Planning commission pauses coastal development permit after Coastal Commission letter

The National City Planning Commission on June 2 paused consideration of a proposed coastal development permit after receiving a 21-page letter from the California Coastal Commission that staff described as new information requiring further review.

"We did receive comment today from the California Coastal Commission, which requested a postponement of a decision on the proposed coastal development permit for the project," said David Welch, planner with the City of National City Planning Division. Welch said the Coastal Commission identified "inconsistencies with the city's local coastal program" and raised concerns about wetland resources, sea level rise and environmental justice.

Staff told the commission the agenda item included not only the coastal development permit but also a conditional use permit and certification of an environmental impact report. Because of the Coastal Commission letter, staff recommended a continuance "to a date uncertain, to work with this outside agency to address their concerns," Welch said. Chair Miller announced that, based on the new information, there would be no public hearing that evening and no public comments taken on the item.

Assistant Director of Community Development Martin Reeder said staff would pursue the normal noticing and public outreach process and identified July 21 as the next planning commission meeting staff would "be working towards." "We will be very transparent in the process of the public noticing. It will be on the city website," Reeder said, adding staff would mail notices to properties within 100 feet of the project and notify interested parties.

Commissioner Foreman said she had concerns about timing and prior submissions to the record, noting a separate California Air Resources Board letter and describing the project as "environmentally hazardous" in her remarks; the chair reminded commissioners the item had been removed from the evening's agenda and that substantive discussion would be inappropriate until the item is re-noticed.

Staff also said they had received other comment letters, including an earlier letter from the California Air Resources Board and a letter from the Healthy Futures Coalition; staff did not present final analysis while the Coastal Commission's issues remain unresolved. The deputy city attorney confirmed staff would post the re-noticed agenda and perform required mailings.

The commission adjourned after staff reports; no formal vote on the project occurred. Staff advised the public to review the Coastal Commission letter, which staff said arrived the same day and is part of the public record, and to monitor the city's website for the re-noticed hearing date.

Ending: The planning commission left the item open for further coordination between city staff, the applicant and the California Coastal Commission; staff will return the item for a publicly noticed hearing after those issues are addressed.