Attachment 2
1 Silva, Gabriela
Expansion and Relocation Project and CEQA Exemption
EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you confirm the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Silva,
From the public records we received today in response to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) request we made on August 2, 2024, on behalf of our client Sol y Luna Day Care Center, we note that on March 26, 2020, the Project Review Committee tentatively determined that the above-referenced project would not be exempt from CEQA. Two years later, on May 25, 2023, the Project Review Committee turned around and stated: “Based on information and technical studies provided thus far, the project may qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.” The most recent Project Review Committee Comments we received (titled “Resubmittal Comments”), dated May 20, 2024, repeat: “Based on information and technical studies provided, the project may qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.”
Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) section 17.500.030 provides: “After acceptance of a complete application, the project shall be reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to determine whether the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, or is not a project as defined by CEQA, whether a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration may be issued, or whether an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be required.” (Italics added.)
Thus, the May 25, 2023 Project Review Committee Comments cannot be the basis for the switch from an MND to a CEQA exemption. These comments make quite clear that the application then before the Project Review Committee was incomplete. Among many other things, the air quality study excluded nearby residences in the listing of receptors. Nor can the May 20, 2024 Resubmittal Comments be the basis for the CEQA exemption. At that time, as the Committee determined, the application was still incomplete for many reasons, including those stated in the May 20, 2024 Resubmittal Comments.
In our CPRA request we sought “[a]ll emails and other writings authored by any City official or employee regarding any review and any determination(s) made under Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) section 17.500.030, for Conditional Use Permit Modification P2021-0135, to allow demolition of existing fueling station and two commercial structures; and the construction of a new expanded and relocated fueling station and associated project design features and site improvements at 13431-13463 Washington Blvd. (Project).”
The only records we received concerning CCMC section 17.500.030 are the March 26, 2020, May 25, 2023, and May 20,2024 Project Review Committee documents. Thus, there appears to be no Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Frank Angel
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 2:05 PM
To: Silva, Gabriela; Clerk, City
Cc: Cooper Kass; Lake McManus
Subject: Appeal of 07-24-2024 Planning Commission decision approving Costco Gas Station 2 record of any Project Review Committee meeting after May 20, 2024 or any other staff writing, memorializing or reflecting the CCMC section 17.500.030-mandated review and determination regarding whether the project at issue should be exempted from the requirements of CEQA, or whether a MND or EIR should be required.
This violation of CCMC section 17.500.030 presents further grounds for reversal of the Planning Commission decision, as the commission acted based on an approval recommendation that had not been vetted as mandated by section 17.500.030. Compliance with 17.500.030 is especially important when, as in this case, an applicant insists to have their project exempted from CEQA under Categorical Exemption 32, as that exemption is limited to projects that “would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality”; and that have a site that “can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.”
We much appreciate your kind assistance in this matter, including your assistance with the City Clerk’s response to our CPRA request. We may in the future request the communications you and other staff members received from the applicant’s representatives, including Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac LLP. Therefore, please make sure that all such communications are preserved.
Regards,
__________________________________________________________ Angel Law
angellaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
-- Attach a non-image file and/or reply ABOVE THIS LINE with a message, and it will be sent to staff on this request. --
Culver City Public Records
Frank P. Angel | O (310) 314-6433
2601 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 205, Santa Monica, CA 90405 From: Culver City Records Portal <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Frank Angel
Subject: [Document Released to Requester] Culver City public records request #24-516