFF WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO FORWARD THAT INFORMATION TO US. IN THE FOUR HOUR MEETING THAT THEY HAD TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS, THE DIRECTION WAS TO FROM CITY COUNCIL WAS TO REQUEST THAT DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER WITH AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 19.04 REPLACING CEQA EXEMPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL. AND THEY WOULD BE THE RESPONSE THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DECIDING ON THE PERMIT APPLICATION AND ANY KIND OF SECRET DECISION. SO, IN, YOU KNOW, AND THEY WERE ADAMANT THAT IT WOULD BE INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT PROCESS GRANTING AUTHORITY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE CITY PLANNER FOR ANY EXEMPTIONS. SO, SO I THINK THE DIRECTIVE WAS QUITE CLEAR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADVOCATE THAT, THAT DIRECTIVE BE PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO AGAIN ALLOW MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY DO CARE. THEY'RE VERY THEY CAN BE VERY VOCAL, AND THEY CAN BE YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE REALLY THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED BECAUSE DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED THEM. WE WANT TO HAVE PROPER DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE FOLLOW THE RULES, YOU KNOW, AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING WERE [01:05:10] VERY CONCERNING TO OUR PUBLIC. AND THAT WAS REALLY WHY I THINK THAT NOT ONLY DOES THE CHAPTER 19 NEED TO BE REEVALUATED, BUT I ALSO THINK AS MR. STRONG ELOQUENTLY PUT IN THAT PIECE OF THE CHAPTER THAT SAYS TEN DAYS NOTIFICATION FOR THE PUBLIC FOR EXEMPTIONS, I THINK THAT ALSO NEEDS TO BE REEVALUATED AS WELL. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO THAT. BUT I DO THINK THE DIRECTIVE FROM COUNCIL WAS VERY CLEAR. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, THAT WAS EXCELLENT. THERE'S A LOT OF WHAT I WAS THINKING OF AS WELL. THE OTHER THING TOO, IS THAT IT'S NOW VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE STAFF WHEN WE RECEIVE THE STAFF REPORT ON AN ITEM; WE NOT ONLY GOING TO BE MAKING THE DECISIONS REGARDING THE PROJECT ITSELF, BUT ALSO IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF CEQA AND ITS AND ITS AND ITS INVOLVEMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT ITSELF. SO, OUR ANALYSIS IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE INVOLVED AND A LOT MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WHAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, WHICH IS EXCELLENT. AND I COULDN'T SAY IT ANY BETTER. COMMISSIONER MERZ. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE FOR US? YEAH. THAT. YOU KNOW, WITH THIS ADDED RESPONSIBILITY, I THINK WE HAVE BEEN LIMITED IN THE AVAILABILITY OF BEING ABLE TO GET TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES OR ANY KIND OF PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING, AND THEY SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON CEQA DOCUMENTS AND CEQA REVIEWS. AND I THINK THAT IF THIS GOES THROUGH, I THINK CERTAIN MONIES SHOULD BE ALSO PARTICULARLY ALLOTTED TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CREATE SOME, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE THOSE TYPES OF CEQA TRAININGS AS WELL. MAYBE THERE'S FREE ONES THAT WE CAN PARTICIPATE IN. WE MAY NOT HAVE TO GO TO LEAGUE OF CITIES, BUT I KNOW THAT THOSE TRAININGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR ENVIRONMENT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT. AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WITH THE IMPACT OF LOS ANGELES RIGHT NOW AND THE DEVASTATION THAT'S HAPPENED THERE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR MITIGATION MEASURES ARE GOING TO BE ADEQUATE, AS ADEQUATE AS THEY CAN BE. SO, I HOPE THAT TRAINING BECOMES PART OF THIS, IF THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY. ANY FURTHER ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM. SO I THINK THE MINUTES CLERK HEARD COMMENTS MADE AND I'M SURE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT AND BE ABLE TO USE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED THIS EVENING FOR THEIR DECISION WHEN THEY MEET IN REGARD TO THIS ISSUE COMING UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, WITH THAT IN MIND, MR. LARDY, ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA. YES. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS ADOPTION OF THE 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING [3. ADOPTION OF 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR] CALENDAR. THIS IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT APPROACH. HISTORICALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS MET ON THE FIRST AND THIRD WEDNESDAYS. THAT IS STILL WHAT THIS CALENDAR IS. BUT TALKING WITH THE CITY CLERK, THEY'VE REQUESTED THAT WE ADOPT THE ACTUAL DATES FOR THE MEETINGS FOR IT. SO, IT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR THE 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR. THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. ALL COMMISSIONERS HAVE LOOKED AT THAT CALENDAR AND ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? OKAY. WITH THAT IN MIND, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT ITEM NUMBER, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND A MOTION IN REGARD TO NUMBER THREE? COMMISSIONER STINE. YES, I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THIS JUST CLARIFIES IN VISUAL FORM WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS. MEETING ON THE ON THE FIRST AND THIRD WEDNESDAYS OF THE MONTH. I GUESS THE ONE EXCEPTION WOULD BE JANUARY. HAPPEN TO BE IN JANUARY 1ST WITH THE FIRST. SO AS I'M LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR, IT'S FIRST AND THIRD THROUGHOUT, SUBJECT TO POSSIBLY NOT HAVING A MEETING IF THERE AREN'T MATTERS FOR US. SO WITH THAT BACKGROUND I MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STINE. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERZ. WE VOTE. OKAY. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE. MR. [4. APPOINT NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2025 CALENDAR YEAR] LARDY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PLEASE. SURE. THIS IS A CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2025. AS A REMINDER, THERE'S AN ABILITY OF THE CURRENT VICE CHAIR TO HAVE A STRAW POLL OF INTEREST, BUT SELECTION OF BOTH THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR WOULD REQUIRE A MOTION, A SECOND, AND A VOTE BY THE COMMISSION TO SELECT THOSE POSITIONS. [01:10:03] THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. SO, IN REGARD TO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE CHAIR POSITION AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME AND WITH THE CHAIR POSITION I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A STRAW COMMENT, I GUESS YOU SAY BY EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS REGARDING INTEREST IN BEING A CHAIR. I WILL SAY THAT I AM ONE THAT I'M EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN, IN FILLING THE SLOT THIS COMING YEAR. AS TO INTEREST AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN BEING CONSIDERED. OKAY. WITH THAT IN MIND, DO WE HAVE A NOMINATION IN REGARD TO. EXCUSE ME? GO AHEAD. YES. A PRELIMINARY MATTER BEFORE WE GET TO THAT. I THINK INITIALLY, I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION ON THE COMMISSION WHETHER WE WANT TO DO THIS TONIGHT OR WHETHER WE WANT TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL WE HAVE A FULL COMMISSION. WE HAVE OUR NEW COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER FOSTER, HERE TONIGHT. I UNDERSTAND WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS, PRESUMABLY AT THE NEXT MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. LARDY? WE HAVE NOT HEARD OTHERWISE. SO, PRESUMABLY. YES. IT'S JUST A QUESTION. HE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF BEING SWORN IN. IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CLERK IS HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE THIS EVENING, BUT YES, HE WOULD NEED TO SWEAR IN. AND THEN BOTH OF THEM HAVE OTHER PAPERWORK THAT THEY WILL WORK OUT WITH THE CLERK. OKAY. I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION WHETHER WE WANT TO WAIT TWO WEEKS, AND THEN WE HAVE ALL SEVEN OF US. I KNOW MR. FOSTER. HE'S IN THE DISADVANTAGE. THIS IS HIS FIRST MEETING. IT WOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING OF A NEW COMMISSIONER BURROUGHS AS WELL. BUT THEY COULD, IF THEY WERE INTERESTED IN LOOK AT PAST VIDEOS FROM PRIOR MEETINGS TO SEE HOW WE CONDUCT BUSINESS AND PERHAPS HELP TO GUIDE THEIR DECISION MAKING WITH REGARD TO SELECTIONS OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. SO I HAVE A I DON'T HAVE A REAL STRONG OPINION ON THIS, BUT I GUESS MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE SEEING THAT WE HAVE ONE OF TWO OF THE NEW COMMISSIONERS HERE WOULD BE TO KICK IT OVER AND HAVE A VICE CHAIR. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, MEENES CONTINUE ON AS CHAIR TO THE NEXT MEETING. AND AT THE END OF THAT MEETING, PRESUMABLY ALL SEVEN OF US WILL BE THERE AND THEN HAVE A VOTE AT THAT TIME FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, AND I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN OTHER COMMISSIONERS WEIGHING IN ON THAT. I THINK I WILL MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT RECOMMENDATION, COMMISSIONER STINE. WELL, SO WE WOULDN'T BE TAKING ACTION TONIGHT. THE ACTION THE MOTION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE IT TO OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS FEBRUARY 5TH, AND HAVE COMMISSIONER MEENES REMAINING IN HIS ROLE AS VICE CHAIR AND REALLY ACTING CHAIR THROUGH THAT MEETING AT THE END OF THE MEETING. THEN WE MAKE OUR DETERMINATIONS THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. OKAY. FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD TO THE RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER STINE. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY, I AGREE. I AGREE TOO. DID YOU GET A SECOND AND I DO. YEAH, WE DID. EXACTLY. AND SO ANYWAYS, I NEED A SECOND. THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STINE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO OUR NEXT MEETING ON IN FEBRUARY. MAY I HAVE A VOTE ON THAT? OOPS. THERE WE GO. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSION. OKAY, WITH THAT IN MIND, WE ARE DONE WITH OUR DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. I WILL GO AHEAD AND ASK IF COMMISSIONER HAS A REPORT THAT THEY WISH TO PROVIDE THIS EVENING. OKAY. CITY PLANNER THERE ARE TWO ITEMS THAT WILL BE AGENDIZED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE [CITY PLANNER REPORT] 29TH. THAT IS THE TYLER STREET HOMES PROJECT THAT THE COMMISSION HEARD IN NOVEMBER, AS WELL AS THE CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES TO TITLE 20 TO TITLE 19. AND I'M SORRY, IT'S THE 28TH. OKAY. EXACTLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND OUR SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. [CITY ATTORNEY REPORT] YES. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO TAKE A MINUTE TO THANK EACH OF YOU. THIS IS MY LAST MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND NEXT WEEK WILL BE MY LAST WEEK WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD BEFORE I TAKE A NEW POSITION WITH ANOTHER AGENCY. SO I WANTED TO THANK EACH OF YOU FOR THE PAST YEAR. IT'S BEEN MY HONOR AND PLEASURE TO LEARN AND GROW WITH ALL OF YOU THE LAST YEAR, AND I HOPE TO SEE ALL OF YOU OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. CARLSBAD IS MY HOME. IT IS A SMALL TOWN, AND I HOPE TO SEE YOU AROUND. THANK YOU. I WANT TO SAY WE'VE REALLY, TRULY ENJOYED HAVING YOU AS OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. [01:15:10] FOR ALL THE MEETINGS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDING EXCELLENT ADVICE. AND I WANT TO EXTEND THAT. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME THAT YOU'VE SPENT WITH US OVER THE LAST. I THINK IT'S BEEN ABOUT A YEAR, HAS IT NOT? YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS IN REGARD TO OUR SENIOR ATTORNEY? THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR NEXT ENDEAVOR. OKAY. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.