[00:00:02]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE AUGUST 6TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION.
[CALL TO ORDER]
ROLL CALL MINUTES CLERK. COMMISSIONER MERZ. HERE.COMMISSIONER BURROWS. PRESENT. FOR THE RECORD COMMISSIONER LAFFERTY IS ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
HERE. AND CHAIR MEENES. PRESENT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURROWS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FOR US THIS EVENING? READY? BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18TH, 2025 MEETING.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18TH, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING? OKAY. SEEING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MERZ.
PLEASE VOTE. I DON'T THINK MY LIGHTS AREN'T ON, SO LET ME GO TO THE LEFT ONE. OKAY, I'LL TRY THAT ONE OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS MINUTES OF THE JULY 2ND, 2025 MEETING ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE JULY 2ND MEETING? MAY I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? YEAH, I WOULD ABSTAIN THAT IS CORRECT. APPROVAL. MOTION? MOTION. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BURROWS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HUBINGER, THANK YOU, PLEASE VOTE.
THERE WE GO THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES WILL GO INTO EFFECT FOR THIS MEETING.
WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST. PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES WILL BE IN EFFECT.
WE WILL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO SPEAK IN FORM ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORMS MUST BE TURNED INTO THE MINUTES CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING COMMENCING.
THIS WILL ALLOW SPEAKERS TIME TO MANAGE THE MORE EFFICIENT.
ALL SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES UNTIL THE TIME IS REDUCED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
SPEAKERS MAY NOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.
GROUP TIME WILL BE PERMITTED FOR ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE BROWN ACT ALLOWS ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING BY PROVIDING COMMENTS AS PROVIDED IN THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA ITEMS ON THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA ITEM. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS AS REQUESTED, UP TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
NO ACTION CAN OCCUR ON THESE ITEMS. MINUTES CLERK.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER SLIPS? CHAIR WE DO NOT.
SEEING NONE WILL BEGIN THE TONIGHT'S HEARING.
I'LL DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SCREEN UP ABOVE.
THEY HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.
[00:05:02]
PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL THEN BE OPENED. TIME LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES IS ALLOTTED FOR EACH SPEAKER.THOSE, AFTER ALL THOSE WANTING TO SPEAK, HAVE DONE SO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.
COMMISSIONERS THEN WILL DISCUSS THE ITEM AND THEN VOTE.
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1.
BUT BEFORE WE DO SO, FIRST DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE EX-PARTE CONVERSATIONS? COMMISSIONER MERZ. I VISITED THE SITE. COMMISSIONER BURROWS.
I DROVE BY THE SITE. COMMISSIONER FOSTER. I'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE.
COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. DRIVEN BY THE SITE, AND I'M AWARE OF THE SITE.
I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE SITE AS WELL. MR. LARDY, WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE THE ITEM?
[1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY MAINLINE PIPE REPAIR AMEND 2024-0005 (DEV2020-0283)]
ITEM NUMBER 1. YES, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS HERE TO GIVE THE STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM IS ASSOCIATE PLANNER ALEX ALEGRE.GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, ALEX ALEGRE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER.
THIS AMENDMENT UPDATES THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT TO REFLECT CORRECTIVE BIOLOGICAL DATA, REVISED MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, AND FINALIZED IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.
LET'S START BY ORIENTING YOU WITH THE PROJECT LOCATION.
JUST A LITTLE BIT LOUDER SITE LOCATED JUST EAST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD NEAR PONTO DRIVE.
ALL OF THE FORMAL MITIGATION AND HABITAT CREATION PROPOSED UNDER THIS AMENDMENT IS LOCATED UNDER THE PUBLIC RIGHT, WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE TWO YELLOW SHAPES HERE SHOW THE AREA ADDRESSED BY THE RESTORATION AND STABILIZATION PLAN.
THE WHITE ARROWS HERE INDICATE THE ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH SPANS BOTH SIDES OF PONTO DRIVE.
THE SITE ITSELF IS DESIGNATED GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND R-23 IN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONED UNDER THE POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN AND PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN. IT IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN BOTH THE MELLO II AND WEST BATIQUITOS LAGOON SEGMENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE WITH THE LOCATION IN MIND I'LL BRIEFLY WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT'S BACKGROUND. THE APPLICANT SOCALGAS, COMPLETED EMERGENCY REPAIRS STARTING IN 2020, AUTHORIZED BY AN EMERGENCY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
HOWEVER, THE RESTORATION WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED, PRIMARILY DUE TO ACCESS CONSTRAINTS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE ORIGINAL VEGETATION MAPPING. IN 2023, UPDATED FIELD WORK CONFIRMED THOSE DISCREPANCIES, PROMPTING THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION OF BOTH HABITAT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION THAT LAUNCHED A MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION PROCESS, WHICH LED TO A REVISED RESTORATION PLAN THAT REFLECTS CORRECTED BIOLOGICAL DATA AND REFINED MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. THE FINAL DRAFT PLAN WAS COMPLETED IN LATE 2024 AND IS NOW BEFORE YOU AS A PART OF THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST.
LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT WHAT PROPOSED AT WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE REVISED RESTORATION PLAN.
BASED ON COASTAL COMMISSION INPUT, THE REQUIRED MITIGATION RATIO WAS INCREASED FROM 1 TO 1 TO 2 TO 1, DOUBLING THE RECREATION REQUIREMENT. THIS RESULTS IN A NEED TO CREATE 0.107 ACRE OF NEW HABITAT, OFFSETTING THE 0.053 ACRE IMPACT AT THE UPDATED 2 TO 1 RATIO.
ANOTHER KEY UPDATE IS THE MITIGATION LOCATION.
[00:10:04]
MITIGATION, AND REFERENCE AREAS ARE LOCATED. FOR ORIENTATION THIS IS THE SAME MAP SHOWN EARLIER WITH THE ENTIRE PROJECT SITE IN VIEW, INCLUDING BOTH THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND ADJACENT PRIVATE PROPERTY.THE RED HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS PERMANENT IMPACTS TOTALING JUST 0.053 ACRE.
AS MENTIONED EARLIER, ABOUT 2300FT² LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND PARTIALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THE CROSS HATCHED AREA AT THE NORTH END OF THE SITE MARKS THE HABITAT MITIGATION ZONE, WHERE 0.107 ACRE OF DIEGAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB WILL BE CREATED, WHICH IS DOUBLE THE IMPACTED AMOUNT. FINALLY, THE PURPLE BOX SHOWS THE 0.046 ACRE REFERENCE AREA USED TO TRACK RESTORATION SUCCESS OVER TIME. THE REVISED PLAN REFLECTS DETAILED COORDINATION AMONG ALL RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES IN MAY 2022.
IMPLEMENTATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING THE 2025-2026 RAINY SEASON.
SITE PREPARATION AND HABITAT INSTALLATION WILL START AFTER THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT RAINFALL, WITH EROSION CONTROL AND SEEDING COMPLETED BY MAY 2026.
A FIVE YEAR MONITORING PERIOD WILL FOLLOW, INCLUDING ANNUAL REPORTING BY A QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST.
IF RESTORATION FALLS SHORT OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA, ADAPTIVE MEASURES WILL BE TRIGGERED.
THE PLAN WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE ONCE THE CITY VERIFIES ALL SUCCESS CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
IT SUPPORTS THE EMERGENCY REPAIR WORK WITHOUT INCREASING INTENSITY OR ALTERING LAND USE.
THIRD, IT MEETS ALL APPLICABLE MUNICIPAL MODE AND REQUIREMENTS FOR CDP AND HMP AMENDMENTS.
NO NEW DEVELOPMENT OR GRADING IS PROPOSED OUTSIDE THE APPROVED FOOTPRINT.
PUBLIC NOTICING AND OUTREACH FOLLOWED ALL REQUIRED PROCEDURES.
PLANNING STAFF ALSO COORDINATED INFORMALLY, INCLUDING A SITE VISIT WITH THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNER.
A PRESENTATION TO THE BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION AND REGULAR UPDATES TO AGENCY STAFF.
THE DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS POSTED ON JULY 8TH, 2025.
THE FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE WAS MAILED JULY 24TH, 2025.
NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED. THIS AMENDMENT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15302(C) WHICH APPLIES TO REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING UTILITY SYSTEMS WITH NO INCREASE IN CAPACITY.
NO EXCEPTIONS APPLY. THE PROJECT IS NOT ON A HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE.
IS OUTSIDE DESIGNATED SCENIC CORRIDORS AND DOES NOT IMPACT HISTORIC RESOURCES.
AS MENTIONED, THE DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WAS POSTED OVER 30 DAYS AGO.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE PROJECT TEAM IS ALSO HERE AND AVAILABLE SHOULD THE COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. ALEGRE APPRECIATE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? OKAY. MADAM CLERK, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY LETTERS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS IN REGARD TO THIS ITEM? CHAIR, WE HAVE NOT. OKAY VERY FINE. IS THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? PLEASE COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COULD WE ASK QUESTIONS? SO THIS PROCESS STARTED IN 2020. THE EMERGENCY REPAIR YES.
EMERGENCY REPAIR. AND IT'S TAKEN FIVE YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT?
[00:15:04]
FIVE YEARS TO GET THE OR IS THIS SORT OF TYPICAL THE LAST FIVE YEARS? I THINK IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL. IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET ALL THE MITIGATION PLANS APPROVED.SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL? OKAY THANKS. ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. HOW LONG IS THE ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER? THE ACCESS AGREEMENT IS I THINK IT'S FOR 2 TO 3 YEARS.
SO THE ENTIRE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS THROUGH, I THINK 2031.
RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT, ALEX? THAT'S CORRECT SO WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END OF THAT TWO YEARS? THE ACCESS AGREEMENT IS ONLY FOR THE PORTION OF THE STABILIZATION, AND THAT IS ONLY FOR A THREE-YEAR MONITORING PERIOD.
AND BUT OUR RESTORATION SITE IS WITHIN CITY PROPERTY AND NOT WITHIN THE OKAY SO FOR CLARIFICATION ALEX, SO THE ONGOING MONITORING AND EVERYTHING JUST GO THROUGH CITY RIGHT AWAY TO ACCESS.
YOU DON'T NEED THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER ACCESS? THAT'S CORRECT, COMMISSIONER FOSTER. OKAY, COOL. AND THEN AND THEN THE ONLY LAST QUESTION IS OBVIOUSLY LIKE SOCALGAS IS THEY'RE PAYING FOR ALL THIS, RIGHT? YES. SO NONE OF THIS IS COMING TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TAXPAYER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NOPE. OKAY NO QUESTIONS FOR ME THAT'S IT. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT OF TIME.
THANK YOU, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO SPEAK? CHAIR, WE DO NOT. OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
THE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT THESE COMMISSIONERS HAVE OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, SEEING THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS AMONGST OURSELVES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT? DISCUSS? I DO HAVE ONE IN REGARD TO THE MITIGATION PLOT THAT WAS DESIGNATED.
COULD YOU PUT UP THE MAP AGAIN? I APPRECIATE THAT.
YEAH. IT'S A SITE IN PURPLE. AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT I'M SPEAKING OF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR US A LITTLE BIT MORE IN REFERENCE TO THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION CHAIRPERSON MEENES.
THE MITIGATION IS ACTUALLY THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER.
THE CROSSHATCH AREA, THE PURPLE IS THE REFERENCE AREA SURE SO WHEN THE EMERGENCY WORK FIRST HAPPENED, THE RESTORATION PLAN ESTIMATED ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF AN ACRE OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB WAS IMPACTED. BUT AFTER UPDATED BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY AND STATE AGENCIES, IT TURNED OUT THAT ONLY A SMALL PORTION, JUST 0.053 ACRES, WAS ACTUALLY NATIVE COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BECAUSE THE 0.053 ACRES CONSIDERED PERMANENTLY IMPACTED. STATE COASTAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE IT TO BE REPLACED AT A 2 TO 1 RATIO.
SO THE PLAN INCLUDES 0.107 ACRES OF HABITAT CREATION.
I'LL HAND IT OFF TO ROSANNE HUMPHREY, OUR SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, WHO'S BEEN DIRECTLY COORDINATING WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND OTHER AGENCIES ON THE FINAL PLAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION? OH, WE HAVE A SPEAKER, YES. YES, I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
AND SO WITH RESPECT TO THE MITIGATION SITE PART OF THE REASON WHY IT TOOK SO LONG TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THE AGENCIES TO FINALLY ACCEPT THE PLAN WAS THERE'S MANY CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE. SO WE HAD TO KIND OF KEEP MOVING IT AROUND.
WE LOOKED AT THINGS LIKE MAKING SURE IT WAS FAR AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT, PRIVATE LAND, MAKING SURE THAT THE LANDSCAPE DIDN'T HAVE ANY EASEMENTS ON IT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO CONSIDER.
SO THAT'S WHY THAT AREA WAS CHOSEN. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARITY, I APPRECIATE.
COMMISSIONER MERZ. SO THE RESTORATION AT THE TOP THERE SO IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF.
IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF ICE PLANTS. SO YOU'RE BASICALLY GOING TO TEAR OUT THE EXISTING ICE PLANT AND THEN PLANT THE COASTAL SAGE AND THEN USE THE PURPLE AREA AS A REFERENCE POINT TO SEE IF THAT BECOMES LIKE THAT. RIGHT? WE'LL COMPARE THE RESULTS.
[00:20:02]
OKAY. THANKS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER FOSTER. THIS IS A QUESTION FOR ALEX.THIS IS JUST FOR ME TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT. SO THE COASTAL COMMISSION, WHEN THEY COME BACK AND THEY SAY, HEY, WE WANT A 2 TO 1 CREATION RATIO. IS THAT JUST WHEN THEY MAKE THAT DECISION? IS THAT JUST ARBITRARY? DO THEY JUST COME UP WITH A NUMBER, OR IS THERE ANY SORT OF POLICY OR MATH BEHIND THEM MAKING THAT DECISION? I COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION [LAUGHTER]. SO OUR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN, IT'S A REGULATORY DOCUMENT, AND PART OF WHAT IT CONTAINS IS MITIGATION RATIOS.
AND NORMALLY WHAT WE CONSIDER A TEMPORARY IMPACT WOULD BE 1 TO 1 MITIGATION.
BUT BECAUSE THERE'S A TIME LAG BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THE IMPACT HAPPENS AND THE TIME THAT YOU GET IT RESTORED, COASTAL COMMISSION HAS STARTED REQUIRING 2 TO 1 MITIGATION.
SO THAT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED. IT IS IN OUR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AS IF IT WAS A PERMANENT IMPACT.
IT'S 2 TO 1 SO IT'S KIND OF IN LINE WITH STANDARD PRACTICE.
OKAY THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HUBINGER.
DID YOU USE ANY AI IN YOUR IN YOUR ANALYSIS? [LAUGHTER] GOSH, NO, I AM SO NOT AN AI PERSON.
SO WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS FINAL PLAN.
YEAH I'VE RUN INTO MAYBE A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN FAR MORE COMPLEX THINGS THAN THIS AND RUN THEM THROUGH AI, AND IT WEEKS AND WEEKS OF WORK TURN OUT TO BE DAYS AND DAYS OF, YOU KNOW? I'M JUST. YEAH I THINK TIME IS MOSTLY THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE AGENCIES AND THE REVIEW PERIODS.
THAT'S WHAT TAKES ALL THE TIME I THINK WE MOVE TOO SLOWLY, AND I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS IN CITY GOVERNMENTS AND ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS IS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEED UP TO A TUNE THAT THEY'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. SO I'M JUST KIND OF PRIME THE PUMP A LITTLE BIT THAT I THINK THAT THIS IS COMING AND I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE WE KIND OF YOU KNOW, EMBARK ON UNDERSTANDING IT EARLY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG WAVE WHEN IT HITS.
AGREED. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? OKAY. NOTHING? COMMISSIONER MERZ. YEAH, I GUESS I WAS JUST SAYING THE RATIO OF WORK TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS JUST A LITTLE BIT SURPRISING TO ME [LAUGHTER].
I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT A TINY LITTLE PIECE OF LAND. AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MITIGATION, IT'S JUST A FLAT PIECE OF LAND WITH ICE PLANT ON IT. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST THE AMOUNT OF WORK AND TIME THAT'S GONE INTO IT, IT'S JUST I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE RATIO OF STAFF AND AGENCY TIME TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND WHAT'S BEING DONE, IT'S JUST A LITTLE SURPRISING TO ME, THAT'S ALL.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO IT AND I'LL CERTAINLY SUPPORT IT.
SO GIVEN THE I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS PARTICULAR MITIGATION ISSUES, DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE LOCATION OF THIS PARTICULAR SITE, GIVEN THE HABITAT AREA THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF IN THE PONTO AREA, IS THAT MAKING THIS ANY SPECIAL? AND IT'S, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE TIME NECESSARY FOR MITIGATION IS MORE NECESSARY HERE THAN POSSIBLY ANOTHER LOCATION IN THE CITY? I WOULD SAY MOST DEFINITELY.
I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN REALLY STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT THINGS.
ALL THINGS GOING ON ON THIS PROPERTY, NOT JUST THIS PROJECT, BUT THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER THINGS HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
AND THAT'S I THINK ALEX HAD MENTIONED THAT AT ONE POINT, I HAD A ONE ON ONE MEETING WITH ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAD THE MOST CONCERNS AND WALKED THROUGH ALL THE BIOLOGICAL STUFF. MITIGATION KIND OF EXPLAINED HOW THINGS ARE DONE, AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY REALLY HELPED A LOT SORT OF UNDERSTANDING WHY THINGS ARE DONE THE WAY THEY ARE AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS.
IT DID DRY OUT THE PROCESS FOR SURE. IT IS WHAT IT IS SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS YEAH.
[00:25:02]
AND, CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST CHIME IN. SURE AND WE ARE HAVING MUCH MORE CHALLENGES, BOTH WITH IMPACTS AS WELL AS FINDING MITIGATION FOR HABITAT IMPACTS WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE THAT ARE WITHIN THAT. THIS PROPERTY ALSO HAS A COMPLICATED OWNERSHIP WHERE THIS IS BOTH CITY PROPERTY, A CITY OWNED RIGHT OF WAY, ALSO PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH EASEMENTS WITH SOCALGAS INFRASTRUCTURE.SO THERE WERE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS JUST WITH THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS PARCEL.
THAT MADE IT TAKE SOME MORE TIME TO UNDERSTAND.
AGREED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? CAN WE I'VE VOICED THIS ACTUALLY ON THE SEWER PROJECT WE HAD A FEW MONTHS AGO WHERE THAT TOOK FIVE YEARS TO GET LIKE SEWER HEADS REPAIRED OR WHATNOT.
BUT CAN WE LOOK AT THE TIMELINE ONE MORE TIME OF WHEN THIS WHOLE THING STARTED FIVE YEARS AGO? SO BASICALLY THE PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED IN 2020.
THEN TWO YEARS LATER THERE'S FOLLOW UP. CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT? IN 2022. WHAT HAPPENS? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER FOSTER.
AFTER THAT SOME MAPPING DISCREPANCIES WERE FLAGGED.
FROM THERE THE AGENCY COORDINATION TOOK PLACE AND THEN A FINAL DRAFT PLAN WAS COMPLETED.
SO THEY AGREED ON THE NEW MITIGATION RATIO, THE GAP FROM 2024 TO 2025 IS THE TEMPORARY RIGHT OF ACCESS AGREEMENT THAT WAS SECURED BY SOCALGAS AND THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO DO THE STABILIZATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO WHEN IS COASTAL COMMISSION CONTACTED? LIKE WHAT YEAR IS THAT 2022? AT MULTIPLE POINTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
2022 THEY WERE ALSO ENGAGED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS IN APRIL OF 2022.
YEAH IT'S NOT A COMMON PRACTICE OF OURS, BUT THERE ARE SOME RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT THEY NEED TO BE CONTACTED.
AND I WILL SAY FOR THIS SITE, AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY HIGH FOCUSED SITE FROM A LOT OF RESIDENTS, I WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND BRINGING IN ALL THREE AGENCIES, NOT JUST COASTAL COMMISSION, TO BRING THEM IN EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY AT THE VERY BEGINNING. AND ALSO, THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT EMERGENCY PROJECTS ARE A LOT MORE COMPLICATED BECAUSE THE IMPACT HAPPENS.
AND THEN YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE IMPACT IS, AND THE HABITAT'S GONE.
SO YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS FORENSICALLY IN A WAY.
SO THAT ADDS A LITTLE MORE COMPLEXITY. AND SO AGAIN BRINGING IN THREE AGENCIES, SOMETIMES RESPONSE TIME WASN'T SUPER QUICK. AND OTHER THINGS GOING ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH THEN WOULD BRING UP QUESTIONS, NEW MEETINGS, NEW DISCUSSIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT. COMMISSIONER MERZ I MEAN, THIS IS KIND OF AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THIS SITE HAS A LOT OF COMPLEXITY GIVEN THE HISTORY.
SO I GUESS, WOULD IT BE SAFE TO SAY THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM ALL EYES AND ACROSS ALL TEAMS EXACTLY SO THAT OF THE SITE, NO ONE COULD USE THAT TO SOMETHING TO SAY, HEY, YOU DIDN'T DO THIS, THIS OR THIS.
THAT MAKES SENSE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY SEEING NONE, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.
WOULD COMMISSIONER MERZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? RIGHT? COMMISSIONER MERZ MADE THE MOTION COMMISSIONER FOR A SECOND? COMMISSIONER BURROWS MAKES A SECOND. DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT APPRECIATE THAT. WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OKAY NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 2. MR.
[2. CEQA REPORT]
LARDY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED WITH ITEM NUMBER 2? YES THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. SO THIS ITEM IS THE FIRST OF WHAT WE SEE, A SERIES OF REPORTS, DEPARTMENT REPORTS RELATED TO VARIOUS TOPICS.[00:30:04]
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE RULES ARE BUILD UPON THE PRESENTATION THAT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR STRONG GAVE IN JANUARY, AND THEN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NEW LAWS THAT WERE PASSED AT THE END OF LAST MONTH.SO FIRST IS A LITTLE BIT OF A REFRESHER IS WHAT IS CEQA? CEQA ITSELF IS A PROCEDURE. IT HELPS SUPPORT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
IT'S NOT IN ITSELF A DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
I HAD A FORMER BOSS THAT TOLD ME ONCE THAT CEQA, IF A PROJECT IS A CAKE, CEQA IS THE FROSTING OF THE CAKE THAT HELPS YOU PROVIDE COVERAGE BEFORE APPROVING IT. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CEQA IS IT'S A PROCESS.
AND THERE'S VARIOUS DIFFERENT WAYS TO FROST THE CAKE AS IT'S ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, ITS INTENT WAS TO INFORM DECISION MAKERS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES. SO IT'S A DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT NOT MEANT TO SPECIFICALLY HAMPER OR STALL PROJECTS ITSELF.
THERE ARE A LOT OF RULES AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES WITH CEQA.
SO FIRST, THE STATUTE IS IN STATE LAW PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.
THERE IS A CEQA GUIDELINES IN THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS.
SEVERAL OF US CARRY AROUND THESE BOOKS. THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE GUIDELINES IN IT.
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A PDF FORM THAT'S EASIER TO SEARCH.
THERE'S ONGOING COURTS AND CASE LAW EVERY YEAR ABOUT CEQA.
WE ALSO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL STANDARDS DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ADOPTED FOR CERTAIN TOPIC AREAS.
CEQA ITSELF PRIMARILY APPLIES TO DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, AND SO MOST OF WHAT YOU DECIDE IS A DISCRETIONARY ACTION WHERE IT INCLUDES THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT OR DELIBERATION. COMMON DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS THAT YOU HAVE WOULD BE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT LIKE YOU JUST TOOK ACTION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBDIVISIONS.
THOSE ARE ALL EXAMPLES OF DISCRETIONARY PERMITS THAT'S OPPOSED TO MINISTERIAL PERMITS.
THE MOST COMMON MINISTERIAL ACTIONS ARE A BUILDING PERMIT WHERE WE'RE NOT EXERCISING JUDGMENT.
IT'S EITHER A YES OR NO. IT QUALIFIES FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AGAINST THE BUILDING CODE.
THOSE ARE NOT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SUBJECT TO CEQA.
IS PART OF THE ACTIONS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THERE'S A FEW SUB TYPE ACTIONS. MOST OF THE THINGS THAT YOU DO ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE PERMITS, THINGS LIKE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, TENTATIVE MAPS WHERE YOU ARE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER.
WHENEVER YOU'RE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER, YOUR DECISION IS APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING WHERE YOU TAKE ACTION ON AND NOW YOU TAKE ACTION ON THE CEQA.
THE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS ANY PROJECT IN THE VILLAGE AND BARRIO AREA.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER, SO YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM.
ANOTHER TYPE OF ACTION WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION AS A LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE APPEALS OF CITY PLANNER DECISIONS, WHICH ARE ALWAYS DONE IN A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE EITHER THE CITY PLANNERS GRANTED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE PERMIT TYPES OR INTERPRET THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THOSE OF CAN BE APPEALED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHERE YOU WOULD BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON THOSE.
THE FIRST ARE THE STATUTORY AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS.
AND THERE'S A NUANCE THAT WE'LL DISCUSS IN A FEW SLIDES.
THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS, WHICH ARE THE LARGER DOCUMENTS FOR LARGER PROJECTS.
THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT YOU SAW WAS THE HOUSING ELEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
AND THEN THERE'S A FEW VARIOUS TEARING DOCUMENTS.
THIS IS SORT OF A SIMPLIFIED HOW YOU GO THROUGH A CEQA PROCESS, SORT OF A WALKTHROUGH.
THE FIRST STEP IS YOU DETERMINE IS YOUR ACTION A DISCRETIONARY PROJECT? IF IT IS NOT A DISCRETIONARY PROJECT, YOU DON'T NEED TO DO CEQA.
IF IT IS, YOU WOULD START BY LOOKING. ARE THERE ANY PAST CEQA ACTIONS? IF THERE ARE PAST CEQA ACTIONS, YOU WOULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT PREPARING SOME SORT OF ADDENDUM, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT OR SOMETHING ELSE RELYING UPON THOSE PAST CEQA ACTIONS.
IF THERE'S NOT ONE OF THOSE, YOU WOULD LOOK AT EXEMPTIONS AND SEE DOES ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS APPLY?
[00:35:02]
IF ONE OF THOSE DOES, WE WOULD PREPARE A DRAFT NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.IF THAT DOESN'T WE WOULD LOOK ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AND WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CEQA REVIEW.
OR IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO BE PREPARING AN EIR OR WORKING WITH AN APPLICANT TO PREPARE AN EIR.
SORT OF THAT LAST PHASE IS WE TYPICALLY REFER TO IT AS PREPARATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY, LOOKING AT ALL THE CEQA TOPIC AREAS AND SEEING WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. FOR EXEMPTION PROCESS, A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE, INCLUDING THE ONE YOU JUST TOOK ACTION ON, ARE STILL EXEMPT FROM CEQA. PRIOR TO FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, ALL CEQA EXEMPTIONS WERE DETERMINED BY THE CITY PLANNER NOTICED AND WERE APPEALABLE TO THIS COMMISSION, AND SO MOST CEQA EXEMPTIONS WERE NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR YOUR REVIEW.
CITY COUNCIL CHANGED THAT, AND SO ALL EXEMPTIONS ARE NOW APPROVED BY THE APPLICABLE DECISION MAKER.
SO FOR CITY PLANNER DECISIONS, I APPROVE THE EXEMPTION IF IT'S APPLICABLE, IF IT'S A PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, EITHER YOURSELVES OR THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW AND APPROVE THE EXEMPTIONS.
WE'VE ALSO CHANGED OUR PROCEDURE WHERE PREVIOUSLY WE WOULD POST THE ACTUAL EXEMPTION DECISION.
OUR TARGET IS TO POST FOR 30 DAYS BEFORE AN ACTION.
THE COMMON SENSE EXEMPTIONS ARE WHAT WE CALL THE GENERAL RULE, SOMETHING THAT IS ONLY THAT THERE'S NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S TYPICALLY USED FOR THINGS FOR US, LIKE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTION, WHERE IT'S HARD TO DO A SPECIFIC QUANTITATIVE IMPACT, BUT WE DON'T THINK THERE'S AN IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS ON THE OTHER TWO SIDES.
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS. THESE ARE THINGS WHERE THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS SAID REGARDLESS OF IT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S EXEMPT FROM CEQA. SO SOME EXAMPLES HERE ARE ONGOING PROJECTS OR OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY REPAIRS.
IT COULD BE FOR ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. THE OLYMPICS ARE [LAUGHTER] THINGS USED TO IMPLEMENT.
THE OLYMPICS ARE STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
AND THAT GOES BACK TO THE 80S. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S STILL BEING USED TODAY.
THEN CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ARE MORE BROAD CATEGORIES WHERE IF YOUR PROJECT MEETS THAT CATEGORY, IT CAN BE CONSIDERED EXEMPT FROM CEQA. AND THERE'S A COUPLE MORE RULES RELATED TO IT.
THERE'S OVER 30, BUT WE CALL THEM CLASS 1, CLASS 2 EXEMPTIONS.
THEY'RE ALL LISTED IN THE BOOK. SOME OF THE MORE COMMON ONES THAT YOU WOULD SEE IS EXISTING FACILITIES LIMITED TO BUILDING LESS THAN 10,000FT², MINOR ALTERATIONS. THIS COULD BE LIKE A MINOR ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING GOVERNMENT OR OTHER FACILITY.
WE COULD LOOK AND SEEING. DOES IT QUALIFY FOR CLASS 1 EXEMPTION? CLASS 2 EXEMPTIONS IS REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITEMS. SOMETHING LIKE A REMOVAL AND A REBUILD OF A STRUCTURE COULD POTENTIALLY QUALIFY FOR THAT.
WE'VE ALSO USED THIS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IF IT'S EQUIVALENT INFRASTRUCTURE.
CLASS 3 WE DO USE FOR SOME OF OUR SMALL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS BECAUSE IT DOES QUALIFY FOR 4 OR SMALLER UNITS IN APPROPRIATELY ZONED URBAN AREAS. AND SO THAT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION OR MINOR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES.
AND THEN THERE IS WHAT'S BEEN USED FOR SOME OF THE LARGER PROJECTS IN THE VILLAGE.
WE'VE INCLUDED SOME DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THESE RULES.
THE PRIMARY ONES ARE IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING THEIR SITE CHARACTERISTICS, WHERE IT MUST BE SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES LESS THAN FIVE ACRES AND THERE MUST BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOR BIOLOGY, TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY AND BE FULLY SERVED BY NECESSARY PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES.
[00:40:02]
THIS IS WAS NOT REALLY AFFECTED BY THE NEW LEGISLATION, AND SO PROJECTS MAY CONTINUE AND ARE LIKELY GOING TO CONTINUE TO USE THIS IF THEY MEET THE NEW CRITERIA. BUT I JUST WANT TO PAUSE AND SAY THAT THIS IS A SET OF CRITERIA.AND AT THE END WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE NEW EXEMPTION, WHICH HAS DIFFERENT SETS OF CRITERIA AND SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT HAVE THAT LAST BULLET POINT OF NUMBER C WHERE AVOIDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO ALL OF THOSE CATEGORIES.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ALSO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS.
AND ADDITIONAL REVIEW MAY BE REQUIRED IF THERE'S UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS A SENSITIVE LOCATION, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, SCENIC HIGHWAYS HISTORIC RESOURCES.
AND SO THERE'S SOME DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO AN EVALUATION OF ARE THERE ANY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF YOU CAN USE THAT AS A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT APPLIES TO THE STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS.
IF ELIGIBLE STAFF WORKS WITH AN APPLICANT AND ASSEMBLES EVIDENCE AND PREPARES SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, PREPARES ALL OF THAT IN THE DRAFT EXEMPTIONS THAT WE ARE POSTING 30 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARINGS, AND THE DECISION MAKER HAS THE OPTION TO EITHER APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH THE EXEMPTION OR REMAND THE EXEMPTION OR FINDINGS RELATED TO IT BACK TO STAFF.
BUT WHEN THERE'S AN EXEMPTION WE INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PHASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS, I DISCUSSED BRIEFLY ABOUT AN INITIAL STUDY.
SO IF AN EXEMPTION DOESN'T APPLY, THE MOST COMMON STEP TO TAKE IS TO PREPARE AN INITIAL STUDY.
IT GOES THROUGH ALL OF THE TOPIC AREAS UNDER CEQA AND EVALUATES.
ARE THERE IMPACTS AGAINST THE STANDARDS? ARE THERE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AND MORE FURTHER? OR ARE THERE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MITIGATED WHICH IS A MEASURE TAKEN TO REDUCE THAT IMPACT? THERE'S REALLY THREE MAIN TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ALLOWED.
THERE'S A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHICH IS JUST A DISCLOSURE SAYING THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THERE IS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHICH IS SAYING THERE IS AN IMPACT, BUT A MITIGATION CAN BE INCLUDED TO REDUCE THAT TO WHAT'S CALLED A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE. AND THEN IF THERE ARE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A STANDARD THAT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MUST BE PREPARED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.
SO UNDER CEQA INITIAL STUDIES COVER ALL OF THESE TOPICS, RANGING FROM ESTHETICS, AGRICULTURE, AIR QUALITY, ALL THE WAY TO UTILITIES, TRANSPORTATION, AND WILDFIRE.
THE HIGH LEVEL PROCESS OF AN MND, ND OR AN EIR IS DRAFTING THE DOCUMENT.
LOOKING AT THESE DOCUMENTS AGAINST WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.
AN EIR IT'S REQUIRED THAT YOU RESPOND ESSENTIALLY LINE BY LINE TO ANY COMMENTS RECEIVED, BUT IT'S COMMON FOR THOSE OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WE REVIEW THEM AND RESPOND AND POTENTIALLY MAKE CHANGES. CERTAIN LEVELS ARE REQUIRED TO CODE A STATE AGENCY FOR REVIEW.
ALL THE EIRS GO UP TO THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM.
WHEN WE GET TO THE LEVEL OF DOING ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, THAT'S WHEN WE CREATE TWO SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS, ONE TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND ONE TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE PROJECT.
BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, WHILE YOU CAN'T APPROVE THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE CEQA, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND THEN ASK FOR CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE PROJECT GIVEN THE EXACT PROJECT CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND SO PUTTING IT BACK OUT FOR A DRAFT PUBLIC REVIEW TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
AND THERE'S SOME THRESHOLDS RELATED TO THAT. SOME OF THE OTHER CEQA FINDINGS THAT YOU'RE POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE SEEING AND YOU HAVE SEEN ARE FINDINGS. AND THESE NUMBERS ARE ALL IN REFERENCE TO NUMBERS AND SECTIONS IN THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
[00:45:07]
AND SO THERE ARE ALSO IF YOU EVER WANT TO LOOK AT IT, THERE ARE SPECIFIC FINDINGS RELATED TO THAT.AND APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT DOES NOT EXPIRE.
BUT YOU DO IF YOU'RE DOING A SUBSEQUENT PROJECT, YOU NEED TO EVALUATE, HAVE THINGS CHANGE? IS THE PROJECT STILL CONSISTENT WITH IT? IN RECENT YEARS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THE IONA SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE LEGOLAND PARKING STRUCTURE AND THE PALOMAR AVIARA PROJECT USING THESE FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS UNCHANGED BY THE PROCESS WITH THE CITY PLANNER EXEMPTION PROCESS.
CHANGING THE CITY PLANNER DIDN'T EVER HAVE ABILITY TO APPROVE THESE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS WITHOUT THE DECISION MAKER BEING INVOLVED, THEN THE SORT OF THE NEXT PHASE OF THAT AND THE NEXT LEVEL IS, IS THERE AN ADDENDUM? SO CAN YOU DO INSTEAD OF DOING A FULL NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT, COULD YOU DO AN ADDENDUM WHERE THE PHRASING IS IF THERE ARE MINOR CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, BUT STILL NOT CHANGING THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE.
THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT WAS ADOPTED WITH REFERENCE TO AIRPORT LAND USES, THOSE WERE BOTH DONE WITH ADDENDUM TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN EIR THAT WAS ADOPTED FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT.
AND SO THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN REPORTED ON. AND THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT THEY USED.
AND SO ANY NEW ADDENDUM WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON ALL OF THE ANALYSIS AND ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS.
AND THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE TEND TO USE IN A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT.
AND IT'S WHAT'S KIND OF CALLED TEARING IN THE CEQA WORLD.
THAT'S CONSISTENCY WITH COMMUNITY PLAN AND ZONING.
IT'S REFERRED TO AS A 15183 EXEMPTION. AND THAT'S A SPECIAL TYPE OF EXEMPTION THAT COULD BE PREPARED IF A PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AND RELY ON THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BUT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIAL OR PECULIAR IMPACTS RELATED TO IT ITSELF.
AND THEN AT THE END OF JUNE LAST YEAR, NOT 2035, THE END OF JUNE, THERE WAS TWO BILLS THAT PASSED AB 130 AND 131. THE FIRST ONE CREATED A NEW INFILL HOUSING STATUTORY EXEMPTION.
AND SO REMEMBER THE CLASS 32 EXEMPTION INCLUDED SOME ACREAGE NUMBERS AND REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A NEW STATUTORY EXEMPTION FOR PROJECTS THAT MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
SO IT CAN'T HAVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES, WETLANDS OR PRIME FARMLAND, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME LANGUAGE RELATED TO IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION, NOISE, AIR QUALITY THAT THE OTHER EXEMPTION HAS.
IT'S A STATUTORY EXEMPTION, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THOSE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTION AS WELL.
WHAT IT DOES HAVE IS SOME NEW TRIBAL CONSULTATION GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO REACH OUT TO CONSULTING TRIBES, THAT EXEMPTIONS DO NOT RELATED TO PROTECTION OF TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, AS WELL AS A PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
AND THAT'S LOOKING AT POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS AND WORK PRIMARILY ARE USUALLY WITH RESPECT TO UNDERGROUND CONTAMINATION THAT MAY NEED TO BE CLEANED UP AND CONDITIONED. SO FAR, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PROJECTS IN PROCESS THAT ARE USING THIS, BUT IT IS SOMETHING NOW THAT WAS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY ABLE FOR PROJECTS TO USE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INTERNALLY IS THE TRIBAL CONSULTATION GUIDELINES.
THE NEXT BILL WAS SB 131, AND IT PRIMARILY DID TWO THINGS.
FIRST, IT INCLUDED WHAT'S BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE CEQA GROUPS AS NEAR MISS STREAMLINING.
AND THERE'S BEEN BILLS OVER THE YEARS THAT HAVE DONE THIS.
BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF SOMETHING MEETS THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA, EXCEPT FOR ONE THING, THEY COULD STREAMLINE AND DO A MORE A LESS RESTRICTIVE OR LESS, I GUESS, ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
[00:50:05]
I THINK IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN EXACTLY HOW THAT WILL WORK, BECAUSE THERE ALREADY WERE SOME TOOLS TO DO STREAMLINING BUILT INTO IN THE EXISTING LAW.AND ACTUALLY THIS THIS COMMISSION REVIEWED AND APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT THAT DID FOCUS PRIMARILY ON HISTORIC RESOURCES FOR A PROJECT THAT LIKELY WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR AN EXEMPTION EXCEPT FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCES, AND IT WAS SORT OF A FOCUS TO EIR.
SO I THINK IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW MUCH THAT PART IS USED.
IT ALSO INCLUDED A LEVEL OF NEW STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS FOR A NUMBER OF SPECIAL SITUATIONS.
I THINK THE ONE THAT WILL PROBABLY MOST LIKELY BE USED FOR US, HOPEFULLY NOT UNTIL THE YEAR 2032.
BUT A HOUSING REZONING PROGRAM CAN BE NOW STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
THIS LIST OF POTENTIAL THINGS, THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA IN THEM AS WELL.
THE BILLS ARE STILL ABOUT A MONTH OLD, SO WE ARE STILL CONTINUING TO REVIEW THEM AND EVALUATE THEM.
AND WE'RE ATTENDING TRAININGS, MUCH LIKE I'M SURE MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES AROUND THE STATE ARE, TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FULL IMPACT OF THOSE ARE.
IT IS STILL ALSO AN ACTIVE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
AND SO THERE COULD BE OTHER BILLS THAT DO PASS RELATED TO IMPACTS CEQA SOME OF THESE TRAILER BILLS BEFORE THEY WERE ADOPTED, WERE PROPOSED AS BILLS IN THE REGULAR SESSION, AND SOME HAD BEEN PROPOSED IN OTHER YEARS.
WE'RE HAPPY NOW TO TURN IT OVER, OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
IF THERE IS ANY AND THEN WE'RE ALSO INTERESTED IN IF THERE ARE ANY OF THESE TOPICS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANY OF THOSE TOPIC AREAS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT. WE CAN CERTAINLY FACILITATE BRINGING THOSE UP TO THE COMMISSION.
WE SEE THIS AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AND POTENTIALLY A WORKSHOP FOCUSED, IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE TO EDUCATE YOU IN YOUR NEWER ROLE MAKING DECISIONS ON CEQA EXEMPTIONS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. LARDY. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION, TRULY APPRECIATE THAT.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. SO MR. LARDY FOR THE SB 131.
THE NEAR MISS STREAMLINING YOU SAID IF THERE'S ONE THING MISSING, YOU CAN KIND OF MOVE IT ALONG.
AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE EXAMPLES YOU GAVE WAS HISTORIC RESOURCES.
CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE MISSING THAT COULD MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG? THE EXAMPLE I COULD THINK OF, AND I HAVE NOT SEEN IT IN PRACTICE, IS WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION EXCEPT FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT BECAUSE OF THEIR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, AND SO THEY COULD POTENTIALLY DO AN MND OR ND OR ANY EIR FOCUSED ON JUST THAT TOPIC AREA. SO THAT'S THE ONE EXAMPLE I THINK OF.
IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS AS WELL LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMETHING'S 5.5 ACRES, HOW YOU REALLY DO AN ANALYSIS OF HOW IT DOESN'T MEET THAT CRITERIA USING THAT PROCESS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HUBINGER. SO JUST FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SORT THROUGH ALL THIS. AND WHEN WE HAVE A PROJECT, YOU'LL GIVE AN OPINION BASED ON A CITY PLANNER OPINION, YOUR OPINION.
RIGHT? GOING THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF. RIGHT? WE WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT WE THINK THE APPROPRIATE CEQA PROCESS IS AND IF [LAUGHTER] IT HAS ONE OF THOSE THAT GOES THROUGH PUBLIC REVIEW, WE WILL TAKE IT THROUGH PUBLIC REVIEW BEFORE WE BRING IT TO THE COMMISSION.
IF THE COMMISSION HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION, YOU CAN ALWAYS REMAND SOMETHING BACK TO US.
RIGHT AND WILL YOU IDENTIFY IF THERE IS A GRAY AREA IN THE EVALUATION OF HOW IT APPLIES TO CEQA? SO IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WHOLE PROCESS NOW THROWN OUT TO THE COMMISSION TO NOW DETERMINE WHETHER IT DESERVES AN EXEMPTION OR
[00:55:02]
DOESN'T DESERVES AN EXEMPTION WILL WE BE GIVEN THE INFORMATION AS TO PERHAPS YOUR REASONING BEHIND WHY YOU PUT IT INTO THE CATEGORY YOU PUT IT INTO? WE WILL CERTAINLY GIVE OUR REASONING WHY IT WAS PUT INTO THE CATEGORY.I THINK WITH RESPECT TO THE GRAY AREA, IF THERE ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS OR INDIVIDUALS THINKING IT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY, WE WILL GIVE OUR REASONINGS AND EXPLAIN THAT.
BUT I THINK AS TO SHARING THE GRAY AREA, I THINK CEQA WAS HEAVILY LITIGATED.
SO WE WILL BE KEEPING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
OKAY ALL RIGHT GOOD. THROUGH MR. STRONG. RESPONSE THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, MIKE STRONG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
SO, YEAH, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REFERENCES TO CEQA BEING COMPLICATED AND HEAVILY LITIGATED.
THERE ARE EVIDENCE BASED STANDARDS WHICH IS LIKE ABSOLUTE BLACK OR WHITE.
EITHER MEET THE CRITERIA OR YOU DON'T. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MOST EVIDENT WITH THE NEW STATUTORY EXEMPTION, THE AB 130. THE PROJECT EITHER SATISFIES THE CRITERIA OR DOESN'T.
WHAT IS MORE COMPLICATED ARE THE FAIR ARGUMENTS.
AND THAT IS USUALLY BASED ON SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY PUBLIC TESTIMONY OR EXPERT TESTIMONY.
THOSE FALL UNDER THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD AND THOSE TYPES OF CASES.
STAFF WILL SUPPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION WITH EITHER WRITTEN EXPERT TESTIMONY.
SO A CONSULTANT THAT PREPARES A VMT ANALYSIS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AND IF NEEDED.
STAFF WILL ALSO BRING THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO THE HEARING.
SO YOU'LL MOST LIKELY WILL. THE COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE A MIX OF EITHER A STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOT NEEDING TO SUPPORT WITH CONSULTANT TESTIMONY WRITTEN OR ORAL TESTIMONY. OR YOU MIGHT RECEIVE SOME WRITTEN REPORTS FROM CONSULTANTS TO HELP SUBSTANTIATE WHY THE USE OF AN EXEMPTION, OR WHY STAFF FEELS THE USE OF AN EXEMPTION APPLIES.
THANK YOU FOSTER. I JUST GOT A QUESTION FOR MR. STRONG.
SO IN THE IN THE SCENARIO OF A CONSULTANT COMING IN, WOULD THOSE COSTS BE PASSED THROUGH TO THE APPLICANT AND NOT THE CITY? YES. THERE ARE SOME CONSIDERATIONS GIVEN IF WE ARE CONTRACT STAFFING TO SUPPLEMENT STAFF TIME AND IN WHICH CASE THE CITY IS BEARING THOSE COSTS.
BUT THAT'S USED VERY SPARINGLY. SO MOST OF THE TIME IT'LL BE BORNE BY THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT PAYS FOR THOSE STUDIES TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, TO SUPPORT THE USE OF AN EXEMPTION.
SO I'D SAY 99% OF THE TIME IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM THE APPLICANT'S COST.
OKAY EXCELLENT THANKS. MR. STRONG OR MR. LARDY POSSIBLY.
COULD YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, POSSIBLY WITH AB 130 AND SB 131 AS TO POSSIBLY THE LEGISLATURES I GUESS YOU CAN SAY INTENT ON THAT LEGISLATION AND THE NECESSITY OF THAT LEGISLATION TO I GUESS YOU SAY IN BEING INCLUDED WITHIN THE CEQA EXEMPTION PROCESS.
GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF THE PREMISE OF CEQA IS BASED REALLY ON TRANSPARENCY AND WHAT IS CONFOUNDING AND PROBABLY CONFUSING FOR THE PUBLIC THAT ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL LAND USE MATTERS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILD OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITY ARE THESE RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW.
THEY DO STRIP AWAY A LOT OF LOCAL LAND USE CONTROL, AND BY CREATING STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT ARE MANDATED, IT REALLY ELIMINATES THAT PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS OR THE ABILITY TO CHANGE PROJECT DESIGNS OR RESPOND TO COMMUNITY INPUT.
AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT, THE 6585889.5 IT SAYS VERY CLEARLY WHY CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. AND IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IT BEING A HOUSING CRISIS.
[01:00:09]
STALL IT, FRUSTRATE THE APPLICANT, OR DEMAND CHANGES WHICH OFTEN WOULD EITHER RENDER CONDITIONS ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE ITS FEASIBILITY OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS PROVIDED ON A SITE. SO THIS IS THE STATE'S ATTEMPT TO GET AROUND THAT LITIGATED APPROACH AND ELIMINATE CEQA FROM THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW IF CITY PLANNER ALREADY HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO SUPPLEMENT THAT.I WAS JUST GOING TO READ DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESS RELEASE THAT THE GOVERNOR ISSUED, WHICH WAS TOGETHER, THE TWO BUDGET TRAILER BILLS INCLUDED A COMPREHENSIVE STREAMLINING PACKAGE THAT BREAKS DOWN LONGSTANDING DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS, MODERNIZES CEQA REVIEW FOR CRITICAL HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CREATES NEW TOOLS TO SPEED UP PRODUCTION, REDUCE COSTS, AND IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY ACROSS THE STATE.
AND I READ THAT WITHOUT COMMENT. JUST THAT'S DIRECTLY WHAT CAME FROM THE OFFICE RELATED TO THAT, THERE WERE OTHER CEQA BILLS THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THE LEGISLATURE THIS SESSION THAT WOULD HAVE DONE EVEN MORE CHANGES, AND THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. BUT I'LL SAY THAT SINCE AT LEAST GOVERNOR BROWN'S TIME FRAME, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT IS CEQA REFORM AND SHOULD SCHOOL REFORM BE MADE.
SO THIS IS THIS IS THE LATEST ATTEMPT AND CHANGES AT THAT.
EXCELLENT WE APPRECIATE THAT. ANY MORE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BURROWS. JUST AS A FINAL COMMENT ON THIS, I DO APPRECIATE MR. LARDY AND MR. STRONG GIVEN THE REGULAR UPDATE IN THE A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION ON THE LEGISLATION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE RECENT CHANGES AND THE FACT THAT I THINK THERE'S STILL AT LEAST TWO MORE BILLS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE WHEN THEY COME BACK ON AUGUST 18TH.
AS FAR AS ONGOING TRAINING GOES, I THINK AS AB 130 AND SB 131 START BEING APPLIED TO OTHER CITIES AND IT STARTS TO MOVE THROUGH, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HEAR HOW SOME OF THOSE HOW IT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN OTHER CONTEXT.
SO BUT EXCELLENT PRESENTATION, I APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. LARDY IS THERE ANY CASE STUDIES AT ALL AT THIS POINT IN TIME? NOT YET, BUT EVERY YEAR THERE ARE MANY CASE STUDIES.
WE ATTEND TRAININGS EVERY YEAR ON NEW CASE STUDIES.
WHO WILL HAVE A TRAINING IN THE SPRING. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO SHARE OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL AS ATTEND THE TRAININGS OURSELVES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE UP AND UP ON THE LATEST AND GREATEST. THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
MINUTES CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? CHAIR WE DO NOT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
OKAY QUESTION I HAVE IS IN REGARD TO YOU WOULD ASK MR. LARDY THE POSSIBILITIES OF HAVING US ASK YOU, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MAYBE POSSIBLY IN OUR NEXT I GUESS YOU SAY DISCUSSION OR AGENDA ITEM HERE ON THE DAIS IN REGARD TO CEQA.
SO, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANYTHING THAT HAS KIND OF, LIKE, STOOD OUT FOR YOU THIS EVENING THAT POSSIBLY YOU COULD ASK STAFF AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME TO INCLUDE IN OUR NEXT PRESENTATION BY STAFF.
COMMISSIONER FOSTER. SURE YEAH I GOT AN EASY ONE AND THEN MORE COMPLICATED ONE.
I'M TRYING TO KEEP MR. LARDY ON HIS TOES AT ALL TIMES.
I KNOW THIS, BECAUSE I THINK I ASKED MR. STRONG THIS A FEW MONTHS BACK, AND HE I THINK HE GAVE A PRETTY GOOD ANSWER, BUT I WANT TO HARP ON IT AGAIN, BECAUSE THE OTHER DAY I WAS DRIVING THROUGH THE VILLAGE AND I COULDN'T FIND A PARKING SPOT ANYWHERE.
AND SO THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOMETHING ON THE TIMELINE FOR THAT PARKING STUDY FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE VILLAGE AS FAR AS DO YOU KNOW, ANY DATE WHEN THAT STUDY IS GOING TO BE PERFORMED AND WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF FEEDBACK FOR THE PUBLIC OR PLANNING COMMISSION? SURE SO THERE'S TWO THINGS AND THIS REALLY IS OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF CEQA. BUT THE TWO THINGS ON THAT ARE. OH, SORRY, I THOUGHT WE WERE DONE WITH CEQA.
WE'RE NOT DONE WITH CEQA? NO. OKAY. THAT'S OKAY.
OKAY SORRY. MR. LARDY I BELIEVE, THIS WEEK WHICH IS SORT OF A DRIVE AROUND AND TAKE A PICTURE OF TWO DAYS TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION, THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS PASSED A LITTLE OVER A MONTH AGO DID INCLUDE FUNDING FOR A MORE ROBUST PARKING STUDY.
[01:05:01]
WHICH IS INCLUDED IN OUR CURRENT PLAN TO LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE YEAR.SO NO SPECIFICS OTHER THAN WE'RE CURRENTLY SCOPING THAT RIGHT NOW AND WILL WE LOOK TO HAVE MORE PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT 6 TO 9 MONTHS. SO I'LL ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF BRING WHEN WE HAVE OUR NEXT CEQA TRAINING AT ALL? ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS? MAYBE POSSIBLY COMMISSIONERS COULD KIND OF DIGEST WHAT YOU PROVIDED THIS EVENING AND WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE WAY IN WHICH WE COULD PROVIDE THAT TO YOU? I'D SAY JUST TO AVOID ANY BROWNOUT CONCERNS IS SEND IT DIRECTLY TO US AND WE CAN EVALUATE IT AND COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME? EXCELLENT STAFF. I ASSUME AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME THIS IS JUST INFORMATIONAL.
AND SO THEREFORE NO MOTION IS NECESSARY ON OUR BEHALF.
YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES MR. FOSTER. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND ONE? A SECOND AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO REALLY KIND OF FRAME THIS QUESTION.
BUT THERE'S A. SO WHEN I DRIVE DOWN EL CAMINO OR TAMARAC AND YOU LOOK OVER AT MARJA ACRES, IT LOOKS LIKE A BIG INDUSTRIAL BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S GOT A FLAT ROOF LINE, AND IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE HOUSING TO ME.
AND I KNOW THIS IS LIKE WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.
PERMITS WERE ISSUED, IT'S BUILT, IT'S DONE. MY QUESTION IS.
IS THERE I GUESS THE QUESTION IS FOR THE LIKE THE FUTURE OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE HOUSING DESIGN GUIDELINES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT SAYS, HEY, PITCHED ROOFS OR SOMETHING THAT'S GOT TO LOOK LIKE A HOUSE AND NOT JUST THIS FLAT ROOF LINE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING? SO MARJA ACRES WAS ENTITLED AND APPROVED BEFORE THE CITYWIDE AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE IN PLACE. THOSE ARE NOW IN PLACE FOR THE WHOLE CITY.
THEY WERE, FOR A WHILE, ONLY IN PLACE IN THE OUTSIDE OF THE COASTAL ZONE.
SO NEW PROJECTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE NEW OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SAY COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONERS MIGHT WANT TO MAKE IT THIS TIME? OKAY. CITY PLANNER, DO YOU HAVE ANY ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS?
[STAFF COMMENTS]
A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS. FIRST AND FOREMOST COMMISSIONER STINE, IN BETWEEN THE LAST MEETING AND THIS HAS RESIGNED.SO WE THANK HIM AND WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH A CERTIFICATE FOR HIM, THANKING HIM FOR HIS SERVICE.
SO IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED ARE WATCHING. THAT'S AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
AND THE CITY CLERK IS THE LEAD ON THAT PROCESS.
WITH RESPECT TO CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 29TH APPROVED THE ROOSEVELT, WHICH WAS A PROJECT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERED AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON AT THE BEGINNING OF APRIL.
AND THEN WE DO HAVE TWO PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR AUGUST 20TH.
ONE IS A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND ONE IS A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
BUT WE ARE LOOKING TO HAVE MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 17TH AND OCTOBER 15TH.
SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A LOOK AHEAD OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN INTO THE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER MONTHS YET, BUT IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR TRAVELING THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF, PLEASE LET US KNOW. MR. ATTORNEY? NONE THANK YOU [LAUGHTER].
OKAY WITH THAT, I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.