Public comment corpus
Imperial County
September 3, 2026 · CEQA community workshop · 4 spoken public comments
Official meeting recording (Granicus)
| Speaker | Time | Comment (verbatim) |
|---|---|---|
| Jake Tison | 0:32:05 | I don't know what's going on here. It feels a little bit like whack-a-mole in this place. So now you are holding a workshop to explain to the public why it should become harder for the public to be heard. Think about how backwards that is. Your press release says that this workshop will give us a clear understanding of the CEQA appeals process. We understand it perfectly. CEQA guidelines 15022 says your local percentage of procedures must remain consistent with state CEQA law. Public resource code 21177 says CEQA issues must be presented to the public agency during the comment period or before the close of the public hearing. But your proposal goes further requiring appeal grounds to first be presented to a non-elected decision maker opposing a 10 calendar day appeal window. It's a very important point. I'm sorry, imposing a 10 calendar day appeal window, demanding detailed allegations and restricting how previous comments can be used. Then you bring on an outside counsel to hold a workshop explaining why all this is supposedly good for us. No, it's not. CEQA is an information disclosure law, not a government obstacle course. It should never become wrong words, wrong hearing, too late, you didn't repeat yourself, appeal denied. Sections 21055 and 21168.5 exist because courts can examine whether government actually followed CEQA as required by law. So let's stop pretending this is about educating the public. The public understands what you're doing. You're not teaching people how to participate. You're teaching them how easily their participation can be disqualified. CEQA was created to hold the government accountable, not to teach citizens how to survive government-created technicalities. So I do have a couple questions. My first one is, how much is the taxpayer paying for this legal services? Is he making $7.50 an hour, $1,000 an hour? I mean, what are we spending on this guy? And where is the money coming from while the county is having financial trouble? And so also, what is the purpose of changing the appeal rules here? He states everything from Riverside County or from Shasta, but he's not talking about the Imperial County problems. He didn't say anything from here. And also, is this an order from Ryan Kelly? Did Ryan Kelly want this? Is this what we're doing? Because why are we doing this? And what are the projects being pushed through that we need to get him through? You know, what's the purpose of this stuff? Your three minutes are up, Mr. Tyson. Thank you. So I'll read back the different questions that you stated, Mr. Tyson. A few of these I will be directing to you, Mr. Sahagi, online. To the first questions of how much is the taxpayer paying for the legal services? And where is the money coming from? That's something that we can take back to the Office of the Information to be able to provide back. But I can't provide that to you at this time. The next question, what is the purpose of changing the appeal rules? If you could touch on that, Mr. Minnick, if you have any comments of why we review our appeal rules. And then also, Mr. Sahagi, in terms of how it aligns with state changes that get made throughout the year. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. The current rules of guidelines that we use to implement CEQA was adopted last in 2017. Since then, the state has updated its rules. It has adopted rules to implement rules and guidelines, as well as there has been a number of court cases. So in order to be consistent with CEQA and court law, court regulations or court cases, we've asked consultants to come and take a look at it. These are some of the points where we were not consistent with the most up-to-date court cases or rules. And so I hope that answers your question. It doesn't. Okay. I'm sorry. It doesn't answer your question. I'm asking about the Imperial Valley. Why are we changing the rules here? So that we're consistent with state. I get that. But why? I mean, you're not. Is there a reason why? What happened here in the Imperial Valley? Is something coming through this door that you guys don't want people to talk about? We're updating it because it's 10 years old. Sure. I get it. Jim, I get it, man. I totally get what you're saying. But you're not answering the question. Mr. Tyson, can I ask you to just pause briefly? Because nobody online is hearing the comments that you're making. So they're just hearing one side of the dialogue. Periodically, we do update. This happens to be an update. Just like we update Title IX, we update the error codes, we update everything. Absolutely. We have to be consistent. If we're not consistent, we still have to follow the law. Right. Okay? So even if we're out of date, we still follow CEQA. But from time to time, we have to update it. Same with our building codes and stuff like that. It's been quite a few years. We're updating it. There's no specific. There's land. There's building codes. I'm trying to explain. My job is building and planning. Right. Okay? So I have a lot of different regulations, just like the other 20-something departments. Right. But from time to time, we have to update it. This is time to update this. I'll be updating the general plan in the next few months, adding an environmental justice element because the state requires it. In 2029, I have to update. 2028, I have to update the traffic circulation element. In 2030, I have to update the housing element. These things happen over time. And so this hasn't been updated in a long time. We looked at it. We found that we were deficit in some of them. Some of it. Some of it's minor. Some of it's the fact that we're citing things that are no longer relative to the state. Other stuff is laws have changed. So we're providing a comprehensive update on it so that we are consistent. That's all we're doing. Yeah, but it doesn't sound comprehensive. It's . On my part, there's no conspiracy or anything like that. We're just updating the code. Yeah. Well, I didn't say conspiracy. Sorry. I didn't say conspiracy. You asked if there was a certain project . Well, I mean, yeah. Is there some . I mean, like, for instance. For instance. The Lithium Valley EIR. You know, it's a draft, right? We're trying. You want, you guys got to get it through the door, right? And, you know, if the word is on the street, you don't want it to look like what happened on December 18th in here, right? You don't, right? For instance, you know, like, for instance, here. Where's my? I had a question about, like, what would it look like? Say, like, there's a project like, like a data center that comes through here, right? So we, you know, if you don't get to, if you don't bring your, if you don't write 10 days before to the planning commission, right? And then, so you're not going to be heard when the board sees it? [staff interjection: "I don't think that's how it's. That's not the way I understand it's being written."] Well, yeah, that's what I'm saying. There's no redlining here. We don't see anything side by side. You just kind of threw that up there, right? So it is kind of confusing. So when people. No, no, the project. People that don't come to, I'm sorry, people that don't come to this, this event here tonight, this workshop tonight. And so when there's projects in, I don't know, like a year from now, right? Things are coming through the door. People want to appeal. But we can't. We're just, we got to, we're being restricted to appeal in the way, we got to do it a certain way. And if we don't do it a certain way, we won't even be listened to. Right? Even before the end of the day of that hearing. Right? |
| Robert Powell | 0:41:11 | Hey, good evening. I appreciate you guys having this. I just have some questions here. Who sits on the Environmental Evaluation Committee, and who selects those members? I'd like to know that. And then, who is the ultimate deciding authority on whether a project fits into a CAD-X or needs a higher level of analysis? I'd like an answer to that. And then, your presentation skipped straight to the final EIR, didn't talk about a draft EIR, what the circulation period is, how comments are submitted for draft EIRs, the timeframe from a draft EIR to the final EIR. So, I'd like, I'd like to know a little more about that. And then, you had mentioned an appeal of an EIR ultimately going before the board. In that process, would the public only be allowed three minutes to comment on that? And if so, or if not, is that in the guidelines or in the proposed guidelines? I'd like to have an answer to that. And then, I have a very, very direct question. I would like to know, Jim, if any time in the last two years, if you made a determination on the level of a project, the level of CEQA required, and were directed by the county executive office or board of supervisors or any leadership above your head, that that project should be exempted. And I'd like to know a specific, if that, I'd like to know the specifics about that, if that's ever happened. And I'd like to know, you know, honesty and truth on that one. Not that you wouldn't do that, but let's, let's be really straightforward here. And that, that's all I have. Thank you. And I appreciate you guys doing this. Thank you. Okay. So we'll take these one at a time. Start with first, who sits on the environmental evaluation committee and who selects or appoints those individuals. Robert, I want to make sure I don't miss anything. Okay. You had a lot of questions. So thank you for coming. Again. All right. So the first question is who sits on the environmental evaluation committee? Um, there are seven department, uh, departments that are represented. There is the public works department, the planning department, sheriff's department, environmental health department, which is a division of the health department, um, the fire department, the air, the air, um, APCD, as well as the ad commissioner. They are, uh, either the department heads or their designees. Okay. And the purpose of the, let me, let me go ahead. Bear with me, please. The purpose of the EEC is to take the draft initial study, right? And have it reviewed by those other agencies because the county is the lead agency, right? The planning department's not the lead agency. The sheriff's department's not the lead agency. The county is the agency planning department drafts the initial study, right? But we don't conclude it. Other jurisdictions, they do the actual conclusion. They rendered the decision all in a, in a, in a bubble in their, in their room. We do it transparently. We've been doing it for over 30 years this way, right? So we hold a public hearing. We go page by page, item by item. We have the applicant here. We have the public here and we check the planners work. And then the conclusion of whether it's a neck deck mitigated neck deck EIR is based on how the checklist is filled out based on state law. So there's, uh, each one of the questions has a question, right? Each, each category, the say it's land use. It has a question with the proposed project, potentially do X, no impact, less than significant impact, um, impact with mitigation, uh, significant impact, right? And depending on where those numbers fall, where those check boxes fall over the whole set of questions determines whether it's a negative declaration, a mitigate negative direction, uh, and so forth. And so that's how that's done. And, and that's done, uh, uh, very transparently. Um, in fact, I commend the county for all my time here. I commend the county for doing that. Cause Riverside and San Diego and a lot of them don't do it that way. I have a follow up question on that. Is it okay? Yep. Um, so if you have one of those committee members tell you that the project required or however documents in their opinion, the, the project requires a certain level of CEQA, be it, you know, mitigating neck deck, say, or an EIR rest of the committee doesn't agree. Um, who, how is that resolved? Okay. So no one, no one member, no one member makes that statement. So what happens is you have these seven, you have these seven, uh, departments and they have their expertise, right? So under CEQA, there's a transportation question, correct? A number of questions on transportation. So we, they would lean towards the public works guy, right? And the public works guy is saying, look, you know what? The planner got it wrong. It's not an, it's not less than significant. It requires mitigation. Here's what I propose. Then they vote on it. Just like the board votes. They vote on every change. That occurs and they vote on the final document. So this determination, I'm sorry to interrupt you, Jim, but this determination is not made by the planning director. It's made by a committee made by the committee. Okay. So we drafted and how do we, right? And we don't come to the conclusion. We let that committee do the conclusion. Okay. And how do we, how do we account for the fact that with the data center, we saw documentation that at least one of those committee members, or at least one of those agencies, um, had decided that was a discretionary project. And then later all of a sudden it's a cat exempt. How does that happen? Can you explain that to me? Um, I think you're referring to, well, we're not really talking about that particular project today, okay. But, I understand. Um, but let's say that we, we had seen a project that was approved or that was, I mean, that's not, that's not what the workshop's about. Okay. Um, so I don't want to speak. I don't want to go off rail and talk about a project. Uh, Robert, I have no problem. Talking about the process. Um, okay. So in, in the process, uh, when we see documentation that, you know, a particular project, you can pick any one of them, uh, is a discretionary project and therefore subject to an EIR. And then later we see it in front of, uh, the planning commission as you know, a cat X, how does that happen? Okay. So let's, let's, um, and we just want transparency here, Jim. I've never been nothing but transparent. Okay. Okay. So, so here's the thing. Environmental review is an environmental review is an environment review. The, the tie, that level of documentation, right, is what is the difference between it. So a negative declaration, a notice of exemption, they're all part of an environmental review, right? And that's what my presentation was trying to explain in terms of one agency over another agency, making a decision. Um, different agencies have different, different things. And just because something is discretionary, does not necessarily mean it's, it's requires a higher level of analysis. Okay. Okay. Let's say you want to put in a, um, for years, you want to put a second dwelling unit on your property. That's a categorical exemption. Uh, it's, but it's still a discretionary action. You want to do, you want to do a water well, right? Uh, that's a, that's a negative declaration. Typically, if you meet the requirements of X number of water per gallon in limit, right? So it, it land use is applied to those things, right? You first have to determine whether a project is, uh, whether a proposed development. I tried to really be clear on my presentation of talking about a proposed development versus a project because sequel uses the word project. And we tend to use the word project in the vernacular, like everything's a project, right? Well, not necessarily because I wanted to differentiate. That's why I gave you the list of what it was. So even if we do determine something as a project, whether it's ministerial or discretionary, we still look at, look to sequel to see if it requires an initial study or whether it is, you mentioned the term cat X, we don't use the word cat X. That's a NEPA term, but I knew what you meant, a notice of exemption. Okay. Um, and so in the case of a project that is found to be a notice of exemption that is done at my office based on what sequence says. Okay. Um, now, um, and so that's, that was, there's one of your questions. I have more questions. Okay. There are two, two specific, but I think, well, probably hopefully, but that was one of your questions. Okay. So the next question, the next question, um, I know what your last question is, but I want to wait. I want to make sure I'm not missing anything else. Okay. So, um, you asked about the process. All right. So I did not go into the specifics. I did talk a little bit about, um, the timing for circulation, but you're absolutely right when you were doing an EIR and keep in mind, not everything is an EIR. Not everything is automatically near only if there is found to be significant effects, right? Uh, and so therefore you have to do a deeper analysis. So a perfect example of that, or not a perfect example, example that comes to mind is public works department. Would you argue that the public works director is the expert in public works? No, I wouldn't argue that at all. Well, I would argue for it. Well, I'm saying, I'm saying that, yeah. Okay. To theoretically, you would assume that if, if a project comes in and public works says, you know what, we need a left turn lane or right turn lane and a traffic control for construction, right? Versus the public works director walking up and saying, I don't know exactly what we need based on this project. Go do a traffic study. Would you argue that, that would you, would you, could you agree with me that we would leave that decision by a public works because sequence says public works is the expert and it pertains to that or Caltrans Caltrans could be the same thing. It's within two miles of a Caltrans road, Caltrans times in two. So when you have a mitigation that you can impose to reduce it from an impact to less than significant, the jurisdiction has the right to include that and propose it. The applicant has to agree to it. The applicant doesn't agree to it. Then, then the jurisdiction says, well, this is what we're saying. You say, we don't agree with you now go do a study and prove it to us. The moment we say, go do a study, then it falls into some form of an EIR. It could be a focused EIR. It could be a tiered EIR. It could be a programmatic EIR. It could be a project level. It depends on the nature of the type of good mastery. I are, but when we don't know those experts, you know, the experts say we need the studies as soon as we need a study. So 40 EC, let's say the project, the planner put it together. Best, best, best job they could. They didn't get a lot of comments because we tried to get common letters from agencies ahead of time. Didn't get a lot. We come to the meeting and we, there's something's been disclosed that we didn't know about, or an agency has an issue and we have to do a traffic study or something like that. Then they need to say, we need to do the next level document because potentially significant impact has not been analyzed. Okay. I, that's the difference between when a project goes from a neg deck, mitigate negative to an EIR. Um, okay. Understood. All right. Um, follow up question before on the, I'm sorry, I meant to ask you this on the environmental evaluation committee. Um, is there been any, um, discussion about putting in your guidelines? I don't know, public at large affected public, somebody else on the committee besides somebody that's under the direction of, of a board that will obviously has some issues. Um, I don't think that would be practical. The public is here. The public has to comment, but the public isn't a form of the lead agency. That makes sense. So under sequel, you are either a lead agency or a responsible agency in the preparation of the document. The public is not considered one or the other. Okay. Right. So if I comment on a project that the city of El centro is doing, I'm a responsible agency to the city of El centro, but otherwise I'm a form of, I'm a portion of the lead agency, but that's one of the reasons, Robert, you asked a good question. Why we do it in the forum. We do it in. So the public's first view of this, isn't a circulated neck deck. Well, what I mean, we're just having a discussion here, but one of the problems I can see with this is, you know, of all the agencies that you named, I don't see any of them that have any expertise in the impacts to natural resources. For example, you know, everybody's got their area expertise, but that's a significant part of a lot of EIR. So that's, that's fine. So when a project gets circulated, we're basically telling the world, Hey world, this is what we came up with. Please review and comment. That's the whole point of it. It's not in a, not in a hidden door. So if I send it out to, and I've already sent it out requesting information from say BLM or fish and wildlife or fish and state fish and wildlife, federal fish and wildlife, uh, army Corps, we've, we've asked that they haven't responded. We still send them the packet of the actual document and it's published at the state level in the state clearinghouse. They all have time to comment. So if they comment and say, your document is deficient, go back and change it. Then we have to go back and change it. Okay. So the exercise is to gather as good of a document as we can to be circulated. But if we don't miss, if we miss the mark, Robert, that's what the public, and that's what agencies have the right to comment on. Okay. Like there, what I'm probably a good segue into my next question, which is, well, we had to move on to other people. So, okay. Well, you can, keep, okay. What's your next question? My, my question was on your presentation that you skipped the draft EIR process. Yes. That was the question. Okay. So, um, when a project is circulated, it is always considered draft. So it's a media neg deck, a neg deck, an EIR. It is a draft version of it. That's why it's being circulated. Sure. Understood. When it comes back after the circulation and we receive a comment letter from her or her and him, we review the comments. And if, if it requires changes that we modify those changes, those changes or no changes, depending on what the comments are is then converted to a final document that is then presented before a decision-making body, whether it's the planning commission or the board. Right. Um, and that board, that's what we call a final. I got that. Okay. Timeframe. How long between what's your, what's the time is the clock ticking. As soon as you circulate that draft, the clock is ticking on an EIR. The, the jurisdiction has one year from the time, the project is submitted to the time. The project has to go before its final decision making. And then there's a 90 day, uh, extension that can be mutually agreed upon. There's also a stay of time. Should a project proponent, um, not provide the information that's necessary for the community to go forward. Okay. There is a, there is a streamlining permitting constraint on a lot of the projects we do, or a lot of the policies we do. Okay. Um, then just two more questions I had was, was, uh, during the appeal hearing to the board, does the public only have three minutes to comment? That's a board question, but I, you, you phrased it in the question of an appeal of an EIR, right? There is no appeal of an EIR. Okay. Um, well, let me clarify in the time I have been here, Robert, I have never had the planning commission to doc to that. I can, I cannot recall having the planning commission approve an EIR. Okay. Normally their level of projects don't reach an EIR. But theoretically, if it did, would that EIR be appealed? Yes, because the planning commission isn't the ultimate set. Most EIRs are what we call certified by the, the, by the legislative action. So if you're the city, it's the city council, it's not the planning commission. If you're at the county, it's the board of supervisors. So there isn't an appeal of the EIR. Okay. Um, uh, but there could be, I just, I've been here for a while and I haven't seen it, um, that way. I'm just saying, you know, because generally speaking, if it's, if a project's requiring an EIR, let's say it's a, uh, let's say it's a, a, a conditional use permit and it's at the level of that more often than not, I'm going to present that as a project that level at the board. Okay. And then the last one you asked me, I can honestly tell you, I would never ever been asked by anybody to change my mind or to go a direction that is contrary to what my job is. I make mistakes. I've erred. Well, we all, but I have never been influenced in any way, shape or form, um, by anybody or any board member. In fact, those of you who may know, there was a project years ago called, um, um, plaster city. When I was a young planner, I proposed a project or I, I did my initial study. My initial study was done in a certain way that I recommended, uh, a study be done. And I got overruled. By my director at the time. I didn't change my, I didn't change anything. We went to the EEC director came up and said, this is wrong. We don't need to study project got sued. We ended up having to do a full EIR on it. Even then as a young planner, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't cave in. Do, uh, one last question. I appreciate the time. Do board members or, or, or people on the executive office sit in on those environmental evaluation committee meetings? Anybody, anybody in the public is welcome to be in. I didn't ask about the public. I asked about a board members or members of the executive. They don't sit on the panel. They're not a member. Do they sit in on those meetings? I have seen board members here before. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. |
| Kimberly Palacio | 0:59:10 | Kimberly Palacio, resident of Calexico. I just have a few questions. Um, actually, I'll start with the easy one to piggyback off of Mr. Paul, the EEC committee members. I know they were like the positions are listed. Um, Mr. Minnick just gave them, but can we get specific names? Um, since I imagine it's difficult to get all the heads of these agencies in a room at one time, I am sure they send their delegates. Can we get those names? Um, because they're not, they're never on the agendas, at least not that I've seen. So we'd like to know the actual people that are on the panel. Um, my next question is how would these proposed changes affect the LVSP and or final programmatic EIR approval process for the lithium Valley project? Uh, next, there were some written comments submitted when this was initially presented to the board. Where and how can we access those written comments? And the same goes for these slides, um, since they're not on the agenda packet. Well, there isn't really an agenda packet, so, how can we access these slides? and then finally, so once to the comments that were submitted to the LVSP, how do you determine what makes a comment a comment substantive? So you have to respond to it instead of just thank you received noted what makes the comment substantive? And then how do you determine that your response sufficiently answers or responds to that? Comment? Um, I think that's it. Thank you. So I'm going to go backwards this time. Give Mr. Minnick just a break to sit down and we'll probably start with Mr. Sohagi, um, online specifically on the question of how do we determine what makes a comment substantial or, um, response to comment at required for those. And, um, I would say in general, I mean, I know the question is around the LVSP and PEAR, but it's, it's the same process in general. So if you could touch on that, certainly, I mean, it requires, you know, working with both the counties, consultants, county staff and legal counsel, uh, depends on the individual nature of the comments. Uh, for example, the commenter is addressing economic issues typically and purely economic issues. Economic issues are not environmental considerations that are statutorily recognized under CEQA. So that wouldn't be an environmental issue. So if someone's, you know, raising concerns about their property values, again, that's not an environmental issue. Now, if they were to allege some sort of secondary environmental impact flowing from that, then they would have to provide evidence, um, showing an environmental consequences of result of the economics of a project or allegation. Uh, similarly, for example, if you start raising concerns about traffic congestion, well, traffic congestion was statutorily eliminated in 2013, um, under Senate Bill 743. So, it is a fairly fact specific issue. Um, I don't think there's any fast, um, or quick conclusion about what is or is not that. But again, there's many rules under CEQA. For example, if you're talking about existing environmental deficiencies, well, CEQA doesn't recognize those as an impact of the project that's being analyzed. Uh, Barry, I think, you know, I had, I heard some other questions. Obviously this isn't about, uh, Lithium Valley specific plan, but as I mentioned earlier in the meeting, specific plans are not, uh, approved by Planning Commission. Uh, and Planning Commission only makes a recommendation which is not considered a CEQA approval. So, documents like general plans, specific plans, uh, and zoning amendments, those actions go straight to the Board of Supervisors for their approval. Uh, so you wouldn't have an appeal, uh, process associated with those types of legislative enactments. Can I just clarify, what do you see as the, uh, uh, so does that mean that these changes do not affect the LVSP and EIR, LVSP-P, that approval process? Is that what you're saying? I'm saying that there is no appeal on that. Now there are other various amendments, um, throughout the, throughout the guidelines or the updated CEQA procedures. Now, for example, there's, there's change in fees and other things like that that could theoretically have consequences. But, again, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not here to talk about a specific project approval. Maybe just to provide a little more context on that, uh, the changes that are made would be applying overall, right? So it's not only going to apply to the specific plan of the PEA-IR, they would be applying in general, they would be new adopted regulations that would apply more broadly. Okay. So just, I'm sorry, one more follow up. So even though the LVSP process has already begun, these changes, will still retroactively apply to that? No. So any, any aspect of the process that has not been implemented would comply with the, the current CEQA procedures, but anything that has gone forward thus far, obviously that wouldn't be applicable here. So for example, again, previous actions, um, or approvals issued by the Board of Supervisors, these aren't retroactively applicable to actions taken a year ago. So they are prospective only, they apply to any actions that have not, yet been implemented or taken by the County. Okay. Got it. Thank you. And then your other questions that you had here, I can address the, where and how can you access the agenda slides? So we're happy to add this presentation, to this item that was part of grant a case, the clerk can assist with that. And at the end of this presentation, I know we didn't go through all the slides, but we did include at the end of this, um, all of the changes that were being considered. And that's the same presentation that was given to the Board of Supervisors previously, but it's all in one place. In case that's helpful to review. Yeah, that would be, thank you. Barry, if I can clarify too, obviously the presentation from the last Board of Supervisors meeting was the presentation that was given. That being said, the detailed full red line strikeout is included in the Board of Supervisors agenda packet, that is available online. Yeah, but I want the slides from right now. Yes, that's also available today too, and Barry will make that available. And I believe we had a previous question about any comments that had been made so far. Written comments. Written comments, yes. Those are also available for review as well. So we'll ensure that those are included on the same item, just to make it easy to access and find those. Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you. But yes, those are appended as Exhibit E to the last Board agenda packet. So those are part of the agenda packet. Which would be found on our Granicus Imperial View, and item 1 to the Board 825, item 14. We'll be able to look. 825, okay. Yeah, yeah. I saw that, but the slides attached there were just, didn't include the first half of this presentation. Oh, no. So these are new ones, but your comments that you're mentioning that you want to see, you would find them there. Oh, okay, okay, okay. Sorry, thank you. And then you also had a question regarding the committee members and specifically who they are. Mr. Minnick, I don't know if that's something you have available, but if you want to provide any comments on that. Thank you so much. Just for the record, I gave her my copy of the whole PowerPoint, which includes the redlining that Tyson just said. I can tell you offline who the members are, but I don't have that right in front of me. I'll give you my copy. Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. It's public knowledge. I just couldn't write it all. Right, right. Thank you. Appreciate it. |
| Fabiola Moreno | 1:07:07 | And our last speaker, Paaviola Moreno. Thank you. Paaviola? I think there's a question for Mr. Minnick. Earlier you said that some state changes triggered the county to enact these CEQA changes. Can you explain what those state changes are? Do you have additional questions you want to go through? Just that one. Okay. We'll have Tyson, Mr. Sahagi, we'll have you go ahead and address that. Sure. If you're going to do the question, I'm going to go over the questions. The first one is a little bit about the green with the fine line. So the law is not just that the state has to think about on the black and white and in the black and white. The state has to think about the value of the state. So I'm here to talk about the state and the exact value of the state. And I'm going to just let you do the last one. And I'm going to just make it up. So I'm going to just say to the questioner, And I'm going to just say the last one. And I'm going to just say the last one. So I'm going to just say the last one. And I'm going to just say the last one. on statutory revisions and based upon clarifications in California case law. And as we identified in the Board of Supervisors agenda packet from August 25th, 2026, we've identified the various cases that prompted some of these edits. So for example, we were talking about the staying of a notice of determination or notice of exemption pending the filing of the appeal. Again, that was made in response to a 2024 appellate decision. I believe it was Sierra Club, sorry, Center for Biological Diversity versus County of San Benito in 2024. And again, while we might be talking about different agencies or counties or cities, ultimately, these are still rules that apply to every entity implementing CEQA. So again, while we might talk about County of Shasta or County of San Benito, those still apply. Throughout the state, there's still clarifications from the courts still apply to Imperial County. Other things are legislative enactments that happened over the years. I don't think anything. I can give you an example. In 20, the state's revisions in 2018, while they had many revisions throughout, which again, were making clarifications due to uncertainties that have arisen over the last 10 years, one of the main prompting reasons was to implement a bill called SB7483, which was adopted in 2013 that said that traffic congestion shall no longer be considered an environmental impact. And I think a lot of the reasoning was that traffic analyses under CEQA were inducing the development of more roadways and more lanes that were actually making things like greenhouse gases and air quality worse. So one of those major revisions was to eliminate traffic congestion as an environmental consideration. So that's a big reason. And then there was a lot of other things So one of the main things that they did at that time was to eliminate references to level of service. But then they had lots of other cleanup revisions as well, like availability of reference documents versus documents that were incorporated by reference, so very technical types of revisions that had previously occurred. And again, these just accrue over the years as these little issues arise. And they also clarify what is or is not permissible under CEQA. So again, that August 25 staff report identifies the rationale and some of the additional tools that are being proposed. Can I get a follow-up? So on a high level, and just because I think this is just naturally very difficult to understand, can you explain what are the changes that the county is making now? So if you're looking at the We've tried doing this during the Board of Supervisors. I know there's a lot of changes. So again, right now we're trying to clarify some of the appeal procedures and how that works. And so part of that process is, again, trying to give the county a better understanding of what the grounds for appeal are. So if you are filing appeal, why is it that you're actually coming before the Board of Supervisors and actually giving the county the ability to respond? For example, aside from the fact that they're going to be able to come in and work on the five different cases, it's just that you can't just say, this is the 4-3-2 case. The fact that you can't just say, we're going to have to get you to do that. So that's not to say that you can't just say, we're going to have to do that. It's for the state. So that's not to say that you can't just say, The point is, that it's not your control. It's you and the state. And that's not the point. So I think that is the point. And I think that is the point. And I think that is the point. And I think that is the point. And I think that is the point. documents and then decided to file that lawsuit and the court said no you actually need to barely present your issues to the other needs in a way that gives them the ability to respond substantively and submitting 3,000 documents you know a minute before the the board of supervisors or actually in that case the Planning Commission Act did not constitute exhaustion or fairly presenting your issues but again you know there's there's many revisions and updates that have happened over the years and again these these strikeout changes are identified in detail in that August 25th report that does provide |