03/15/2023 Special Planning Commission Meeting

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2023 @ 6:00 PM VIDEO CONFERENCE/IN PERSON 21000 HACIENDA BLVD., CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93505 If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the planning department at (760) 373-7141 or via email at planning@californiacity-ca.gov. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 American Disabilities Act Title II). Zoom 1. Public may join Planning Commission Meeting live via Zoom: • Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81260767794 • Meeting ID: 812 6076 7794 2. Public can dial into the Zoom line: • One tap mobile: +16694449171, 86119522302# US • Dial the following number and enter the meeting ID: + 1 669 444 9171 US Granicus 1. Agenda can be viewed via Granicus: https://californiacity.granicus.com/viewpublisher?view_id=1 2. Public may eComment on agenda items via Granicus City Website 1. Agenda can be viewed on city website 2. Recording of this meeting can be viewed on the city website LATE COMMUNICATIONS: Following the posting of the agenda any emails, writings, or documents that the public would like to submit to the Commission must be received by the Recording Secretary no later than 3:00 p.m. the day prior of the scheduled meeting. Public is urged to listen to the meeting in a quiet place, to avoid background noise. We also request public to MUTE your audio device when not commenting to avoid disruption during meeting. **At this time, please take a moment to turn off your cell phones**

CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL Commissioner Cantrell Commissioner McKinley Commissioner Welling Vice Chair Conry Chair Dunham ADOPT AGENDA Adopt Agenda: March 15, 2023 PLANNING SECRETARY REPORTS/LATE COMMUNICATIONS None DISCLOSURE OF SITE VISITS AND EX-PARTE CONTACTS Disclosure by Commissioners of site visits and ex-parte contact for items on the agenda. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR This portion of the meeting is reserved for the public to address the Planning Commission on any matter not on the agenda and over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction. Comments are to be limited to three (3) minutes. The Planning Commission will receive the comments but cannot engage in back-and-forth discussion with the public or make any decision. The Planning Commission may direct staff to bring the item back to a future agenda for discussion. CONSENT CALENDAR CC 1: Approve meeting minutes 02/21/2023 PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing Procedure A. Chair reads the item B. Chair declares the Continued Public Hearing open C. Hear staff report D. Commission questions to staff only E. Applicant’s presentation F. Commission questions to applicant only G. Ask secretary to report on any communication(s) H. Chair calls for public testimony I. Chair declares Public Hearing close J. Commission discussion K. Chair calls for a motion and second L. Secretary to take roll call vote PH 1: Proposal for General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-04) and adoption of Zoning Amendment (ZC 22-04) for the property located at 10856 Hanover Drive (APN 210-263-14) to amend the General Plan designation from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Light Industrial and Research” and to rezone the property from “Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)” to “Light Industrial (M-1)” to accommodate the existing Padron Metal Finishing Company use.

Recommendation Adopt Resolution 03-23-01, thereby denying the request for General Plan amendment and rezone for 10856 Hanover Drive. PH 2: A request to amend previously approved Tentative Parcel Map 12417 (TPM 12417) to remove a requirement for a public access easement on the eastern boundary of the property. The 19.78-acre property is located approximately 0.12 mile north of Lindbergh Blvd. and east of Yerba Blvd. Recommendation Adopt Resolution 03-23-02, thereby denying the request to rescind condition of approval 12.e as applied to TPM No. 12417. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS This portion of the meeting is reserved for Planning Commissioners to present information, announcements and items that have come to their attention. Short staff responses may be appropriate. The Planning Commission will take no formal action. A Planning Commissioner may request to calendar an item for consideration at a future meeting or refer an item to staff. Commissioner Cantrell Commissioner McKinley Commissioner Welling Vice Chair Conry Chair Dunham STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING: This agenda was posted on all official City bulletin boards, the City’s website and agenda packets were completely accessible to the public at City Hall at least 72 hours, special meetings 24 hours, prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Department

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, February 21, 2023 @ 6:00 P.M. 21000 Hacienda Blvd., California City, CA 93505 CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunham called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION Pledge of Allegiance: Vice Chair Conry Invocation: Pastor Rob ROLL CALL Present: Chair Dunham, Vice Chair Conry, Commissioner Cantrell, Commissioner McKinley, Commissioner Welling ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopt Agenda: February 21, 2023 Motion by: Vice Chair Conry Second by: Commissioner Cantrell VOTE: 4 Yes 0 Nays 0 Abstain 1 Absent Motion Carried Cantrell X McKinley X Welling X Conry X Dunham X PLANNING SECRETARY REPORTS/LATE COMMUNICATIONS NONE DISCLOSURE OF SITE VISITS AND EX-PARTE CONTACTS No contacts or sites visited PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR NONE CONSENT CALENDAR CC 1: Motion to approve meeting minutes from 02/21/2023 Motion by: Commissioner Welling Second by: Vice Chair Conry VOTE: 4 Yes 0 Nays 0 Abstain 1 Absent Motion Carried Cantrell X McKinley X Welling X Conry X Dunham X

PUBLIC HEARINGS PH 1: Postponed due to newspaper unable to publish public hearing notice; discussion will be continued and re-noticed. AV Press may not be adjudicated; therefore, Mojave Desert News will be used instead. – Presented by Paul Junker Poll of availability for March 13, 2023 or March 15, 2023 • Chair Dunham – available on either date, preferably March 13, 2023 • Vice Chair Conry – available on either date • Commissioner Cantrell – possibly available on March 15, 2023 • Commissioner McKinley – available on either date, preferably March 15, 2023 • Commissioner Welling – available on either date • Brian Glidden – available on March 15, 2023 • Dr. Jim Hart, City Manager, informed commissioners of Just Cause reasons to attend Planning Commissions via Zoom. • Commissioner Cantrell and Commissioner Welling – Comments regarding AV Press adjudication STAFF COMMENTS Dr. Jim Hart, City Manager, inquired if Vice Chair Conry received clarification from the City Attorney regarding the possible Brown Act violation discussed at previous Planning Commission meeting. Vice Chair Conry stated that she had received an email from Attorney but had not responded back yet. COMMISSIONER ITEMS AND COMMENTS Commissioner Cantrell • Thanks to attendees • Expresses hope that AV press can become adjudicated for City use Commissioner McKinley • Thanks to attendees Commissioner Welling • Thanks to attendees Chair Dunham • Acknowledges Mr. Padron in the meeting; Mr. Padron expresses his disappointment in the postponement of his project discussion; Informed Mr. Padron that he understands but protocol must be followed. Mr. Padron is available on March 15, 2023. ADJOURNMENT Motion by: Commissioner Cantrell 2nd by: Commissioner McKinley VOTE: 5 Yes 0 Nays 0 Abstain 0 Absent Motion Carried Cantrell X McKinley X Welling X Conry X Dunham X

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 1 CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: March 15, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Junker, Contract Planner SUBJECT: Proposal for General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-04) and adoption of Zoning Amendment (ZC 22-04) for the property located at 10856 Hanover Drive (APN 210-263-14) to amend the General Plan designation from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Light Industrial and Research” and to rezone the property from “Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)” to “Light Industrial (M-1)” to accommodate the existing Padron Metal Finishing Company use. APPLICANT: Padron Metal Finishing Company BACKGROUND: Prior to early 2021 the applicant purchased the property at 10856 Hanover Drive. Without approvals from the City, the applicant expended funds to improve the building and began operating Padron Metal Finishing Company. Operations for the use were discussed with the previous City Planner. It is unclear how operations were initially described as the applicant appeared to associate the business with Automotive Service and Repair, a conditionally allowed use at the site, based upon the practice of plating parts to be installed on vehicles. While parts for vehicles are plated, Automobile Service and Repair is not the primary activity of the current use. The metal parts that receive plating are used in a wide range of industries. Additionally, the activities associated with metal plating include use of a variety of chemicals and acids as well as application of electrical current to activate the plating process. These activities are not consistent with Automotive Services and Repair. On December 12, 2021 the applicant was notified that the current use is not allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial district and that a rezone to M-1/NC would be required to consider allowing the use at its current location. On July 12, 2022 a cease and desist order was issued by Kern County Public Health Services Department and electrical service to the business was shut off by the City. The applicant is seeking to amend the use designations of the property so that Padron Metal Finishing Company can remain at its current location. If the General Plan amendment and rezone are approved, the applicant will still be required to take the following actions prior to continuing business activities: • Secure a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission • Secure a Site Plan Review approval from the City Manager • Provide documentation that the proposed use will not be subject to flooding • Remedy all existing code violations at the project site

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 2 The Planning Commission considered this request at its December 6, 2022 meeting. Within that meeting the Planning Commission considered numerous factors, including issues of consistency with surrounding uses, spot zoning and support for local businesses. After considerable discussion the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a later meeting. Figure 1. Citywide Aerial Figure 2. Project Aerial

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 3 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: The project site is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial by the General Plan, a designation that includes commercial retail uses serving a neighborhood area, limited general office use, single commercial uses or small scale neighborhood shopping centers. The site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), a designation that allows a wide range of smaller scale commercial and service uses that support the neighborhood and the community. The proposed use, metal plating, is not identified specifically in the City’s allowed use tables, but appears to be incompatible with the current use designations. The most closely related uses appear to be Chemicals and Allied Products or Primary Metal Industries, uses that are both allowed in the Light Industrial (M-1) zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit. In order to secure approvals to continue operations at 10856 Hanover Drive, the applicant has requested the property designations be amended to General Plan Light Industrial and Research and be rezoning to Light Industrial (M-1). An amendment of the General Plan is a legislative action. As a legislative action the City is under no obligation to grant the applicant’s requested General Plan amendment. In considering whether to grant the applicant’s request, the Planning Commission considers factors such as: • Would the project promote the health and welfare of the community? • Would the proposed land use designations be consistent with the General Plan’s long term vision for development? • Would the requested amendments be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan? • Would the amended land uses designations be compatible with the surrounding land use designations? Figure 3. Current General Plan Designations

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 4 Figure 4. Current Zoning Designations LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS: California City Boulevard As the most significant roadway in the City, California City Boulevard in general and the project site specifically represent a major entry point to the City. Placement of industrial uses at prominent community entry points is not consistent with the typical practice of placing attractive uses that benefit from higher traffic volumes at community entry points. Planned Land Uses Based on land use designations this area was intended to serve primarily as a residential community in the City with neighborhood supporting retail fronting to California City Boulevard. While the proposed use would benefit the community by providing jobs and a needed service, the industrial character of the use does not appear compatible with current land use designations. Health and Safety The proposed use involves a variety of chemicals that are not generally considered compatible with residential uses. It is not clear what level of hazard the use represents with regard to chemical exposure or potential for accidents or fires within the facility. Existing Uses Like much of California City, development in the project area has occurred sporadically with most parcels surrounding the project remaining undeveloped. Across Hanover Drive from the project site is Cal City TV and Appliances and approximately 900 feet northwest on California City Boulevard in an auto service/oil change facility. Both of these uses appear consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial designation. The remaining uses in the project vicinity are all single family homes.

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 5 Figure 5. Surrounding Uses Existing Lotting Pattern Similar to other areas in the core of California City, land in the project vicinity was subdivided prior to proposals for development. Lots in the project vicinity are approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Lots of this size would typically be associated with single family homes or small-scale commercial. While there are industrial uses that fit on lots of this size, they are not typical. Spot Zoning The term “Spot Zoning” refers to the designation of a single parcel or a small land area that is designated inconsistently with surrounding uses, sometimes granting a special privilege to a landowner or small group of landowners. Courts have established that spot zoning is not legal. Applying industrial designations to the applicant’s property alone would clearly be a case of spot zoning. If the Planning Commission wishes to consider industrial uses in this location, then a broader review of land uses on surrounding properties should be conducted to ensure overall land use patterns are logical and to minimize potential for use conflicts. ANALYSIS: Based on a review of the project location on California City Boulevard, current land use designations, existing development patterns, existing uses and existing lot sizes, staff does not consider the requested amendments to be consistent with the General Plan, the planning expectations for the project site or the overall interests of the community. Specifically, based on a review of the project and the circumstances of the request, staff recommends denial for the following reasons: • California City Boulevard in the vicinity of the project is a primary entry point to the community and industrial uses likely will not be the most appropriate uses at such a community entry.

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 6 • It appears the intended use of property in the project vicinity is primarily residential, with both single family and multi-family residential supported by local serving commercial. Industrial uses are not compatible with this mix of uses. • Industrial uses have inherent compatibility issues with residential uses and some amount of buffer or separation between these uses is generally appropriate. • Parcels in the project vicinity are configured for residential and small format commercial uses. Industrial uses typically require larger parcel sizes. • The request is to amend use designations for a single parcel of approximately 10,000 square feet in size. Such a land use change would be considered spot zoning and would not be consistent with standard planning practices or established court precedent. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW – DECEMBER 6, 2022 As noted above, the Planning Commission considered this request at its December 6, 2022 meeting. Within that discussion staff explained the concerns of granting approval of a GPA and Rezone of a single parcel within lands designated for other uses. Staff prepared the below exhibit as an illustration of a minimal level for industrial designations in the vicinity of Padron Metal. Figure 6: Padron Metal Vicinity – Industrial Zoning Option

California City Planning Commission –March 15, 2023 – GPA 22-04/Rezone 22-04 (Padron Metal) page 7 Figure 6 depicts a scenario of ten parcels (eight C1 parcels and two RM1 parcels) being rezoned to M-1 Light Industrial and nine RM1 Residential Medium Density parcels being rezoned to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. This is not a recommendation by staff. Rather it is provided to assist the Commission with conceptualizing a zoning configuration if the Commission considers Industrial uses appropriate at this location. Within the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 2022 there was considerable discussion of the circumstances and communications that occurred between the applicant and the City. While it is understandable that the Commission would be interested in specific communications, notifications, times of inspections, etc., such factors are not the basis for a decision to redesignate land. The Planning Commission should weigh the merits of the project from a perspective of good planning practices, consistency with City policies and compliance with applicable laws. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the applicant’s request for General Plan amendment and rezone. In cases where the proposed action is denial of a request, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required. If the Planning Commission supports the applicant’s requests, then staff will complete required CEQA analysis and return to the Planning Commission at a future meeting with materials required to make a recommendation in favor of the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution 03-23-01, thereby denying the request for General Plan amendment and rezone for 10856 Hanover Drive. ALTERNATIVE ACTION #1: If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the requested General Plan amendment and rezone, then staff would recommend the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Continue the item to a date specific meeting. 2. Provide specific direction on the extent of land that should be considered under the General Plan amendment and rezone and provide guidance on the benefits of such land use amendments. ALTERNATIVE ACTION #2: If the Planning Commission supports the requested General Plan amendment and rezone, then the Planning Commission may identify the basis for such support, including why the General Plan amendment and rezone are appropriate, and direct staff to communicate such guidance to the City Council for consideration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 03-23-01 2. Applicant’s Operations Plan

Click here to enter text. ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 03-23-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council of California City adopted the 2015-2035 General Plan on June 21, 2016; and WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of California City; and WHEREAS, an application was filed by Ivan Padron requesting approval of the following: 1. General Plan Amendment GP-22-04. Change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Light Industrial and Research. 2. Rezone ZC-22-04. A rezoning to change the zoning classification from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Light Industrial (M-1). WHEREAS, in accordance with state law, on or before March 2, 2023, the City of California City Planning Department published a legal notice concerning the requested land use amendments in the Mojave Desert News, a local newspaper of general circulation, regarding the City of California City Planning Commission meeting of March 15, 2023. WHEREAS, on March 15, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time public testimony was taken concerning the proposed General Plan amendment and rezone. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: FINDINGS The Planning Commission finds, determines and declares that based on its review and the whole record of the project: 1. The requested land use amendments will not promote the welfare of the community; 2. The requested land use amendments are not consistent with the overall goals and intent of the City of California City General Plan or the land use patterns as established by the General Plan; 3. The proposed amendments have the potential to result in land use incompatibilities that could negatively impact adjacent properties. SECTION 2: RECORD OF PROCEEDING The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon

Click here to enter text. which the Planning Commission’s decision is based, which include, but are not limited to, the staff report and all materials that support the findings and recommendations for the proposed project are located in the Planning and Building Department of the City of California City at 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93505. The custodian of these documents is the City Clerk of the City of California City. SECTION 3: DETERMINATION Based upon the findings outlined in Sections 1 and 2 above, and the full record of the project review, the Planning Commission of the City of California City does hereby deny General Plan Amendment (GPA 22-04) and Zoning Amendment (ZC 22-04) for the property located at 10856 Hanover Drive (APN 210-263-14) to amend the General Plan designation from “Neighborhood Commercial” to “Light Industrial and Research” and to rezone the property from “Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)” to “Light Industrial (M-1)” to accommodate the existing Padron Metal Finishing Company use. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission on the 15th of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Jay Dunham, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Recording Secretary

Attachment 2 Padron Metal Finishing Business Plan Padron Metal Finishing is grateful for the opportunity to conduct business here in California City. We are currently located at 10856 Hanover, which we know is a perfect fit for our business. Having been residents here for thirty-plus years we couldn't be happier to bring revenue and jobs to the city. At Padron Metal Finishing we will be providing commercial and retail services. We plan on providing these services to the automobile, ATV industry, and machine shops, as well as the medical, aerospace, and military industries. In the metal finishing industry, there is a need for longevity in consumer products. Products need to survive a minimum of fifteen years without oxidation once the final assembly is complete. Our company would provide this protection for their products, right here in California City. The need for metal finishing has been around since the 1950s. Metal finishing started out as a protective finish for military products, then continued into the medical field. Currently, the majority of our work is in the aerospace, military, and automobile industry. Many of these products are finished with a protective coating, which we would provide. Metal finishing has become part of many different industries and only continues to grow and prosper. We know this is a lucrative area of business and are confident this would be a great addition to the city. Padron Metal Finishing would be servicing and repairing products for companies through commercial work, and customers who choose to get their products serviced at our walk-up counter. We would love to provide our services to the avid car, motorcycle, and ATV enthusiasts that pass-through town or to our fellow neighbors. We have provided services to many popular ATV and motorcycle companies such as Radflo Suspension, King Shock, Fox suspension, and Motorsports. Given that we are located near many military and aerospace companies, we have the perfect location to provide services to these companies as well. There are little to no metal finishing businesses located within a reasonable range for these industries which make Padron Metal Finishing highly sought after. Initially, we plan to do commercial applications through military specifications. We will then get accreditations to obtain prime contracts. Some examples are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Airbus. Accreditations like ISO9001 and NADCAP allow us to be a step above competitors and sought after solely for those accreditations. One accreditation that we have already aquired is the AS9100/ISO9001. I, Ivan Padron, founder, and President have been in the industry for

Attachment 2 over thirty years. I have existing contacts that will bring patented military products as well as commercial products to my business. Our main source of income will come from Anodize type II and Chemical conversions. I predict Anodize type II will bring in $700,000 a year and Chemical conversions will bring in $180,000 a year. I plan on having a team of twelve employees which will bring my payroll to $28,800 a month. The maximum stored hazardous materials on site with our current processes would be up to 220 gallons of liquid material and up to 850 pounds of powder material. Page 13 of our Hazardous Materials Inventory lists the hazardous materials with daily limits. In-use quantities can differ depending on tank readings, which can range from 1 liter to 1 gallon. Our utilities will cost $3,000 monthly. Raw goods will be $5,000 monthly. Workers' comp and insurance will be $3,000. Our cash flow will be $1,000,000. My investment in the company will be $500,000. In addition, most, if not all employees plan on buying or renting homes to become fellow residents and neighbors. We are eager and excited to begin this process and bring our business to California City. If there are any additional questions or concerns you may have, I can be reached by phone at 714-884-8561 or by email at Ipadron@att.net. I look forward to hearing from you and doing business in town. Thank you, Ivan Padron Padron Metal Finishing, Company Owner and President

CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Junker, Contract Planner RE: A request to amend previously approved Tentative Parcel Map 12417 (TPM 12417) to remove a requirement for a public access easement on the eastern boundary of the property. The 19.78-acre property is located approximately 0.12 mile north of Lindbergh Blvd. and east of Yerba Blvd. APPLICANT: Levon Vardapetyan PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, March 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. – Planning Commission at Council Chambers. The public hearing notice for TPM 12417 was published in the Mojave Desert News on March 2, 2023. BACKGROUND: Brian Glidden, representative of the applicant, has submitted a request to amend a condition of approval applied to TPM 12417 when it was considered by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2022. The applicants proposed, and the Planning Commission approved TMP 12417 to subdivide one parcel, APN 302-271-15, into 10 smaller parcels. The project site is located north of Lindbergh Boulevard and east of Yerba Boulevard. During the initial phase of review of the proposed TPM it was anticipated that a public access and utility easement would be required on the eastern boundary. Notes to this effect were included on the TPM. As the TPM underwent further review it appears then City staff determined the public access easement on the eastern portion of the project would not provide public benefit and therefore would not be required. The note on the TPM was not removed and current City staff, unaware of previous staff decisions, included the following condition in the project Conditions of Approval: 12. The applicant shall submit a proposed final parcel map with the following: e. Offer of a 30-foot-wide easement along the easterly parcel boundary for public access and utility purposes. ANALYSIS: As a matter of practice, project approvals and associated conditions of approval established by a decision-making body must be returned to that same body for revision. For that reason, the Planning Commission is requested to consider whether TPM No. 12417 and its associated conditions of approval should be amended as requested by the applicant. Having received the request to eliminate the public access easement on the eastern boundary of the project, City staff reviewed the context of the project and surrounding properties and has determined that requiring the public access easement on the eastern boundary of the project is in the long term interests of the City and the properties adjacent to the project site.

Historically, California City has allowed divisions of land well in advance of development and prior to the review of development projects. As a result, many parcels have been created that do not have access to a public right-of-way, Such parcels are typically referred to as “land locked” and without public access such parcels cannot be developed. In the Context Map provided below the subject parcel is identified in a red boundary and the alignment of the required public access is identified in a blue line. Green lines identify section lines and half-section lines for which the City requires right-of-way dedication by General Plan policy. Neighboring parcels, including but not limited to APNs 302-271-35, -33, -28 and -41 would benefit through establishment of a public right-of-way extending along the project’s east boundary to the east/west section line corridor north of the project when development of adjacent properties occurs. Requiring the offer of dedication for the 30-foot corridor on the eastern boundary of the project reserves half of the required road section on the subject property. TPM 12417 Context Map On November 15, 2022 the Planning Commission considered the applicant’s request to eliminate condition of approval 12.e. In that discussion questions were raised by the applicant and the Planning Commission that led to the Commission continuing the item. Specific questions raised on November 15, 2022 included: 1. Are irrevocable offers of dedication (IODs) void after a period of 25 years? This is relevant because of there is an IOD immediately north of the eastern boundary of TPM 12417. If this IOD were not present then there would be no connection north to a future section line road and no benefit to requiring the IOD on TPM No. 12417. There are circumstances when IODs presumed to not be accepted and so no longer valid. Below is the government code applicable to this question.

§ 771.010. Proposed dedication; conclusive presumption of nonacceptance; required conditions If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) The proposal was made by filing a map only. (b) No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within 25 years after the map was filed. (c) The real property was not used for the purpose for which the dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed. (d) The real property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and used as if free of the dedication. All conditions above must be met for an IOD to be determined no longer valid. Item (d) requires the property must have sold after division and subsequently been built upon as if the IOD did not exist, a circumstance that has not occurred on the adjacent property to the north of TPM No. 12417. In practice, IODs greater than 25 years old in Kern County have regularly been relied upon to require dedication of right-of-way. 2. Can recorded private road access easements be relied upon for public access to otherwise land locked parcels? There are many private road easements recorded on properties in California City. While such easements restrict construction of structures in the easement, they do not provide an assurance that adjacent property owners will be allowed to use the private road easement to access their otherwise land locked parcels. It is quite possible that owners of property with a private road easement could deny use of the easement corridor to adjoining property owners. 3. What is the City’s overall strategy for providing access to otherwise land locked parcels? The City faces challenges assuring property owners will have access from public roads. This is due to the substantial subdivision of land that occurred without immediate development plans and dedication of rights-of-way. By General Plan policy the City will require road dedication on section lines and half section lines, thereby providing a network of major roads on a half-mile grid. Many parcels in the City do not front to this grid of major roads. The City’s approach to securing access for otherwise landlocked parcels has evolved over time. City staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, have determined that establishment of irrevocable offers of dedication at time of land subdivision is the most appropriate action to ensure road rights-of-way will be available when landlocked parcels seek to develop in the future. For the reasons noted above, staff does not support eliminating the project of the obligation to provide a public access easement along the project’s eastern boundary. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the applicant’s request, then staff would return to the Planning Commission at a later meeting with documentation required to approve the request. While staff recommends retaining the condition requiring an irrevocable offer of dedication for a public access easement, we recognize the Planning Commission might decide to rescind this condition of approval. Should the Planning Commission choose to take this action, then staff would request the following new condition be applied to the project:

“All easements shall be kept open, clear, and free from building and structures of any kind. All obstructions, including utility poles and lines, trees, pole signs, fences, or similar obstructions, shall be removed from the ultimate easement area. Compliance of this requirement is the responsibility of the applicant and may result in significant financial expenditures.” ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff is recommending denial of the applicants request to eliminate a required public access easement. California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) establishes that act of denying a project is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment A: Resolution 03-23-01 Attachment B: Proposed Modifications to TPM 12417 Attachment C: Supplemental Materials Submitted by the Applicant

ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 03-23-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE APROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 12417 (TPM 12417). THE 19.78-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.12 MILE NORTH OF LINDBERGH BLVD. AND EAST OF YERBA BLVD. WHEREAS, the property owner, Levon Vardapetyan, submitted applications for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 12417) to subdivide one 19.78-acre parcel, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 302-271-15, into 10 parcels located approximately 0.12-mile north of Lindbergh Blvd. and east of Yerba Blvd.; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2022 the Planning Commission of the City of California City did approve TPM No. 12417 subject to certain conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the Planning Commission rescind condition of approval 12.e requiring the dedication of a public access and utility easement; and WHEREAS, upon review of the circumstances of the project site, the surrounding parcels and the existence of an irrevocable offer of dedication providing public access immediately north of and in alignment with the proposed public access easement on TPM No. 12417, staff has recommended that the Planning Commission not rescind condition of approval 12.e; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time public testimony was taken concerning amendment of the approved conditions of approval of TPM No. 12417. . NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FINDINGS The proposed action is to deny the request of the applicant to amend approved conditions of approval for TPM No. 12417. Subject to California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5), denial of a project is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2: FINDINGS Based upon the analysis provided by City staff and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the request to rescind condition of approval 12.e is not in the interests of the City or the owners of otherwise land locked properties surrounding TPM No. 12417.

SECTION 3: RECORD OF PROCEEDING The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s decision is based, which include, but are not limited to, the environmental documents, staff reports, as well as all materials that support the staff reports for the proposed project, and are located in the Planning and Building Department of the City of California City at 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93505. The custodian of these documents is the City Clerk of the City of California City. SECTION 4: DETERMINATION Based upon the findings outlined in Sections 1 through 3 above, the Planning Commission of the City of California City does hereby deny the request to rescind condition of approval 12.e as applied to TPM No. 12417. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission on the 15th of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: __________________________ Jay Dunham, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________ Recording Secretary

Attachment B

42140 Tenth Street West 661-940-0043 Lancaster, CA 93534 Fax: 661-949-9775 aesi@aesi-consulting.com March 6, 2023 Job No.21-6914 City of California City 21000 Hacienda Blvd. California City, CA 93505 Attn: Paul Junker RE: Tentative Map 12417 Planning Commission Comments We officially requested a change to the conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 12417 on 9/15/2022. We attended the Planning Commission (PC) meeting on 11/15/2022. At this meeting there were still concerns about the easterly road needing to be public. In my commentary below, I’m reinforcing my responses at the meeting and providing backup that shows the road to the north is currently private and need not become public. Item #1 : Ramon and Jessica mentioned that the road north of the project is public since there was an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) to the City listed on Parcel Map 105 that was recorded in 1972 (50 years ago). I mentioned at the meeting that the IOD expires after 25 years and that it was not accepted by the City as public right-of-way. Staff was not aware of this fact and I told them I learned of this from the Kern County Surveyor several years ago. Backup #1 : I have now included the California Civil Code Section (CA Civ Pro Code 771.010) that describes that the easement is no longer valid since it meets the conditions described. I also have included a title report from one of the streets of Parcel Map 105, above our parcel map that clearly indicates that the roads from PM 105 have not been accepted as public right-of-way. In addition, if the City would have accepted the roads in PM 105 they would have shown up on the Assessor Map Page. All these facts illustrate that there is no disposition of the parcels north of our development that would create the need for continued public right-of-way. To the contrary there is already a private easement for the road way between Collins and Lindbergh. Item #2 : The Public Works Director agreed to the continued use of a private road for the road segment in question. Staff said that the Public Works Director had no jurisdiction in the matter. Response #2 : I have provided a copy of the letter and map from the Public Works Director agreeing to the continued use of a private road on the easterly boundary. The map is file “TPM 12401 Cal- City PWD Agreed Upon Road-Dedication Colored”. The email of the agreement is called “21-6914 TPM-City-Road-Dedication Email Agreement”. When developing a map at the City of California City the highest authority to direct the development of a tentative parcel map is the Public Works Director. Typically what the Public Works Director recommends is put into the conditions of approval and accepted by the governing bodies such a PC or City Council (CC) unless there is a reason to override it. Only if the Planning Commission or City Council overrides him does it change. Normally there are no changes. In this case the City Engineer overrode the requirement at the development of condition stage and the City did not make it clear that they reversed the recommendation. During all of the negotiations for 3 tract maps containing private and public road placement, I included the City Engineer in the email conversations. The City Engineer was quite aware of the desire to keep it private and the agreement by the Public Works Director to keep it private. Please see the “PWD Attachment C: Supplemental Materials Submitted by the Applicant

Road Easement Change Request Job No. 21-6914 March 6, 2023 Page 2 Copyright AESI 2022 - Confidential Agreed Upon Road-Dedication Colored” that shows the agreed upon easement in yellow for public and green for private. Item #3 : Jessica indicated at the PC meeting that the legal description reading “road purposes and public utility purposes” meant that the roadway should be public. Response#3 : The words as written are controlling. Again, I talked to the Kern County Surveyor, Brian Blacklock, for clarification, who indicated that the County has seen this wording frequently used and interprets all roads as private when there is no word “Public” in front of the word “Road”. This verifies that the existing easement included as an attachment only created a private road. Please see the file named “Private Easement Creation_06_BK3930_PG368” for the legal description that created all the existing easements around the parcel map. I have also included an easement vicinity map that shows all the easements in the area of our parcel map. It is a good illustration to see that there are no other public easements connecting to our easement of concern and that the road is actually blocked by our next door neighbor. See file named “PM12417-AREA-EASEMENTS-2023-03-06 “. We have spent a lot of time preparing the maps and easements for this project. We requested this potential change the night of approval on July 5, 2022. The additional delay and costs to change this easement only create further costs and delays. In summary, I repeat my request to leave the road private as agreed to by the previous Public Works Director, Joe Barragan. We believe this is what makes the most sense for this particular situation. Also, there are no public easements to connect this easement to so it would create a public island. All parcels around our subdivision are not land locked and no further easements either public or private are necessary. Your consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated and I’m available to discuss this matter by phone call or at the upcoming PC Meeting. Thank you, Brian D. Glidden, P.E. 48287, L.S. 7727 BDG

Road Easement Change Request Job No. 21-6914 March 6, 2023 Page 3 Copyright AESI 2022 - Confidential Sincerely, Brian D. Glidden, P.E., L.S.

From: Brian Glidden To: Joe D. Barragan CC: jessica@hughessurveying.com; Ramon Pantoja; Marie Stowers BC Andrew Tsaturiyan; Kyle Parker Date: 5/26/2021 4:37 PM Subject: Road Easements - Which Ones to Make Public vs Private MOU (20-6893)) Attachments: TPM-Cal-City-Road-Dedication-Combined.pdf Good afternoon Joe, Per our meeting yesterday it was agreed that the private and public easements as we have proposed and have shown on the attached PDF are acceptable for the three tentative maps (PM 12401, 12417 & 12407). They will only be changed if the Planning Commission or City Council request a change in type. Please reply if that is not the case. Thank you for all your help, Brian Brian Glidden, P.E., P.L.S., QSD Arrow Engineering Services Inc. 42140 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 661.940.0043 Office 661.803.9533 Cell 661.949.9775 Fax www.aesi-consulting.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message and any attachments may contain confidential or proprietary material and is intended solely for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this communication and any attachments.

Fidelity National Title Company 42544 10th Street W, Suite E, Lancaster, CA 93534 Phone: (661) 272-2000 CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 1 Issuing Policies of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Escrow Officer: Lancaster Title Only EO Title Officer: Steve Lombardo Phone: (661) 272-2060 Fax: (661) 272-2070 Email: team.steve@fnf.com EscrowOne Inc 43832 20th St West Lancaster, CA 93534 ATTN: Donna Magoch YOUR REF: 32918-DMI ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 LOAN NO.: PROPERTY: Vacant Land 302-271-39, California City, CA PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Fidelity National Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner’s Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a Florida corporation. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land. Countersigned by: Authorized Signature

Fidelity National Title Company 42544 10th Street W, Suite E, Lancaster, CA 93534 Phone: (661) 272-2000 CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 2 PRELIMINARY REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 2017 at 7:30 a.m. ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 The form of policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this report is: CLTA Standard Coverage Policy of Title Insurance (4-8-14) 1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: Fee Estate 2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: Edward Glen Rambo and Carolyn R. Glass, formerly known as Martha C. Rambo and Carolyn Rambo, subject to Item No. 9 and 10, of Schedule B herein 3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

PRELIMINARY REPORT Fidelity National Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: 32918-DMI ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, IN THE COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 105, IN THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2 PAGE 189 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. APN: 302-271-39

PRELIMINARY REPORT Fidelity National Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: 32918-DMI ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 4 EXCEPTIONS AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2017-2018. 2. The lien of supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2, Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. Note: If said supplementals (if any) are not posted prior to the date of closing, this company assumes no liability for payment thereof. 3. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records. 4. Matters disclosed by a Record of Survey filed in Book 8 Page 56, Records of Survey, in the office of the County Recorders of said county, relating to the location and dimensions of said land which appear to be at a variance from those indicated by the Official Plat of said land on file in the District Land Office. 5. The ownership of said Land does not include rights of access to or from the street, highway, or freeway abutting said Land, such rights having been relinquished by said map/plat. Affects: Collins Boulevard Said Land, however, abuts on a public thoroughfare, other than the one referred to above, over which the rights of vehicular access have not been relinquished. 6. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Road Recording Date: June 26, 1924 Recording No: Book 9, Page 317, of Official Records Affects: as described therein 7. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Public Street, Road or Highway Recording Date: May 23, 1966 Recording No: Book 3949, Page 605, of Official Records Affects: as described therein 8. A notice that said Land is included within a project area of the Redevelopment Agency shown below, and that proceedings for the redevelopment of said project have been instituted under the Redevelopment Law (such redevelopment to proceed only after the adoption of the redevelopment plan) as disclosed by a document Recording Date: July 12, 1988 Recording No: 4055, Book 6141, Page 1519, of Official Records Redevelopment Agency: California City Redevelopment Project

PRELIMINARY REPORT Fidelity National Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: 32918-DMI ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 EXCEPTIONS (Continued) CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 5 9. A Deed: From: Carolyn Rambo To: Edward G. Rambo, a married man as his sole and separate property Dated: November 25, 1992 Recording Date: November 13, 2012 Recording No: 0212163205, of Official Records For insurance purposes, the Company is not willing to divest the interest of the following party(ies): Party(ies): Carolyn Rambo 10. A Deed: From: Edward Glen Rambo and Carolyn R. Glass, formerly known as Martha C. Rambo and Carolyn Rambo To: Edward Glen Rambo, Jr. Dated: November 12, 2015 Recording Date: May 4, 2016 Recording No: 0216056171, of Official Records For insurance purposes, the Company is not willing to divest the interest of the following party(ies): Party(ies): Edward Glen Rambo and Carolyn R. Glass, formerly known as Martha C. Rambo and Carolyn Rambo PLEASE REFER TO THE “INFORMATIONAL NOTES” AND “REQUIREMENTS” SECTIONS WHICH FOLLOW FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION. END OF EXCEPTIONS

PRELIMINARY REPORT Fidelity National Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: 32918-DMI ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 6 REQUIREMENTS SECTION 1. Please be advised that our search did not disclose any open Deeds of Trust of record. If you should have knowledge of any outstanding obligation, please contact the Title Department immediately for further review prior to closing. 2. In order to complete this report, the Company requires a Statement of Information to be completed by the following party(s), Party(s): All Parties The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested Statement of Information. NOTE: The Statement of Information is necessary to complete the search and examination of title under this order. Any title search includes matters that are indexed by name only, and having a completed Statement of Information assists the Company in the elimination of certain matters which appear to involve the parties but in fact affect another party with the same or similar name. Be assured that the Statement of Information is essential and will be kept strictly confidential to this file. END OF REQUIREMENTS

PRELIMINARY REPORT Fidelity National Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: 32918-DMI ORDER NO.: 00167618-993-LTO-SL4 CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 7 INFORMATIONAL NOTES SECTION 1. Note: The only conveyance(s) affecting said Land, which recorded within 24 months of the date of this report, are as follows: Grantor: Edward Glen Rambo and Carolyn R. Glass, formerly known as Martha C. Rambo and Carolyn Rambo Grantee: Edward Glen Rambo, Jr. Recording Date: May 4, 2016 Recording No: 0216056171, of Official Records 2. Note: Property taxes for the fiscal year shown below are PAID. For proration purposes the amounts were: Tax Identification No.: 302-271-39-00 Fiscal Year: 2016-2017 1st Installment: $126.62 2nd Installment: $126.62 Exemption: $0.00 Land: $6,596.00 Improvements: $0.00 Personal Property: $0.00 Code Area: 011-018 Bill No.: 16-1222899-00-6 3. Although the ALTA Homeowner’s Policy is automatically issued by this company, for qualified properties/transactions, the pending transaction and/or property DOES NOT QUALIFY and the Standard CLTA Owner’s Policy will be issued at the close of escrow. 4. Note: The policy of title insurance will include an arbitration provision. The Company or the insured may demand arbitration. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. Please ask your escrow or title officer for a sample copy of the policy to be issued if you wish to review the arbitration provisions and any other provisions pertaining to your Title Insurance coverage. 5. If a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent or association provides a copy of a declaration, governing document or deed to any person, California law requires that the document provided shall include a statement regarding any unlawful restrictions. Said statement is to be in at least 14-point bold face type and may be stamped on the first page of any document provided or included as a cover page attached to the requested document. Should a party to this transaction request a copy of any document reported herein that fits this category, the statement is to be included in the manner described. 6. Any documents being executed in conjunction with this transaction must be signed in the presence of an authorized Company employee, an authorized employee of an agent, an authorized employee of the insured lender, or by using Bancserv or other approved third party service. If the above requirements cannot be met, please call the Company at the number provided in this report 7. Amended Civil Code Section 2941, which becomes effective on January 1, 2002, sets the fee for the processing and recordation of the reconveyance of each Deed of Trust being paid off through this transaction at $45.00. The reconveyance fee must be clearly set forth in the Beneficiary's Payoff Demand Statement ("Demand"). In addition, an assignment or authorized release of that fee, from the Beneficiary to the Trustee of record, must be included. An example of the required language is as follows: