The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC RESO 2005 - 132NOT ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-132 A "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN." This Resolution was not adopted at the City Council Meeting of June 21, 2005. DATE: June 29, 2005 Mic ael R. Da a, CMC City Clerk of the City of National City Nol- Adopkd RESOLUTION 2005 —132 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") did duly pass and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, in 2004, the CDC proposed to amend the Plan to expand the CDC's authority to acquire property as a last resort through eminent domain to vacant and abandoned properties (as defined in Section 7.06.020 of the National City Municipal Code), and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the CDC has formulated an amendment to the Plan ("2005 Amendment") which would permit the CDC to use eminent domain to acquire all commercial and industrial zoned properties, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings, regardless of their zoning designation, within the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared on the originally proposed 2004 Amendment in the form attached herewith as Attachment "A"; and WHEREAS, a notice of the availability of the Negative Declaration for public review and comment was published on July 30, 2004, in the San Diego Daily Transcript, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of National City; and WHEREAS, the required 30-day public review period for the Negative Declaration was conducted from July 30, 2004 through August 30, 2004; and WHEREAS, the changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and CDC due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. The determination on the Negative Declaration was prepared on the proposed 2005 Amendment in the form attached herewith as Attachment "B"; and Resolution No. 2005 —133 June 21, 2005 Page 2 WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the CDC and the City Council held a duly advertised Joint Public Hearing on the proposed 2005 Amendment and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of National City hereby finds and determines, as follows: Section 1. That there is not substantial evidence that the proposed 2005 Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council based upon the whole record of the Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study contained therein, any comments received and evidence and testimony received at the Joint Public Hearing on the Negative Declaration. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2005 Amendment, and hereby approves the Negative Declaration. Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized to file, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Community Development Commission, a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego following adoption by the City Council of the Ordinance adopting the proposed 2005 Amendment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, Ill City Attorney California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, Cal 91950 Telephone (619)336-4250 Fax (619) 336-4286 Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Contact: Oliver Mujica Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Location: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805 as shown in Figure 1. Project Description: The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single-family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 in the following areas: • Properties located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • Properties located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • Properties located immediately north and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • Properties west of Interstate 5, excepting the San Diego Unified Port District property. • Specific properties located immediately southwest of the intersection of Plaza Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2014. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in this Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" Attachment 1 CITY OF ;� ,;•. •��:•'�111 t SAN DIEGO !. O �: 4� 1. ..; 1�'nulq@,.. . �Ilr �:- ;11111111111 I11111111111 eu11.' l'�I1111III111u •� :II�IIIII II 1111111111� ill :II• IIIIII1111111Illlllt :111 1111111111111•r� FB rIt r IIIILIlllt!! Fh117 . IIIII..IIIIII 111111111111i 111ullllllll_ 1111111111.1 _■w■ —unnn : 1 umJ %n.1u: `Illll .umt_ !=Tit 11i,1_11111!E ialllllllll . • ....• ..- .. .. .. _... ...... III MOP 1'11'p III CHULA VISTA National City Redevelopment Project Area Palm Ave Project Area Boundary 11111 Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 Municipal Boundary 0 41e5 0 25 0.5 0.75 M. 111111111 /1111/11 111111111 1111P ••I11111 Ill 1 I Figure 1 Project Area Map Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, participation agreement): The Community Development Commission of the City of National City is the only agency whose approval is required for this proposed redevelopment plan Amendment. The proposed Amendment does not directly propose any projects, public or private at this time. Indirectly, however development could occur in the project area in the future as a result of the use of eminent domain for a specific project. It is speculative at this time to identify or determine with any certainty projects that may occur in the future and the environmental impacts, if any that would be associated with the project. The Community Development Commission and/or the City of National City would conduct the appropriate environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act at the time a project is formally submitted to either agency for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise 0 Mandatory Findings ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing DETERMINATION: On the basis of this evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Phil Martin & Associates Under contract with the Community Development Commission Reviewed by: Oliver Mujica, Project Manager Date: July 28, 2004 Department Representative Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 4 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) 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 Commission, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non - attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ U ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ O 0 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ O 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 5 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 0 0 ■ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 ❑ ■ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 6 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 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.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including ■ liquefaction? ❑ ❑ 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ U b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 ❑ ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or the site? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ❑ 0 ❑ ■ VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: ■ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65692.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 7 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ • f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 ❑ ❑ • b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 0 ■ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 8 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Im_pact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ is c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ is b) 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ is d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? El ❑ ❑ ■ 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City - Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 9 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management Commission for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 • ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 10 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Result in inadequate emergency access'? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in an adverse impact on local and regional energy supplies, including base or peak period demands, regardless of the presence of a would -serve letter from the appropriate energy provider? b) Conflict with existing energy standards? c) Would the project reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on the site or nearby property? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 • ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ 0 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 11 EXHIBIT "A" Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to 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, 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 12 EXHIBIT "A" Explanation of Checklist Responses I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Amendment indirectly could encourage development in the redevelopment project area . The National City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city; therefore, future development in the project area due indirectly to the adoption of the Amendment would not impact any scenic vista. The Amendment would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Amendment would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the redevelopment project. A section of National City Boulevard in the Mile of Cars section of National City is a state scenic highway. The city would require all development along this portion of National City Boulevard to comply with the appropriate state and city guidelines to protect a state scenic highway. Development that indirectly occurs in any other section of the project area would not damage or impact any trees, rocks, or historic buildings since none of these features exist. The Amendment would not have any significant scenic resource impacts. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the redevelopment project area and the surroundings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project area. Subsequent development in the project area due indirectly to the use of eminent domain as allowed by the Amendment could impact the existing visual character of a specific site and its surroundings. The Community Development Commission and/or City of National City would conduct subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the time projects are submitted for approval to determine if a project would have an impact on the visual character or quality of a specific site and its surroundings. If the city determines a project could impact the visual character of a site and/or its surroundings, changes or modifications would be required. The city adopted the National City Design Guidelines to assure that development is in harmony with the character and quality of the environment that the city finds desirable to foster. The purpose of the National City Design Guidelines Manual is to provide a "guide" to what the city considers appropriate, quality design, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Guidelines articulate the city's goals and basic design philosophy for quality development within the city limits and provide the framework for the design review process. The Guidelines are not specifications nor do they preclude alternatives or restrict imagination. Rather, Community Development Commission of National City - Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 13 EXHIBIT "A" they are the city's preferences and provide examples of what the city considers acceptable.' The Guidelines supplement the development standards and regulations contained in the National City Land Use Code and are applicable in accordance with the requirements for site plan review under Chapter 18.128 of the Code. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would require changes to projects to ensure that they do not degrade the visual character of a specific site or its surroundings. All projects would be required to meet the applicable guidelines in the National City Design Guidelines based on the project proposed. The Amendment would not degrade the visual character of the project area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The Amendment would not create any new sources of substantial light or glare and affect day or nighttime views in the redevelopment project area because development is not proposed directly in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create new sources of light or glare. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of development, light and/or glare could impact surrounding land uses. Nighttime lighting including safety and security lights, interior building lights, automobile headlights, etc. could impact surrounding development. Glare from windows and metal surfaces could also impact adjacent development. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all projects for potential light and glare impacts and require changes and modifications when necessary to reduce light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) 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 Commission, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on prime farmlands because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could impact farmland or agricultural land. There are no agricultural operations or prime farmland in the project area. Therefore, future development would not impact agricultural resources or operations and would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use since none exist. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not directly propose any public or private development projects that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan(s). ' City of National City Design Guidelines, February 1991, Amended by Resolution No. 96-19, February 6, 1996, page I-1. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 14 EXHIBIT "A" National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could encourage new development. Depending upon the type and density of development, project air emissions could impact and obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all development projects for potential impacts to air quality plans and require project changes or modifications to ensure compliance. The Amendment would not directly impact the implementation of any air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The Amendment would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing projected air quality violation. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of new development the project air emissions could violate an air quality standard or standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all future projects for potential violations to existing air quality standards such as exceeding air emission thresholds during either project construction or the life of the project. If a project is expected to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation specific measures would be required to be incorporated into the project to reduce air emissions in compliance with air quality standards in force at that time. The Amendment would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation, including ozone. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 only and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is non -attainment. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development that is constructed, the Amendment could cumulatively add criteria pollutants that are non -attainment in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, including ozone. The air emissions generated by future development due indirectly to the Amendment could contribute emissions to the air basin that are cumulative and further non -attainment of ozone. The Community Development Commission and/or city would review all projects for potential impacts to criteria pollutants and require the use of all applicable pollution control measures as applicable to control emissions to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly impact criteria pollutants for which the San Diego Air Pollution Control District is non -attainment, including ozone. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 15 EXHIBIT "A" Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of development the air emissions generated by a project could expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential impacts to sensitive receptors at the time projects are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce the impacts. The Amendment would not directly impact sensitive receptors by exposing them to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Amendment would not create objectionable odors that could affect people because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create objectionable odors. The Amendment could indirectly result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development odors could be generated and affect people in close proximity to the site. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would evaluate all projects for odor impacts to people that either live or work in close proximity at the time they are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could generate odors that affect a substantial number of people the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce or eliminate odor impacts accordingly. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications to any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would impact plant or wildlife species. The property in the project area is most developed and urbanized. Due to the lack of suitable habitat there are not any candidate plant or wildlife species that would be impacted if development occurs indirectly due to the Amendment. There are no habitat conservation plans associated with any property in the project area. The Amendment would not have any biological resource impacts directly or indirectly because there are no biological resources in the project area that can be impacted. b) Have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Have substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) 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. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 16 EXHIBIT "A" e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. f) 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. Please see the response to a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely impact a historical resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical buildings. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a historical resource could be impacted, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require measures to ensure the protection of the resource in compliance with the law. If resources suspected of being historically significant were uncovered during construction the city would evaluate the resources and protect it in compliance with CEQA Guideline § 15064.5, as applicable. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause adversely impact an archaeological resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any archaeological resources within the project area that would be impacted by future development. If archaeological resources, or artifacts of historical importance are uncovered during construction all construction activity shall cease and the city shall be notified immediately. The city would take the lead to determine whether or not the resources are significant and need to be protected in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5. The Amendment would not impact archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Amendment would not destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any paleontological resources in the city, including the project area. The Amendment would not impact paleontological resources. Community Development Commission of National City - Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 17 EXHIBIT "A" d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The Amendment would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could disturb human remains. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. There are no known buried human remains or formal cemeteries in the project area. Therefore, the Amendment would not impact human remains, including those within or outside formal cemeteries. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 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.) No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a rupture of a known earthquake fault because development is not directly proposed with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could rupture or be impacted by an earthquake fault. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Based on information in the National City General Plan and the California Geological Survey there are no known active faults in the city. However, there are several faults outside the city that could impact development in the project area. The Sweetwater Fault extends along the eastern edge of National City, but is considered to be inactive. The potential for movement on the nearby active La Nation and Rose Canyon faults, located outside National City, could have devastating effects to development in National City as well as other areas in San Diego County. The region is also prone to earthquakes that could occur on more distant faults, such as the Elsinore, San Clemente, San Jacinto and San Andreas, and suitable precautions should be practiced2. The city must approve the building plans before the construction of any projects can occur. As part of the building plan permit process all projects would be required to incorporate all applicable measures in the Uniform Building Code to protect people and structures from the rupture of earthquake faults. The city could require the submittal of a geotechnical study to identify the geology of the site along with the grading and building plans. The geotechnical study would state whether or not the site conditions can safely support the project or if corrective soil and geotechnical measures would be required for the project to be safely constructed. There is no information at this time to indicate that future projects developed in the project areas would be impacted to any greater level than other development in the city. The incorporation of all applicable earthquake safety features required by the Uniform Building Code and recommendations in any geotechnical report prepared for a project would reduce geologic impacts. The Amendment would not impact or be impacted by earthquake faults in the area or the region. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause strong seismic ground shaking because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the 2 City of National City General Plan, approved September 10, 1996, page 18. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 18 EXHIBIT "A" Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 for commercial and industrial property and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause or be impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Residents, employees, and buildings would not be exposed to any greater degree of ground shaking with the adoption of the Amendment than currently exists. All projects, independently of the use of eminent domain, must provide applicable earthquake construction measures and hardware as required by the Uniform Building Code to reduce ground -shaking impacts. The Amendment would not change the exposure of people and buildings to seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause ground -failure, such as liquefaction. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the location a project could be impacted by liquefaction or other seismic — related ground failures. However, whether or not development is impacted by liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure is not dependent upon the use of eminent domain. The use of eminent domain to would not change the exposure of a project to liquefaction or any other type of ground failure. Geotechnical reports would be prepared for individual projects to determine if they would be exposed to seismic -related ground failures. If a site is subject to liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure, measures would be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to mitigate the impact. The Amendment would not have any seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause any landslides or expose people or property to landslides because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or be exposed to landslides. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. There are no large hillside areas within or adjacent to the project areas that could impact development. Therefore, landslides would not impact development and the Amendment would not have any landslide impacts. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development of projects could result in soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs and proper measures to reduce soil erosion are not implemented and Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 19 EXHIBIT "A" maintained throughout construction. Soil erosion can also occur during periods of high winds if proper soil erosion protection measures such as soil binders are not used. The incorporation of all applicable soil erosion prevention measures that are required by the city would minimize soil erosion impacts during periods of rainfall and high winds. The National City Building Depaitment would identify the soil erosion protection measures that would be incorporated into projects to reduce soil erosion. The Amendment would not have any soil erosion or topsoil impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The Amendment would not place development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or become unstable due to soil or seismic conditions because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place development on unstable soil or geologic units and cause on or off -site ground failure. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development within the project area. Although the National City General Plan does not identify any geologic constraints, there could be specific sites with a high water table that could be impacted by liquefaction. A geotechnical report would be submitted to the city in conjunction with grading and building plans for each project to address whether or not unstable soil or geologic units, including liquefaction, would impact the project. If the project could be impacted by soil and/or geological conditions the geotechnical report would identify the measures that could be implemented to correct the condition for safe development. The Amendment would not cause unstable soil or geological conditions. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or the site? No Impact. The Amendment would not place development on expansive soil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place development on expansive soil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development within the project area. Although the National City General Plan does not identify any expansive soil, there could be some isolated areas where expansive soil exists. A geotechnical report would be submitted to the city along with grading and building plans for each project to address whether or not the project would be impacted by expansive soil. If expansive soil exists the geotechnical report would identify the measures that could be implemented to correct the condition to allow safe development. The Amendment would not impact or be impacted by expansive soil. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Amendment would not require the use of septic tanks because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would use septic tanks. The City of National City requires all development to connect to the public sewer system and does not allow the use of septic tanks. The Amendment would not change the requirement by the city for development to connect to the public sewer system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 20 EXHIBIT "A" environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The development of projects could include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, depending upon the project. The city would review all future projects for potential hazards and the projects that generate or use hazardous materials would be required by the city would require each project to meet all applicable laws and regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the transport and use of hazardous materials would minimize hazards to the public and the environment to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not have any hazardous impacts. b) 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. Please see the response to a) above. c) 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. Please see the response to a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. They're no sites in the redevelopment project area that are listed as a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Amendment would not have any direct or indirect impacts with regards to listed hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The redevelopment project area is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project area is the San Diego International Airport, which is approximately seven miles northwest of National City. f Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. All development would be required to provide emergency access that allows for safe and effective access routes for fire and police equipment and personnel as well as people leaving the site in the event of an emergency. The city would review all projects for safe emergency access to ensure that emergency access is provided. The Amendment would not have any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan impacts. g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 21 EXHIBIT "A" use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The general plan does not identify any areas in National City where methane gas exists and would impact development due to a release of methane gas. The city would not approve any development that knowingly releases methane gas and create a hazard. The city would review all projects at the time they are submitted for approval for potential hazards by methane gas and require project changes and modifications to eliminate the hazard. The Amendment would not create any hazards to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact. The Amendment would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could violate water quality standards of waste discharge requirements. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development, which could generate surface water and violate water quality standards. All projects that require grading and/or construction are required to install measures prior to the start of construction to protect the quality of surface water runoff. For those projects that are greater than one acre in size, the project developer would be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review prior to the issuance of either a grading or building permit. The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMP's) that would be installed prior to the start of construction and maintained throughout the construction to reduce soil erosion. The BMP's would be installed prior to the start of construction to reduce sediments and other materials from being carried off -site and discharged into the local storm drain system. Some BMP's would be maintained throughout the construction period while others would have to be maintained throughout the life of the project. The city would require the installation of BMP's as necessary to mitigate impacts to water quality in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality rules and regulations. The Amendment would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. An increase in development could interfere with groundwater recharge if new development results in a net decrease in permeable area for water to percolate into the ground. Although the project area is mostly developed, there are some undeveloped areas where rainfall can percolate into the soil. Development that reduces the amount of soil available for water percolation could impact the local aquifer. Due to the relatively small amount of undeveloped land in the project area a reduction in permeable land would not result in a significant impact to groundwater recharge. The city would review all development proposals for impacts to groundwater recharge at the time development plans are submitted for approval. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 22 EXHIBIT "A" The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to National City and obtains most of its water supply from the Colorado River. It does, however, obtain some of its water supply from local wells. Development that reduces the amount of permeable soil available for rainfall to recharge the local groundwater could impact the Sweetwater Authority's water supply. However, the Amendment itself would not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of any property or result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially alter existing drainage patterns. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could require the existing drainage pattern of some sites to be modified that could alter existing drainage patterns. The city would review the grading plans of projects for potential erosion and siltation impacts due to modifications or changes to the existing drainage patterns. If existing drainage patterns are altered that could result in substantial erosion or siltation impacts on or off the site the city would require changes and the incorporation of measures to reduce erosion impacts. The Amendment would not impact drainage patterns or cause substantial erosion or siltation impacts. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. Please see the response to c) above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Amendment would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects the could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could generate quantities of runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As stated in response a) above, all applicable projects would be required to install and maintain proper measures to reduce the amount of sediments and other potential sources of surface water pollution. The development of property that is currently vacant or underdeveloped could generate quantities of surface water runoff and impact the local or regional storm drain system. The generation of surface water beyond the capacity of the storm drain system could significantly impact the storm drain system. The city would review all projects to determine if the existing system has capacity to handle the surface water flows or if upgrades are required. The Amendment itself would not impact the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 23 EXHIBIT "A" g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The Amendment would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment specifically excludes residential development; therefore no housing would be placed in a flood hazard area indirectly by the adoption and implementation of the Amendment. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The Amendment would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are areas located in a 100-year flood zone, thus it is possible that future development could be placed in a 100- year flood hazard. The city would review all development proposals for potential flood hazards and require proper protection from flooding for those structures constructed in a flood hazard area. The Amendment would not directly have any flood hazard impacts. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project area is not located in a dam inundation area and there are no levees that could break and flood properties in the project areas. The Amendment would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding due to the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? No Impact. There are no large bodies of water either located within or adjacent to the project area that could impact a project due to a seiche. While there are a few areas in National City with hillsides, there are no areas that are known to have mudflows and could impact development. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could be inundated by a seiche or mudflow. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment would not expose people or property to inundation or impacts by a seiche because there are no large bodies of water that could impact development. The areas in National City where hillsides do exist are not large enough in area to have mudflows that could impact development. The Amendment would not impact any development due to inundation by a seiche or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Amendment would not physically divide an established community because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could physically divide an established community. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 24 EXHIBIT "A" Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development must be consistent with and comply with the National City General Plan, which does not allow development to divide an established community. The proposed Amendments would not directly or indirectly divide an established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over development in the project area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with a land use plans, policies or regulations. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could conflict with the land use adopted by the general plan, a specific plan or the city's development code. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the adopted plans and codes and changes or revisions would be require if necessary to comply with the applicable plans and codes. The Amendment itself would not directly impact or conflict with any adopted land use plans or codes. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with that adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The city does not have any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. However, there are areas in close proximity to the project area with habitat and wildlife resources that are protected and development could impact the resources. The city would review projects for potential conflicts with these known wildlife resource areas and require measures to protect the resources when necessary. Since no development is directly proposed with the Amendment, no impacts due to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans would occur. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) 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 Amendment would not 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 because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value to the region and the residents of the state. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are no known mineral resources within the project area that are of value to the region or the state. Therefore, future development would not impact any mineral resources. The Amendment would not impact minerals of value to the region or the state. b) 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. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City - Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 25 EXHIBIT "A" XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could expose persons to or generate noise in excess of standards established by the National City General Plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could expose residents or employees to noise levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance or projects could generate noise levels that exceed the city's allowable noise levels. The city would review all development proposals for noise impacts and require changes or modifications accordingly to ensure compliance with the city's noise standards. The Amendment would not have any noise impacts by exposing people to levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance. b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects and would not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or noise levels. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could expose people to ground vibrations and impact them. The city would review all development plans for potential ground borne vibrations and require project changes or modifications accordingly to reduce vibration impacts. The Amendment would not have any direct ground borne vibration impacts. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could increase existing noise levels above existing levels and result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise. The city would review development proposals potential for noise level increases that could substantially increase existing noise levels and impact residents or employees. If necessary, the city would require changes to reduce ambient noise levels impacts to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise level. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above existing levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 26 EXHIBIT "A" Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels above existing levels. Temporary or periodic noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment could occur during project construction and impact surrounding land uses. The city would review development proposals at the time they are submitted for approval for potential temporary or short-term noise level increases that could impact surrounding land uses and require changes to reduce noise impacts. The Amendment would not directly result in substantial temporary noise level increases. 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project areas associated with the Amendment are not located in an adopted airport land use plan. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to the project areas and is located approximately seven miles northwest of National City. The project would not expose people to excessive noise levels at an airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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 project would not induce a substantial population growth directly because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could induce substantial population growth. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could induce a substantial population growth depending upon the type of development, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The city would review development proposals for population growth impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. If projects would induce substantial population increases the city would determine at that time if an increase would be substantial and the impact the growth could have on the environment. The Amendment would not have a substantial population growth impact since no development is proposed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not displace a substantial number of houses requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could displace existing housing. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. The Amendment excludes using eminent domain for residential purposes. Therefore, the Amendment could not use eminent domain authority to acquire residential property resulting in the demolition of existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please see the response to b) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 27 EXHIBIT "A" XIII PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of 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: i) Fire protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact fire protection services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for new fire stations and other facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on fire protection services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the fire departments ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans, conducting fire inspections in buildings, etc. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development and includes fire protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as fire protection to serve new development. The fee can be used to construct new fire protection facilities, expand existing fire facilities, purchase fire trucks, fire equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area due indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on the fire department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to fire protection services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. ii) Police protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact police services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for police protection services and facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on police services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the police department's ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development, including police protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as police protection. The fee can be used to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 28 EXHIBIT "A" construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts to the police department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to police services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. iii) Schools? No Impact. The project would not impact schools because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact schools. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The proposed Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial land uses and not residential. Although commercial and industrial development does generate students, the generation rate is much lower than residential. The number of students that would be generated by commercial or industrial development would be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of schools serving the project area. The two school districts, National City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that serve National City collect school impact fees from development as allowed by state law. The school impact fee is used by both school districts to provide classroom space for students. New commercial and industrial development would be required to pay school impact fees as applicable, which would be used to provide additional classroom space for students. The proposed Amendment would not impact area schools since development is not directly proposed at this time. iv) Parks? No Impact. The project would not impact city parks because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact parks. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities or increase the use of existing park facilities in National City. The city strives to maintain or expand the current (1996) ratio of park and open space land to population, which is 43/4 acres per 1000 residents (including local parks, public -owned wetlands, golf courses, and school recreational facilities). The Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial development and not residential. The Amendment would not indirectly result in the development of residential uses, which typically increases the population and generates the need for park and recreational facilities. While commercial and industrial development may incrementally increase the need for parks, that need would be minimal and is not expected to impact existing facilities. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services and parks. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as park facilities to serve new development. The fee can be used to purchase parkland and provide park facilities. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on park facilities. The Amendment would not have any impacts to parks since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. v) Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no additional public facilities that would be impacted by the Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 29 EXHIBIT "A" XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could increase traffic. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic with a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on area roads, or congestion at intersections. Additional development could impact the street system in the project area as well as the street system outside the project area. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development including the circulation system. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as street improvement to serve new development. The fee can be used to widen streets, construct needed intersection improvements, purchase and install traffic signals, restripe roadways, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts by development to circulation facilities throughout the project area as well as the city. The Amendment would not have any impacts to the circulation systems since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management commission for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion commission for designated roads or highways because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could exceed individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the county. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic, which could exceed the level of service standard for roads in National City. Depending upon the type and location of projects the traffic could significantly impact the circulation system so that service levels are unacceptable. The city would review all development projects for potential traffic and circulation impacts to roadways. When necessary to meet acceptable service levels, a project may be required to construct street improvements or provide other measures to ensure acceptable levels of service. The proposed Amendment would not exceed the level of service of any roads or highways because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to National City and is located approximately seven miles northwest of the city. The Amendment would not impact air traffic patterns at the San Diego International Airport or any other airport in the area. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 30 EXHIBIT "A" c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially increase hazards due to design features. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could require new design features for traffic to flow properly, which could increase hazards and impact traffic and circulation. The city would review all future development proposals for potential impacts associated with street design, including sharp curves and roadway intersections that could impact traffic flow and safety. When necessary, the city would require project changes or modifications to provide safe circulation features, including curves and intersections. Because development is not proposed by the Amendment, no circulation impacts would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project would not provide any inadequate emergency access because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not proposed public or private development projects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city along with the police and fire departments would review all development proposals for adequate emergency access. Projects would be required to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Amendment would not have any emergency access impacts because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. e) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project would not result in any inadequate parking capacity because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in inadequate parking capacity. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city would review development proposals to ensure that adequate parking capacity is provided in compliance with the city's parking code. Since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment the project would not have any parking capacity impacts. ) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city has adopted policies requiring projects to provide alternative forms of transportation, including bus turnouts and bicycle racks when applicable. The city would review development proposals to ensure that bus turnouts and/or bicycle racks are provided as required. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 31 EXHIBIT "A" XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The project not would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would have to be treated by the wastewater treatment plant that serves the city. Wastewater generated in National City is treated at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment plant. The treatment plant has capacity to treat the wastewater generated in National City, including the project area, without changing the existing wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that presently exist and as amended in the future from time to time would continue to govern wastewater treatment in National City independent of the Amendment. The Amendment would not impact wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project would not exceed require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities that could cause significant environmental effects because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities because the Point Loma treatment plant has capacity to handle the wastewater generated by future development based on the National City General Plan. Since no expansion of existing treatment facilities or the construction of new wastewater facilities would be required, future development generated indirectly by the Amendment would not have impacts with regards to environmental effects of expanding or construction new wastewater treatment plants. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project would not require or result in the construction of new storm drain facilities or the expansion of existing facilities because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development could require the construction of new drainage facilities or the expansion and extension of existing facilities to adequately serve the project. The construction of new or expanded storm drain facilities could have environmental effects depending upon the scale of the improvements. The city would review all development projects and determine if the existing storm drain facilities are adequate or if new facilities are necessary. If new drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities were required, the city would also determine if there could be environmental impacts with their construction. If potential environmental impacts could occur, the city would require measures to mitigate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly impact storm drain facilities. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 32 EXHIBIT "A" d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would have a need for potable water. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate a need for potable water for drinking, landscape irrigation, and fire flow. Depending upon the type and intensity of development the existing water supplies may not be adequate to provide a sufficient water supply for a project. The city along with the Sweetwater Authority would review all development proposals to determine if there is a sufficient supply of water or if additional water supplies would be required. As applicable, all projects would be required to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. The Amendment would not have any water supply impacts since development is not proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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 Amendment would not exceed wastewater treatment capacity of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would be treated by the Point Loma treatment plant. The wastewater would not impact the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and its ability to provide wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallons of wastewater per day to the South Metro Interceptor Sewer. Flows in National City as of August 2003 were 5.67 million gallons per day, which allows capacity for additional wastewater flows by future development without requiring the San Diego Wastewater Department to increase or expand the capacity of any trunk lines or the Point Loma treatment plant. ft Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project would not exceed the landfill capacity of the landfill that serves National City because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate solid waste. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate solid waste that would have to be deposited at the local landfill. The landfill that serves National City has capacity to adequately handle the solid waste generated by the city without significantly impacting its' life expectancy. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts to the capacity of the landfill that serves the city. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project would not be affected by statutes and regulations related to solid waste because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate solid waste. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate solid waste that would have to be deposited at the local landfill, which Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 33 EXHIBIT "A" has adequate capacity. The Amendment would not change or affect any statutes and regulations that affect solid waste. XVI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in an adverse impact on local and regional energy supplies, including base or peak period demands, regardless of the presence of a would -serve letter from the appropriate energy provider? No Impact. The project would not impact local or regional energy supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would require energy. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would require energy in the form of electricity and natural gas for heating, cooling, lighting, etc. The city would require would -serve letters from the utility companies to ensure that adequate energy supplies are available to serve projects prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this time the city does not anticipate that development would impact energy supplies. The Amendment would not directly have any impact on energy supplies. b) Conflict with existing energy standards? No Impact. Please see response a) above. c) Would the project reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on the site or nearby property? No Impact. The project would not reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on any property in the project areas because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could reduce solar access. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could reduce solar access or impact opportunities for passive heating and cooling depending upon the intensity and design of the project. The city would review all projects for potential solar access impacts and require changes accordingly to reduce solar access impacts and enhance passive solar heating and cooling opportunities. The Amendment would not directly have any solar access impacts. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to 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, 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 project would not impact fish or wildlife populations because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below a self-sustaining level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. The project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 34 EXHIBIT "A" only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could have adverse environmental effects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to humans and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National City - Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 35 EXHIBIT "A" California Environmental Quality Act Addendum — Negative Declaration A. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title and File No.: Lead Agency: Project Contact: Project Sponsor: Project Location: Project Description: Prepared By: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Oliver Mujiea Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12`" Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single- family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2015. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in is Amendment. Date: Community Development Commission of National City —Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain EXHIBIT "A" B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (the "CDC") prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received to the Negative Declaration during the public review period. The Negative Declaration evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur with amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain for commercial and industrial properties west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission has since reduced the commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain to specific areas due to concerns raised by the community during the public hearing process. Thus, the Community Development Commission has restricted the use of eminent domain to those commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area as shown on the attached map. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain as proposed last year. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the authority to use eminent domain for the reduced number of commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area. The reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties that are subject to the use of eminent domain does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration complies with the California Environmental Quality Act in its analysis of the reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain as shown in the attached map. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain EXHIBIT "A" IAttachment 1 :,...I...,'. rlllln.- piHro• g��uI aIrt., G. �I+I),QI FPI!rnArn.- _WC-:1n= �I®I1 ..,P . .111.'luq9l11111I!III!!illIII11uillli.111 unu...11111111lti �n..- � CIlium...1.1111A111IOO111 9'1 1111 - II iklinlgllli _i}, :1i.iIIII g II 11111 il! . yq IIIIIIIIIIIIII111I11 1Itilisiiiiiiie'! 111112,1111_M ® iiiiiSu1111ii IIIll,. hill Westside Areas 111111 -111m!!! National City Redevelopment Project Area 111111111 it lilt Alnnp_ Palm Ave 8th Street Corridor E ®mot iv puu11 �_®ce` ® i Ipee i11 ..... Plaza Blvd ;111 iu—11111111 �11 ^nlliu: _611811 .!MO Highland Ave QProject Area Boundary - Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 Municipal Boundary j_. 0.70 0.25 am - -- :. .. ..ii III LIP Imo n' ion NI 1.1 111® in li l 41111 lilt .1U116 u11n IIi111111 ill 1 ,•• 1A111 ii: I 1111{� i l -i7 Ili IT {.J1"'� 1 t �111 IT ai �l n®➢IIIW11' mull an 111111�1 �11161Ai �� :IiI: r8 !I! 11,11111Iu11 'I1i111I1 i91 41141111111M_ 1l ¢; . (Tf1 100.— 11. . `, ifl1 Hi 2111111 11114111111 II lIuIII_ p OHGIik VESTA /a EXHIBIT "A" Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B California Environmental Quality Act National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 2004/2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan - Negative Declaration A. INTRODUCTION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain ("2004 Amendment"). The Community Development Commission prepared the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority over all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20), regardless of their zoning designation, the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017. Properties that are currently being used for residential purposes would continue to be excluded from eminent domain. The Community Development Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur by amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received on the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment during the public review period. The community raised many issues and concerns during the public review and public hearing process for the proposed 2004 Amendment. Due to the community's concerns and public testimony, the Community Development Commission has subsequently reduced the geographic areas that could be subject to the authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area to those areas that are now referred to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors. The commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area that would now subject to the use of eminent domain are shown on the attached map. Additionally, the Community Development Commission reduced the number of years to extend its eminent domain authority from twelve (12) years to ten (10) years until 2015. The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, which reflects the stated changes. B. CEQA PROVISIONS As stated above, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed 2005 Amendment does not require the recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) which states: "Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: ... (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration EXHIBIT "B" Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects." The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and Community Development Commission due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain for the originally proposed 2004 Amendment. The Negative Declaration also adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the currently proposed 2005 Amendment due to the fact that no new avoidable significant effects would occur. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration EXHIBIT "B" Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain