CC_Agenda_03-19-2025_Item_11 — Calexico City Council, March 19, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

was presented to the Planning Commission as part of their review of the project. However, for the Planning Commission to have made an informed decision on the project based on complete and accurate information, a circulated draft Negative Declaration with public and agency comments would have needed to be presented to the Planning Commission before it took action on the project. At this Planning Commission hearing numerous issues on the project were raised by the Commissioners and through public testimony, particularly its incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, traffic conflicts with an adjoining Headstart daycare facility, and it setting precedent of introducing high density residential development into a low density residential neighborhood. Due to these unresolved issues, the Planning Commission voted to table the item.

The draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration was subsequently made available for a 30-day public review period from May 2, 2024 to June 3, 2024. As part of this review and due to the project’s location within Safety Zone C of the Calexico International Airport, the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division informed the City of its statutory obligation to submit the proposal to the Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a consistency determination with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. An application for a determination of consistency was subsequently made with the ALUC and a public hearing on the project was held on November 20, 2024, where the ALUC determined that the project was incompatible with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Discussion and Analysis: The proposed project consists eight units within a 7,656-square-foot, twostory apartment building. The proposed building would be placed in the rear yard area of the lot. The front yard area of the lot would be paved with 17 parking spaces and would be flanked by two retention basins within the side yard areas. Vehicular access would be provided by a new 25-foot drive approach along Heber Avenue. Two dumpsters that would serve the apartment building would placed near the driveway entrance to the site, along Heber Avenue. Landscape plans were not submitted for the project.

The proposed project is located within the R1 zone which is intended as an area for single-family residential development on minimum lot sizes of six thousand square feet. Therefore, multi-family developments are not permitted within R1 zones thus necessitating a zone change. Similarly, the LDR land use designation of the General Plan restricts multifamily developments thus requiring a general plan amendment. Following is a summary of project characteristics:

CURRENT SITE INFORMATION
• Address: 947 Heber Avenue
• APN: 058-271-006
• Site Size: 19,474 sq. ft./0.447 acres
• Zone: R1 – Residential Single Family
• Land Use Designation: LDR – Low Density Residential
• Existing Use: Vacant/Undeveloped

SURROUNDING ZONING
• North: R1 – Residential Single Family (Developed/ Single-Family Home) • East: R1 – Residential Single Family (Developed/ Single-Family Home) • South: Open Space (Developed/Pre-School)
• West: Open Space (Developed/Elementary School)
The project site is located within a low-density residential neighborhood consisting of well-maintained homes with significant landscape coverage on estate lots ranging from a ¼ acre to ½ acre, with densities ranging from 2 to 4 units per acre. The proposed eight-unit multifamily development would result in a density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The entire neighborhood and immediate vicinity are within the R1 Zone, with an adjoining school site (Rockwood Elementary School) within the Open Space Zone. The requested Zone Change would result in a spot zone, which is the application of zoning to a specific

Page 3 of 4 ends

parcel or parcels of land within a larger area in one zone, where the spot zone benefits a particular property owner to the detriment of the wider area or neighborhood under the same zone. While not illegal, spot zoning is a discouraged planning practice and must have a compelling public interest (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange).

In accordance with Objective 1 of the General Plan Land Use Element, “the land use distribution should be such that the integrity of the existing land use is maintained and/or enhanced.” As the proposal is a spot zone, without a comprehensive rezone of the entire neighborhood, it neither preserves the integrity of the existing land use nor enhances the existing land use. In accordance with Policy 1.a. of the General Plan Land Use Element, “[a]ppropriate densities shall be established for new development projects so that they will be compatible with the existing surrounding development and future expected development.” The proposed project’s density of 18 dwelling units per acre would not be compatible with existing surrounding development with a present density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. As the entire surrounding neighborhood would remain in the R1 zone, the proposed development would also not be compatible with future expected development for the area.

In accordance with Policy 8.a. of the General Plan Land Use Element, “[m]ultiple-family residential land uses shall be located in areas where compatible with existing land uses and in close proximity to circulation, transit availability, commercial areas, and provision of public services.” The proposed project would not fully meet this policy as it is clearly incompatible with the existing low density land uses within the immediate vicinity of the site and is not proximate to transit or commercial areas. The proposed density of the project (18 dwelling units per acre) would be significantly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of building scale, landscape coverage, and vehicle trip generation.

While a typical single-family home generates approximately 10 vehicle trips per day, the proposed development would generate approximately 64 vehicle trips per day (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition).

In accordance with Policies 8.b. and 8.c of the General Plan multiple-family projects should provide “sufficient open space to balance the developed areas of the site” and provide “recreational uses and activities such as playgrounds, picnic areas and pools.” The proposal includes minimal landscaping and no recreational amenities for future tenants and, as such, does not meet these criteria.

Although the project would result in additional housing, the project would not further the City’s goals of meeting its low-income housing needs in accordance with its assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as all units are proposed as market-rate rentals. Furthermore, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2, the subject site cannot be counted towards the City’s low-income housing capacity requirement as it is less than ½-acre in size.

Furthermore, at a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2024, the Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission determined the project to be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Attachment No. 7). As the project site is in Safety Zone C of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, residential densities within this zone should not exceed 6 residential units per acre. As the proposal would result in 18 dwelling units per acre, it would be inconsistent with this plan. While the City Council has the ultimate land use authority and can overrule the Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission, such overrules are normally reserved for projects of greater significance that serve the wider public interest and provide an overriding public benefit. In accordance with State law, any overrule of an Airport Land Use Commission determination must be adopted by a 2/3rds majority of the City Council. In addition, California Government Code Section 65358 limits the amendment of mandatory general plan elements to a maximum of four times per calendar year, which further highlights the significance of general plan amendments and how they should be reserved for projects that serve the broader public interest.

Page 4 of 4 ends

The requested action is exempt from the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The public hearing notice for the project was published in the Calexico Chronicle on March 5, 2025, mailed to 32 property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on March 5, 2025, and posted at City Hall.

Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal impacts to the City are anticipated with this Resolution.

Attachment(s):

1. Project Location Map

2. Project Plans

3. Existing Zoning Map

4. May 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report w/Maps & Plans

5. April 22, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report w/Maps & Plans

6. Public Comments on Initial Study/Negative Declaration

7. November 20, 2024 Airport Land Use Commission Staff Report

8. Draft Resolution for Denial of Application
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
(760)337-3883
DATE : 5/1/2024 NOT TO SCALE
Zone Change/General Plan Amendment
LEGEND:

Project Location Map
947 Heber Avenue

PROJECT AREA
608 Heber Avenue, Calexico, CA 92231 (760) 768-2105
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Project Plans

ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Existing Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

ATTACHMENT NO. 5

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 22, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
APPROVED BY: Esperanza Colio Warren, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Francisco Barba, Planning & Building Services Director SUBJECT: Zone Change from R1 (Residential Single Family) to RA (Residential Apartment), General Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential), and Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration for a Proposed 8-Unit Apartment Project at 947 Heber Avenue APN 058-271-006
=====================================================================

INTRODUCTION
On March 3, 2024, the City of Calexico Development Services Department received a complete uniform application for a zone change from R1 (Residential Single Family) to RA (Residential Apartment) to facilitate a proposed eight-unit apartment project at 947 Heber Avenue (APN 058- 271-006). Given that Section 1.6 of the City of Calexico General Plan requires that both the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan maintain consistency, a General Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential) is also required. Furthermore, the zone change is subject to review by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the form of an Initial Study and Negative Declaration.

The subject property previously contained a single-family home which was lost in a fire and then demolished in 2023 by the Applicant. Upon receiving the application, the prior planning consultant mistakenly presented the item to the Planning Commission for review and approval on May 30, 2023. Unfortunately, the consultant did not initiate the environmental review process mandated by the State under CEQA and did not provide said documents to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Given that the State mandated procedures were not followed, and the Planning Commission was not provided the full information on the project for review and consideration, the prior approval given by the Planning Commission is invalid. After numerous discissions on the project, the Applicants contracted an outside consultant to prepare a draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) as mandated by CEQA and submitted said study to the Development Services Department for processing.

The purpose of this item is to present the zone change and general plan amendment application along with the draft IS/ND to the Planning Commission where upon reviewing all relevant findings AGENDA
ITEM
___________ 2
for and against the application, they will vote to recommend approval, conditional approval, or denial to the City Council and make a motion for staff to submit the draft IS/ND to the State Clearinghouse and initiate the 30-day review period mandated by the State.

CURRENT SITE INFORMATION
• Address: 947 Heber Avenue
• Site Size: 19,474 sq. ft./0.447 acres
• Zoning Designation: R1 – Residential Single Family
• Land Use: LDR – Low Density Residential
• Existing Use: Vacant/Undeveloped

DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
The proposed project is located within an R1 zone which is intended as an area for single-family residential development on minimum lot sizes of six thousand square feet. Therefore, multifamily developments are not permitted within R1 zones thus necessitating a zone change.

Similarly, LDR zones also restrict multi-family developments thus requiring a general plan amendment.

The zone change and general plan amendment is being presented to the Planning Commission as required by Article III under Chapter 17.01 of the Municipal Code. Per said code, the Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review all pertinent information and comments for and against said application prior to making a ruling. Said Planning Commission ruling, whether for or against, will then be presented to the City Council for consideration.

Proposed Zoning. While the submitted application proposes a zone change from R1 to RA and general plan amendment from LDR to HDR. the Planning Commission should instead consider changing the proposed rezoning from RA to RC (Residential Condominium) and land use from HDR to MDR (Medium Density Residential) as it provides a density of 12-20 units per acre instead of the proposed 20-30 units per acre. The density provided by the RC zoning designation is sufficient for the proposed 8-unit apartment development while also ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses as well as further the Goals and Policies of the General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL
CEQA is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. A public agency must comply with CEQA when a project “receives some discretionary approval from a government agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.” Compliance can be met by determining whether a project is exempt from CEQA or preparing an environmental analysis, typically a negative declaration (ND), mitigated negative declaration (MND) or environmental impact report (EIR).

The subject zone change and general plan amendment does not meet any of the requirements for either a statutory nor categorical exemption listed in the California Code of Regulations regarding CEQA. Therefore, a draft IS/ND was prepared for the project and submitted to the Development Services Department for processing.

Upon receiving the draft IS/ND the Development Services conducted a review and determined the following:
• Environmental Factors Potentially Affected. Part of the environmental review is to analyze 21 different environmental factors and determine whether the proposed project will have no impact, less than significant impact, less than significant impact with mitigation, or potentially significant impact. Of the 21 environmental factors analyzed in the study, only one was identified as having a less than significant impact while the remaining were identified as having no impact. Said environmental factor is as follows:

Land Use Planning
Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant impact, the project will need a zone change and general plan amendment to comply with local regulations and ordinances. The proposed project is within the residential use therefore its less than significant impact.

Based on the findings indicated on the draft IS/ND and given that the subject property is located within an urbanized residential area, the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and an ND is required.

CEQA Process. Should the Planning Commission motion to direct staff to proceed with the CEQA certification process, the draft IS/ND will be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review and made available to the public for a period of 30 days. Upon receiving and addressing any comments, the item will be presented to the City Council where they will vote to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed zone change, general plan amendment, and final IS/ND.

PUBLIC HEARING
A Public Hearing Notice for the proposed CUP was sent to the newspaper and posted on April 11, 2024, subsequently posted at City Hall, and sent to properties within a 500-foot radius.

PENDING ACTION
Recommendation. Adopt Resolution 24-__ recommending approval of zone change from R1 to RC and general plan amendment from LDR to MDR at 947 Heber Avenue (APN 058-271-006) and instructing staff to initiate the 30-day review period for the draft IS/ND as mandated by CEQA.

Or
Adopt Resolution 24-__ recommending approval of proposed zone change from R1 to RA and general plan amendment from LDR to HDR at 947 Heber Avenue (APN 058-271-006) and instructing staff to initiate the 30-day review period for the draft IS/ND as mandated by CEQA.

Attachments: Attachment A – Project Location Map
Attachment B – Project Plans
Attachment C – Draft IS/ND
Attachment D – Posted Public Hearing Notice
Attachment E – PC Resolution

(760)337-3883
DATE : 5/1/2024 NOT TO SCALE
Zone Change/General Plan Amendment
LEGEND:

Project Location Map
947 Heber Avenue
Exhibit B

PROJECT AREA
608 Heber Avenue, Calexico, CA 92231 (760) 768-2105
>=--
:.: .... : ~ _g~~:~~:i~~~:~:~l1
• =~=~~~:~:,~:~~:~:i ~: .. ·
_ _-_r
~: _-_ ----:=::~==========~=~==========~===~====~=================-=- -_- ~:,;;:=~=,>:=:=:=:=:9'15':= ~~~=c;;=c~
FOR RE\.1EW ONLY
. ' --"---'
rT7
rr1
D
flOOR PLAN & roR REVIEW ONLY

EAST ELEVATION
2024
Initial Study

PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JIMENEZ MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX

ZONE CHANGE & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Prepared By: Dubose Design Group
1065 West State Street
El Centro, CA -92243
March 2024
1 | P a g e
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2 Project Overview ........................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 7 Proposed Floor Plan ...................................................................................................... 8 Initial Study Checklist .................................................................................................... 9 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................................... 10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................ 12 I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 14 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ....................................................................... 16 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 18 IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 20 V. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 22 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................. 23 VII. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 24 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 26 IX Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 27 X Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 29 XI. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................... 31 XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 32 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................... 33 XIV. Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 34 XV. Public Services ...................................................................................................... 35 XVI. Recreation ........................................................................................................... 36 XVII. Transportation ..................................................................................................... 37 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 39 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................. 41 XX. Wildfire ................................................................................................................. 43 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................ 45 2 | P a g e
Introduction
On March 03, 2023, property owners Gerardo and Lupe Jimenez (“Applicant”) applied for a Zone Change (ZC)and a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The Applicant is requesting to change the current zone from R-1 (Residential Single Family) to RA (Residential Apartment) for APN: 058-271-006 located at 947 Heber Ave, Calexico, CA 92231. A regional map can be shown in Exhibit A and Aerial View of the Project Site can be shown in Exhibit B. The requested ZC/GPA is being requested to allow for the infill project which would replace a degraded home (See Exhibit C) with new multifamily residential housing stock in the area.

The proposed multifamily would create up to eight units of two bedroom and two-bathroom units.

Existing Site Factors
 Address: 947 Heber Ave, Calexico, CA 92231
 Site Size: 19,474 sf/ 0.447 AC
 Current General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)  Current Zoning: R-1 (Residential Single Family)
 Use: Single Family Residence – VACANT.
 Density 1.1-5.0 DU/AC
Surrounding Uses
North
Single Family Residence
South
Head Start Program – Recreation Softball Field
East
Single Family Residence
West
Rockwood Elementary
3 | P a g e
Vicinity Map (Exhibit A)
4 | P a g e
Project Site (Exhibit B)
5 | P a g e
Current Zoning Map
6 | P a g e
Project Overview
The applicant is requesting the zone change and General Plan Amendment to construct condominium style apartment complex. The applicant under the re-zone of RA will be able to bring the project into fruition by constructing a maximum of eight two bedroom/ twobathroom units at approximately 957 SQFT per unit.

The Proposed Property Specification Include:
 Residential Condominium Style Apartment Building (7,656 SQFT)  8 Two Bedroom/ Two Bathroom Units (957 SQFT/Unit)
 17 Parking Spaces for Residence
 15’ Foot Setbacks from Property Line
 Retention Wall Fencing for Privacy and noise reduction to neighbors  2 units with ADA accessibility features
 Luxury Architectural Design Compatible with neighborhood  Amenities such as washer and dryers
 Landscaping and irrigation
Proposed Project Elevation
7 | P a g e
Proposed Site Plan
8 | P a g e
Proposed Floor Plan
9 | P a g e
Initial Study Checklist
The following discussion of potential environmental eƯects was completed in accordance with Section 15063(d)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (2019) to determine if the proposed project may have a significant eƯect on the environment.

1. Project Name: Jimenez Multi-Family Apartment Complex

2. Lead Agency : City of Calexico
608 Heber Ave
Calexico CA-92231

3. Contact Person: Annette Leon, Authorized Agent, Dubose Design Group

4. Project Location: 947 Heber Ave
Calexico CA, 92231

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: Gerardo & Lupe Jimenez 2860 Lyrron Creek Ct
Chula Vista, CA- 91915

6. General Plan Designation : Low Density Residential

7. Zoning : R-1

8. Description of Project: The applicant is seeking a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. The applicant is seeking to slightly increase the density and is requesting a Zone Change from R-1 to RA and GPA to accommodate a multifamily apartment complex on a otherwise vacant lot within the City of Calexico.

9. Surrounding Land Uses: To the North, Single Family Residence to the South, Head Start Program – Recreation Softball Field East of the project site is, Single Family Residence and to the west is Rockwood Elementary.

10. Other Public Agencies whose approval is required: The proposed project is subject to all local agencies required new construction including but not limited to the City of Calexico, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, as well as Imperial Irrigation District. Etc.

11. Have California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally aƯiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.3.1? If so has consultation begun? A letter will be issued via the City of Calexico Planning Director, Francisco Barba.
10 | P a g e

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including oƯ-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an eƯect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an eƯect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the eƯect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an eƯect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which eƯects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such eƯects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For eƯects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were 13 | P a g e
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use diƯerent formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental eƯects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
14 | P a g e
I. Aesthetics
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse eƯect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The proposed project is located within a developed urban area surrounded by single family and multi-family residences. No scenic vistas exist within the project site area or within the vicinity that could be adversely aƯected by the project, No impacts would occur.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The project is not within an area which could potentially damage scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcropping and historic building within a state scenic highway.
c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 15 | P a g e
No Impact: The project would not degrade existing visual character or quality of public views of the site or its surroundings. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely aƯect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact, The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would aƯect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
16 | P a g e
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact: The project is currently in an already disturbed urban area and therefore this does not apply.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact: The project is currently in an already disturbed urban area and therefore this does not apply.
17 | P a g e
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact: The proposed project does not conflict with existing zoning nor conflicts with timberland zoned areas. No impact
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No loss of forest land will result. No Impact. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No loss of conversion of forest land will result. No Impact 18 | P a g e
III. Air Quality

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact the proposed project is located within a developed urban area although the density will increase slightly the proposed project is already in an area which is disturbed.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to current safety guidelines
19 | P a g e
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely aƯecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to current safety guidelines
20 | P a g e
IV. Biological Resources
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse eƯect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
21 | P a g e
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse eƯect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse eƯect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
22 | P a g e
V. Cultural Resources
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. Project site has historically been a residential area. 23 | P a g e
VI. Energy
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, ineƯicient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area. The project will not result in any wasteful or ineƯicient consumption of energy. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy eƯiciency?
No Impact, the project will not conflict or obstruct local plans for renewable energy. 24 | P a g e
VII. Geology and Soils
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse eƯects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact ( applies for i thru iv below) i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
25 | P a g e
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?-
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onor oƯ-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to current safety guidelines
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to current safety guidelines
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
26 | P a g e
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant impact: Slight increase in density will have a less than significant impact to greenhouse gasses. the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
27 | P a g e
IX Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment. 28 | P a g e
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment. d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment, the project is not near a public airport .
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment.

The project will not interfere with any emergency response plan. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not create hazards to the public or environment.

The project does not expose anyone directly or indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
29 | P a g e
X Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. During construction the developer must adhere to State and local water and stormwater guidelines and laws.
b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
30 | P a g e
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. The project does not receive water from groundwater therefore No Impact.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or oƯ-site? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoƯ in a manner which would result in flooding on- or oƯ-site?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
iii. create or contribute runoƯ water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoƯ?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not interfere with any groundwater management plans.
31 | P a g e
XI. Land Use and Planning
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental eƯect?
Less than significant impact, the project will need a Zone change and general plan amendment to comply with local regulations and ordinances. The proposed project is within the residential use therefore its less than significant impact. 32 | P a g e
XII. Mineral Resources
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact .
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
33 | P a g e
XIII. Noise
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to local guidelines. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to local guidelines. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project developers must adhere to local guidelines the project is not near any private airstrip or airport land use plan. 34 | P a g e
XIV. Population and Housing
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact The project will not displace existing people or housing.
35 | P a g e
XV. Public Services
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
o Fire Protection- No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact o Police Protection No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact o Schools No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
o Parks No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
o Other Public Facilities No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact 36 | P a g e
XVI. Recreation
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical eƯect on the environment?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
37 | P a g e
XVII. Transportation
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? 38 | P a g e
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact, the project would not cause inadequate emergency access.
39 | P a g e
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Project is on disturbed land, A letter will be issued to local tribes.

40 | P a g e
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? (In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.)
Project is on disturbed land, A letter will be issued to local tribes. 41 | P a g e
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental eƯects?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Would the project have suƯicient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
42 | P a g e
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
43 | P a g e
XX. Wildfire
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
44 | P a g e
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoƯ, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact drainage patterns will not change. 45 | P a g e
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental eƯects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the eƯects of past projects, the eƯects of other current projects, and the eƯects of probable future projects)?
46 | P a g e
c. No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land. No Impact
d. Does the project have environmental eƯects which will cause substantial adverse eƯects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact, the proposed project is located within a developed urban area and is already disturbed land.

Attachment D - Posted Public Hearing Notice

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF CALEXICO
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Calexico will hold a Public Hearing on Monday,April 22, 2024, at 6:30 PM (or as soon thereafter as the agenda permits), in the Fernando "Nene" Torres Council Chambers, 608 Heber Avenue, Calexico, CA 92231, to consider approval of the following project(s):

PROJECT TITLE: UNIFORM APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM

RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RI) TO RESIDENTIAL
APARThlENT (RA), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDEN'TIAL,AND
INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION DRAFT FOR 947
lIEBERAVENUE (A~N 058-271-006)
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: the City of Calexico Planning Division of the Development Services Department received a UnlfonnApplication (UA) requesting a zone change and general j,Jan amendment to facilitate an eight (8) unit aparlment project at 947 Heber Avenue. A draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared for the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this item is to present the proposed zone change, general plan amendment, and draft CEQA study to the Plannlng Commission for their review and approval, conditional approval, or denial.

PROJECT TITLE; UA2024-03 CONDmONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORAN

ALCOHOL LICENSE FORA PROPOSED RESTAURANT LOCATED
AT 1101 PAULIN AVENUE (APN 058-155-006)
DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: the City of Calexico Planning Division of the Development Services Department received a Unifonn Application. (UA) requesting a Conditional Use Peanit (CUP) for an alcohol license ata proposed restaurant located at 1101 Paulin Avenue (APN 058-155-006). The subject location is located within a Commercial Highway (CH) zone which conditionally allows restaurants with alc;o.. hotic beverages via a CUP. The purpose of this item is to present the CUP to the Planlllllg Commission for their review and approval, conditional approval, or denial.

ALLJNTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend this hearing. Members of the public can make comments in the following ways:
a) In person
b) Via email by 5:00 p.m. on Monday April 22, 2024;to [email protected].

FURrHER INFORMATION on this item may bo obtained by contacting the City of Calexico Development Services Department, 608 Heber Avenue, Calexico, California 92231 (760) 768-2105 or by sending an email request to p)[email protected],gov.

Legal 6181 Publish: April 11, 2024-
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-_

A RESOLUTON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CJTY OF CALEXICO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM Rt (RESIDENTIAL

SINGLE FAMILY) TO RC (RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT :FROM LOR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO MDR (MEDIUM

DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE A 30 DAY REVIEW PERIOD AND SUBMIT THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE FOR 947 HEBER AVENUE (APN 058-271-006)
WHEREAS, On March 3, 2023. Gerardo and Lupe Jimenez (Applicants) submitted a uniform application for a zone change from Residential Single Family (RI) to Residential Apartment (RA) to facil itate a proposed eight-unit apartment project at 94 7 Heber Avenue (APN 058-271-006); and WHEREAS, Section 1.6 of the City of Calexico General Plan requires that both the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan maintain consistency thus necessitating a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LOR) to High Density Residential (HDR); and WHEREAS, a zone change to RC (Residential Condominium) instead of RA and general plan amendment to Medium Density Residentia l (MOR) instead of HOR is preferential as it is found to be more compatible with the surrounding uses and furthe rs the goals and pol icies of the City of Calexico General Plan: and
WHEREAS, the proposed zone change and general plan amendment is subject to 1·eview by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, a draft Initial Study (IS)/Negative Declaration (ND) for the project was prepared and submitted to the Development Services Department for review on March 14, 2024; and WHEREAS, Article llI under Chapter 17.01 of the Municipal Code grants the Planning Commission the authority to review all zone change and general plan amendment applications prior to making a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was sent to a local newspaper and posted on April 11, 2024, and physical copies of the notice were posted at City Hall and subsequently sent to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission meeting was held on April 22, 2024, by the City of Calexico Planning Commission and upon hearing and considering all findings for and against, and analyzing the information submitted by staff and considering any written comments received regarding the proposed project, the Planning Commission took action.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Calexico as fo llows:
a) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct; and b) That the proposed zone change, and general plan amendment are subject to review by CEQA and staff is directed to submit the draft lS/ND to the State Clearinghouse and begin the 30-day review period; and
c) The proposed zone change will not be a) detrimental to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed amendment or within the City, orb) injurious to the property or improvements in the neighborhood or within the City.
d) The proposed action will be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan and the development standards established with the Calexico Municipal Code (CMC).
e) That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed zone change from Rl to RC and general plan amendment from LDR to MOR for 947 Heber Avenue (APN 058-271-006) to the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Calexico at a regularly scheduled meeting held on this 22nd day of April 22, 2024, by the following roll call vo!e:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
--...:JcfsffHinojosa, Chainnan
ATTEST:

Eva Lopez, Administrative Assistant
--·~, _- .·-' ·~;-:_-:- - =---.

ATTACHMENT NO. 6

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

AERONAUTICS PROGRAM

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
P.O. BOX 942873, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94273–0001
(916) 654-4959
www.dot.ca.gov
May 30, 2024
Mr. Francisco Barba Electronically Sent <[email protected]> Planning and Building Services Director
City of Calexico
608 Heber Avenue
Calexico, CA 92231
Re: 2024050109, Jimenez Multi-Family Apartment Complex Zone Change and General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Barba:

The California Department of Transportation, Caltrans Aeronautics has reviewed the Negative Declaration for the Jimenez Multi-Family Apartment Complex Zone Change and General Plan Amendment. One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program, is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) or their equivalent, to understand and comply with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including the Aeronautics Program in the review of the Negative Declaration.

The Project site of 947 Heber Ave, Calexico, CA 92231 is within two miles of the Calexico International Airport. The proposed Project site is in Safety Zone C, Common Traffic Pattern, of the Calexico International Airport and therefore must adhere to the safety criteria and restrictions defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) adopted by the Imperial County ALUC pursuant to the PUC, Section 21674.

The City of Calexico should consider Safety Zone C Compatibility polices stipulated in the ALUCP.

Per the California Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seq. relating to the State Aeronautics Act, Section 21676(b) prior to the amendment of a general plan…within the planning boundary established by the airport land use commission pursuant to Section 21675, the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the commission.

If the commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the commission's plan, the referring agency shall be notified. Any proposed development in the defined safety zones, therefore, must adhere to the safety criteria and Mr. Francisco Barba, Planning and Building Services Director May 30, 2024

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” restrictions defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(s) adopted by the ALUC pursuant to the PUC, Section 21674.

The Project may also be subject to requirements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), specified in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 (14 CFR Part 77). Proponents of a project that may exceed a Part 77 surface must notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as required by FAR Part 77, Subpart B, and the California State Public Utilities Code Sections 21658 and 21659. Notification to the FAA under FAR Part 77, Subpart B, is required even for certain proposed constructions that do not exceed the height limits allowed by Subpart C of the regulations.

Should any of the proposed structures exceed 200 feet AGL (above ground level) in height, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) will be required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77.9 “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.” To ensure compliance notices should be submitted to the FAA’s Obstacle Evaluation Group (OEG) online at the following site: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp. Further airspace protection policies are also stipulated in the ALUCP.

Compatibility concerns regarding noise, airport obstructions and hazards to flight (such as wildlife attractants, lighting, or glare i.e., solar, etc.) should also be considered for review.

An ALUCP is crucial in minimizing noise nuisance and safety hazards around airports while promoting the orderly development in the vicinity of airports, as declared by the California Legislature. A responsibility of the ALUC is to assess potential risk to aircraft and persons in airspace and people occupying areas within the vicinity of the airport.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Tiffany A. Martinez
Transportation Planner
Aeronautics Program
Cc: State Clearinghouse <[email protected]>

ATTACHMENT NO. 7

Introduction I Chapter 1
land use compatibility planning, and to eliminate ambiguities contained in the previous Airporl Land Use Plan policies.

The Commission adopted this Airporl Land Use Compatibility Plan on June' 5, 1991, and is preparing this revision.

RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND PLANS
The fundamental relationships between the Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission and local jurisdictions, as well as between the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and local land use plans, is set by state law. Although the Commission functions under the general auspices of Imperial County government, it is not controlled by the county. In this regard, the Airport Land Use Commission is more equivalent to the Imperial County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) than to the County Planning Commission. Within the bounds provided by state law, the decisions of the Commission, including the adoption of this plan are final. Other than through its larger representation on the Commission, the county does not have any greater legal authority over the Commission than do the individual cities in the county.

The major power which the. local governments hold over the Airport Land Use Commission is the ability to override certain of the Commission's decisions. If the Commission rules . that a local plan or land use action is inconsistent with the Commission's plan, state law allows the local agency to overrule the Commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body. Before doing so, the local agency must hold a public hearing on the matter and must make specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of the state law. However, if a public agency overrides an Airport Land Use Commission decision regarding an airport not operated by that agency, state law (Section 21678) provides that the airport operator " ... shall be immune from lfability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency's decision to override the commission's action or recommendation."

USING THIS DOCUMENT
This Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan document is divided into three parts:

Part I - Policies;
Part II - Supporting Information; and
Part Ill -Appendices.
1 -3
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESOLUTION NO.
1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALEXICO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING UNIFORM APPLICATION NO. 2023-03 FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) TO RA (RESIDENTIAL

APARTMENT) AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO HDR (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AT 947 HEBER AVENUE WHEREAS, on March 3, 2023, Gerardo and Lupe Jimenez (Applicants) submitted Uniform Application No. 2023-03 for a zone change from Residential Single Family (R1) to Residential Apartment (RA) to facilitate a proposed eight-unit apartment project at 947 Heber Avenue (APN 058-271-006); and
WHEREAS, Section 1.6 of the City of Calexico General Plan requires that both the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan maintain consistency thus necessitating a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR); and
WHEREAS, the subject property previously contained a single-family home which was lost in a fire and then demolished in 2023; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within a low-density residential neighborhood consisting of well-maintained homes with significant landscape coverage on estate lots ranging from a ¼ acre to ½ acre with densities ranging from 2 to 4 units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the proposed eight-unit multifamily development would result in a density of 18 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission meeting was held on April 22, 2024, and upon hearing and considering all findings for and against, and analyzing the information submitted by staff and considering any written comments received regarding the proposed project, the Planning Commission tabled the project to a future Planning Commission date; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2024, the Imperial County Airport Land Use Commission determined the project to be inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 1241, enacted on February 4, 2025 and effective March 5, 2025, the City Council assumes the role and duties of the Planning Commission; and
RESOLUTION NO.
2 WHEREAS, a public hearing notice for the project was published in the Calexico Chronicle on March 5, 2025, mailed to 32 property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on March 5, 2025, and posted at City Hall; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Uniform Application No. 2023-03; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered all recommendations by staff and public testimony.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Calexico, California, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, finds as follows:

SECTION 1: This action denying Uniform Application No. 2023-03 is exempt from the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

SECTION 2: The project would be inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan as follows:

In accordance with Objective 1 of the General Plan Land Use Element, “the land use distribution should be such that the integrity of the existing land use is maintained and/or enhanced.” As the proposal is a spot zone, without a comprehensive rezone of the entire neighborhood it neither preserves the integrity of the existing land use nor enhances the existing land use. In accordance with Policy 1.a. of the General Plan Land Use Element, “[a]ppropriate densities shall be established for new development projects so that they will be compatible with the existing surrounding development and future expected development.” The proposed project’s density of 18 dwelling units per acre would not be compatible with existing surrounding development with a present density range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. As the entire surrounding neighborhood would remain in the R1 zone, the proposed development would also not be compatible with future expected development for the area.

Furthermore, the proposed use would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity for the reasons stated above. The General Plan is designed to protect the public health, safety, or welfare of the public, and the project would over-intensify a single site within an established neighborhood primarily consisting of low-density single-family homes.

SECTION 3: Uniform Application No. 2023-03 for a Zone Change from R1 (Residential Single Family) to RA (Residential Apartment) and a General Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential) at 947 Heber Avenue is hereby denied.

SECTION 4: This resolution sets forth the City Council's findings in support of its denial of Uniform Application No. 2023-03.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Calexico, California on the 19th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

Diana Nuricumbo, Mayor
ATTEST:

Veronica L. Alvarado, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Carlos Campos, City Attorney

RESOLUTION NO.
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL ) ss

CITY OF CALEXICO )
I, Veronica L. Alvardo, City Clerk of the City of Calexico, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Calexico held on the 19th day of March, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Veronica L. Alvarado
City Clerk

Calexico City CouncilMarch 19, 2025

Calexico City Council
March 19, 2025