Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 02-22 CC ADJ AGENDA PKTCr hh-cl Clerk Agenda of an Adjourned Regular Meeting National City City Council Council Chambers Civic Center 1243 National City Boulevard Adjourned Regular Meeting — Tuesday — February 22, 2005 — 6:00 P.M. Open To The Public Please complete a request to speak form prior to the commencement of the meeting and submit it to the City Clerk. It is the intention of your City Council to be receptiveto your concerns in this community. Your participation in local government will assure a responsible and efficient City of National City. We invite you to bring to the attention of the City Manager any matter that you desire the City Council to consider. We thank you for your presence and wish you to know that we appreciate your involvement. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag by Mayor Nick Inzunza Public Oral Communications (Three -Minute Time Limit) NOTE: Pursuant to state law, items requiring Council action must be brought back on a subsequent Council Agenda unless they are of a demonstrated emergency or urgent nature. Upon request, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 336-4228 to request a disability -related modification or accommodation. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Spanish audio interpretation is provided during Council Meetings. Audio headphones are available in the lobby at the beginning of the meetings. Audio interpretation en espanol se proporciona durante sesiones del Consejo Municipal. Los audiofonos estan disponibles en el pasillo al principio de la junta. I /,- Council Requests That All Cell Phones And Pagers Be Turned Off During City Council Meetings COPIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS AND MINUTES MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH OUR WEBSITE AT www.ci.national-city.ca.us COUNCIL AGENDA 2/22/05 PAGE 2 BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Motion that Memorandum dated February 22, 2005, entitled "Amendment of Redevelopment Plan: Abstention of Members of City Council and CDC Board; Legally -Required Participation" be made a part of the record of proceedings. B. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Approving the Negative Declaration for the Proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. C. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Approving the Written Responses to the Written Objections Received on the Proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. D. An Ordinance of the City of National City Amending the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Plan through the Adoption of the 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. 2. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Approving Certain Provisions of an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) by and between the Community Development Commission and the Beauchamp Family Trust for Development of the Park Village Mixed -Use Project. 3. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Reporting to the County Auditor as to how the Community Development Commission of the City of National City Intends to Fund its Allocation to the County's Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). ADJOURNMENT Next Regular City Council Meeting — Tuesday — March 1, 2005 - 6:00 p.m. — Council Chambers, Civic Center TAPE RECORDINGS OF EACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING ARE AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT JIEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMEN PLA---.N.\\1/4 t PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission Executive Director EXPLANATION: The Community Development Commission has 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, regardless of their zoning designation, within 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 be excluded from eminent domain. A Supplemental Staff Report has been prepared and attached to provide more information on the proposed 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code (also referred to as the Community Redevelopment Law), a duly advertised Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission was conducted on September 21, 2004 and October 5, 2004 to receive and consider all evidence and testimony pertaining the proposed 2004 Amendment. A new public notice was not required since the Joint Public Hearing was closed on October 5, 2004, and the consideration of further action on the proposed 2004 Amendment was continued to a date specific. J Environmental Review N/A Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Commission has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment. As the Lead Agency, the City Council will consider the approval of the Negative Declaration. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. a,. ti STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the Public Meeting. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2004 Amendment. ti ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Supplemental Staff Report 2. Community Development Commission Report to the City Council Resolution No. PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Summary: The proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan was first introduced during the Joint Public Hearing of the Community Development Commission and City Council on September 21, 2004; however, this item was continued to the Community Center since the Council Chambers could not adequately accommodate the general public. On October 5, 2004, the Continued Joint Public Hearing was conducted in order to provide an opportunity for a Staff presentation and public testimony. Upon its conclusion, the Joint Public Hearing was closed, and the consideration of this item was continued to January 4, 2005. At the direction of the City Council, on November 15, 2004, a follow-up public informational meeting was conducted in order to allow Staff the opportunity to provide a summary of the proposed 2004 Amendment and respond to the written comments submitted by the public. Subsequently, on January 4, 2005 the proposed 2004 Amendment was continued to this meeting of January 22nd in order to provide time for an additional public workshop. Accordingly, the eminent domain component of the proposed 2004 Amendment was presented as part of the Community Workshop conducted on January 8, 2005. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study (environmental review checklist) and Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment. The required 30-day public review period for the Negative Declaration was conducted from July 30, 2004 through August 30, 2004. No significant written comments were received on the Negative Declaration during the public review period. A copy of the Initial Study with Negative Declaration is attached. Prior to approving the proposed 2004 Amendment, the City Council must approve the Negative Declaration by adopting a City Council Resolution. Upon the City Council's adoption of the Resolution, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: The Community Development Commission has 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, regardless of their zoning designation, within 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 be excluded from eminent domain. Although the Community Development Commission seeks to reach an accord with all property owners on the purchase of any property, the Community Development Commission's overall ability to acquire property and facilitate development is limited in that most of the Project Area is exempted from eminent domain authority. Eminent domain is an important tool needed to continue the Community Development Commission's activities to alleviate blighting conditions, and to promote economic development within the Redevelopment Project Area, as well as the community. To assure that the Community Development Commission retains all tools available to it in implementing the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area, the Community Development Commission is processing the proposed 2004 Amendment. Currently, the Redevelopment Plan limits the Community Development Commission's use of eminent domain to the following non-residential locations within the Project Area: • All parcels located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • All parcels located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • All parcels located immediately west and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • All parcels located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • All parcels located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • All parcels located immediately south and adjacent to East Plaza Boulevard, between E Avenue and Highland Avenue. • All parcels 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. Proposed 2004 Amendment: The proposed 2004 Amendment would modify this language and extend eminent domain authority over all commercial and industrial zoned properties, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings, regardless of their zoning designation, within the entire Project Area. All properties that are used for residential purposes would be specifically excluded. The language of Section 603 of the National City Redevelopment Plan would be modified to read as follows: "The Community Development Commission may acquire, through eminent domain, all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the entire Project Area. Specifically excluded from eminent domain are properties that are used for residential purposes. The Community Development Commission's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property shall run for 12 years from the effective date of the 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2017." The proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan would be approved by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council; the proposed Ordinance is attached. Community Development Commission Report to the Council: Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Section 33000 et. seq. ("Law") requires that when the Community Development Commission submits a redevelopment plan to the City Council for adoption, the Community Development Commission must also submit a 14-part report entitled the Report to the City Council ("Report"). For a redevelopment plan amendment, the contents of the Report are only those portions warranted by the proposed amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide, in one document, all information, documentation, and evidence to assist the City Council in its consideration and in making various findings and determinations that are legally required to adopt the 2004 Amendment. This Report has been prepared in accordance with all requirements of Sections 33457.1 and 33352 of the Law. Prior to the City Council's consideration of the proposed 2004 Amendment, the Community Development Commission must approve the Report and authorize its transmittal to the City Council. A copy of the Report is attached. Joint Public Hearing: Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (also referred to as the Community Redevelopment Law), a joint public hearing must be held to receive testimony both for and against a redevelopment plan amendment, prior to having the Community Development Commission and City Council consider the proposed 2004 Amendment. Accordingly, on August 17, 2004, both the Community Development Commission and the City Council authorized Staff to establish September 21, 2004 as the date for a joint public hearing. Notices were transmitted via first class mail to all property and business owners, and residential owners and tenants within Project Area. Further, joint public hearing notices were transmitted via certified mail return receipt requested to the taxing agencies that receive property tax increment revenue from Project Area. Finally, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that a joint public hearing notice be published at least once a week for three consecutive weeks prior to the joint public hearing. Accordingly, the Joint Public Hearing Notice was published in San Diego Daily Transcript on August 20th and 27th and September 3rd, 10th and 17th, 2004. Responses to Written Objections: The Law provides that the Community Development Commission and City Council may only consider action on the proposed 2004 Amendment after any written objections to the proposed 2004 Amendment are answered in writing. Written objections were submitted during the Joint Public Hearing on October 5, 2004; and, as required by Community Redevelopment Law, Staff and the redevelopment consultants prepared the appropriate written responses. Thus, the Community Development Commission and City Council may appropriately consider the recommended actions. A copy of the written response and the Resolution approving the responses, are attached. Conclusion/Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: A. Approve a motion that Memorandum dated February 22, 2005, entitled "Amendment of Redevelopment Plan: Abstention of Members of City Council and CDC Board; Legally -Required Participation" be made a part of the record of proceedings. B. Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Approving the Negative Declaration for the Proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. C. Adopt the Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Approving the Written Responses to the Written Objections Received on the Proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. D. Adopt an Ordinance of the City of National City Amending the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Plan through the Adoption of the 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. City of National City Agenda Item No. 1.A. Office of the City Attorney 1243 National City Boulevard., National City, CA 91950-4301 George H. Eiser, III • City Attorney (619) 336-4220 Fax: (619) 336-4327 TDD: (619) 336-1615 TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: February 22, 2005 FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment of Redevelopment Plan: Abstention of Members of the City Council and the CDC Board; Legally -Required Participation I request that the following statement be made part of the record pertaining to the proposed Amendment of the Redevelopment Plan: The legislative body of the City of National City is the City Council. As authorized by the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, the City Council is also the governing board of the Community Development Commission (the CDC). The Community Redevelopment Law provides that a redevelopment plan may be amended by the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council after a joint public hearing of the City Council and the members of the board of the CDC. In National City, no other body is available to hold a hearing or to adopt an ordinance amending the redevelopment plan. The Political Reform Act of the State of California prohibits a public official from participating in a governmental decision in which the official has a disqualifying conflict of interest. Generally, a public official has a conflict of interest if the decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on one or more of the official's economic interests. Pursuant to Section 18704.2 of Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, real property in which a public official has an economic interest is directly involved in a governmental decision if the decision is to adopt or amend a redevelopment plan, and the real property in which the official has an interest is located in the boundaries of the redevelopment area. Pursuant to Section 18705.2 of Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, where a public official has an interest in real property which is directly involved in a governmental decision, the financial affect of that on the real property is presumed to be material, unless the presumption is rebutted. The residences of Mayor Inzunza, Councilman Parra and Councilwoman Zarate are located in the redevelopment project area. Additionally, Mayor lnzunza has an ownership interest in a duplex residence located at 1416 East 16th Street, also within the project area. A decision to amend the redevelopment plan is being considered by the ® Recycled Paper Amendment of Redevelopment Plan February 22, 2005 Page 2 City Council. Pursuant to the provisions of the Political Reform Act and of Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Mayor Inzunza, Councilman Parra and Councilwoman Zarate have determined to abstain from participating in the decision to amend the redevelopment plan, because that decision may have a material financial effect on their real property interests located in the project area. Because the abstentions of Mayor Inzunza, Councilman Parra and Councilwoman Zarate result in less than a quorum being available to consider adoption of the ordinance amending the redevelopment plan, the concept of "legally required participation" must be invoked. This concept allows a disqualified official to be re - qualified by a random selection process, and allows a quorum to be present and for the re -qualified official to participate in the decision -making process until it is completed. This process was followed when the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan was considered at the January 4, 2005 meetings of the City Council and the CDC Board. The process resulted in Councilwoman and Board Member Zarate being requalified to participate. GEORGE H. EISER, III City Attorney GHE/gmo cc: City Manager Executive Director, CDC City Clerk City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.B. ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission Executive Director EXPLANATION: The Community Development Commission has 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, regardless of their zoning designation, within 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 be excluded from eminent domain. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Commission has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment. The required 30-day public review period was conducted from July 30, 2004 through August 30, 2004. No written comments were received on the Negative Declaration during the public review period. Environmental Review N/A As the Lead Agency, the City Council is required to consider the approval of the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed 2004 Amendment. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. t STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2005- approving the Negative Declaration. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2004 Amendment. ,fTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Resolution No. 2005- Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED 2004 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 did duly pass and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission has formulated an amendment to the Plan ("2004 Amendment") which would permit the Community Development Commission 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 in the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared on the 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, on September 21, 2004 and October 5, 2004, the Community Development Commission and the City Council held a joint public hearing on the proposed 2004 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 2004 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 prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment and hereby approves the Negative Declaration. Resolution No. 2005 — February 22, 2005 Page Two 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 2004 Amendment. PASSED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney • • REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared for: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Prepared by: Phil Martin & Associates 18195 McDurmott East, Suite C Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 250-0503 JULY 2004 ATTACHMENT "A" • • California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12t Street, Suite B National.City, Cal 9195( 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. 126' 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 t} Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission 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 tl 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 • • 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 • • 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 0 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 0 Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings O 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 • 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 Department Representative Date: July 28, 2004 Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 4 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? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ s ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ O 0 0 • O 0 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 • ❑ ❑ 0 • O ❑ 0 • ❑ ❑ 0 • ❑ ❑ 0 ■ a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 5 Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ❑111 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ a b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ • c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ • d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 6 • • Environmental Factors 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? iv) Landslides? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ • ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 • O 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? 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? g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ • Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 7 • • Environmental Factors environment through the presence or release of methane gas? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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)? 0 0 0 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? ❑ 0 0 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? 0 0 0 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? 0 ❑ 0 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? ❑ 0 0 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 0 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? 0 0 ❑❑ j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ 0 0 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? 0 0 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 8 Environmental Factors 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? 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? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ O 0 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ O 0 ❑ ■ 0 0 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 9 • • Environmental Factors XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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: ❑ 0 0 ■ i) Fire protection? 0 ❑ 0 ■ ii) Police protection? 0 0 0 ■ iii) Schools? 0 0 0 ■ iv) Parks? 0 0 0 • v) Other public facilities? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ 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? 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 O ❑ ❑ ■ O ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 • ❑ 0 ❑ ■ 0 ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page l0 • • Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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? 0 ❑ ❑ • f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑IN g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ 0 • 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 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: ❑ ■ 0 ■ 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 ❑ ❑ ■ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 11 • • Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 • • 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 c' 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 revie 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 II. • • 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. 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 offarmland, 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 • .' National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use or 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 • • 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 Came 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 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. ,n 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, includin, 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 • • 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 Nacion 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. 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 • • Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Developme 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 oc 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. 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 aret 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 19 • • 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 Department 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 Conunission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 20 • • environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because development is 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 impac*- 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. g) 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. 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 thr presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adopti. 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 • . 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 • • 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 th course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner th, 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. j) 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 • • 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 July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 24 • • Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Futu 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 conservatic 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 25 • • XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure ofpersons 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 • . Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Raul, 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 July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 27 • • III. 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 • construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use 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. ill) 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 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 • • 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 (Le., 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 • • c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) • 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. f) 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 July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 31 • • 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 • • d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or u new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplieb 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 provi wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallonb 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. fi 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 • • 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 ofprobable 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 34 • • only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 a' does not propose public or private develol rment projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental ej'rects 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 t, acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that ca ise substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to hu rians and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment v ould not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National Cit; — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 35 City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO, 1. C . ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission Executive Director EXPLANATION: The Community Development Commission has 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, regardless of their zoning designation, within 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 be excluded from eminent domain. Pursuant to Section 33363 of the California Health and Safety Code ("Community Redevelopment Law"), before adopting the proposed 2004 Amendment the City Council shall evaluate all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the amendment and shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Accordingly, pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, the Community Development Commission has prepared written responses to the written objections received during the joint public hearings on the proposed 2004 Amendment. J Environmental Review N/A Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Commission has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment. As the Lead Agency, the City Council will consider the approval of the Negative Declaration. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. L l STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2005- approving the written responses to the written objections. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2004 Amendment. .fTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Resolution No. 2005- Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED 2004 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 did duly pass and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission has formulated an amendment to the Plan ("2004 Amendment") which would permit the Community Development Commission 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 in the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017; and WHEREAS, on September 21, 2004 and October 5, 2004, the Community Development Commission and City Council held a joint public hearing onthe proposed 2004 Amendment and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33363 of the California Health and Safety Code ("Community Redevelopment Law"), before adopting the proposed 2004 Amendment the City Council shall evaluate all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the amendment and shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, the Community Development Commission has prepared written responses to the written objections received during the joint public hearings on the proposed 2004 Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of National City hereby finds and determines, as follows: Section 1. That the written responses prepared by the Community Development Commission as attached hereto as Attachment 1 adequately address the written objections submitted on the proposed 2004 Amendment. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Attachment 1 as the City's written responses to the written objections submitted on the proposed 2004 Amendment. -- Signature Page to Follow -- Resolution No. 2005 — February 22, 2005 Page Two PASSED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS Sixteen letters/forms were received objecting to the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2004 Amendment"). The 2004 Amendment would revise Section 603 of the existing National City Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") to permit the National City Community Development Commission ("CDC") to acquire, through eminent domain, any property that is zoned for commercial and industrial use as well as any vacant or abandoned properties (as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning .designation, within the Project Area. Property legally occupied for a residential use would be specifically excluded from eminent domain authority by the 2004 Amendment. The following presents a summary of the written objections and a corresponding response. These responses were prepared to address the requirements set forth in Section 33363 of the California Redevelopment Law. 1. Southwest Paint & Body, Inc/Frederick Peale — Southwest has a good record of operation and that it would be unfair as well as a financial detrimental to require them or other businesses to relocate. If the CDC elects to approve the 2004 Amendment, the CDC will not go forth to acquire businesses in the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). If approved, the 2004 Amendment would allow the CDC to acquire property through eminent domain only: • After a site specific redevelopment proposal has been first been considered and approved by the CDC, after property owner notification and public discussion; • After property owner and business tenants are given the first right to submit proposals to participate in the site specific redevelopment proposal; • After the CDC determines (during a public meeting) that property owners and business tenants located within the site specific redevelopment area do not have the capacity to participate in the site specific redevelopment proposal; • After MAI appraisals are prepared for all properties that must be purchased in order to facilitate the site specific redevelopment proposal; WrittenResponses2NO VO4[ 1 ] 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 • After a relocation plan is prepared and adopted by the National City City Council (after property and business owner, tenant and public review) that details how the specific relocation needs will be accommodated; • After the CDC approves MAI appraisals and directs staff to submit property purchase offers and to initiate property acquisition negotiations; • After appraisals are prepared to identify the leasehold interest value of each tenant's lease; • After property acquisition negotiations do not result in a negotiated property purchase, and the CDC determines that it must proceed with property acquisition using eminent domain; • After the CDC holds a public hearing to consider the property owner's testimony as to why their property should not be purchased through eminent domain; • After four of the five CDC governing board members vote to proceed with property acquisition through eminent domain; and • After the CDC files a Superior Court action to acquire the property through eminent domain. This is a long and expensive process, and historically, the CDC has not used its existing eminent domain authority to acquire property unless it is implementing a site specific redevelopment project that is both economically feasible and will benefit the greater Project Area. 2. Michael Sunshine — The letter states that areas that have assessment districts should be removed from the Project Area, property owners in the Project Area will not have incentive to maintain their properties due to impending condemnation, condemnation proceedings will not properly value improvements to the land, property tax increment revenue will take funding away from needed City services to pay off bonds and that projects such as the new Library and Educational Center prove that a Redevelopment District is not needed. If the 2004 Amendment is approved it does not mean that the CDC will move to acquire property within the Project Area. The CDC's redevelopment goal is to improve Project Area properties and businesses through working with existing owners, and attracting new property and business owners only when they would compliment existing businesses and improve the area. Removing properties that are within assessment districts would only decrease the revenue the CDC would receive to invest in improvements that benefit the Project Area. WrittenResponses2NO VO4[ 1 ] Determinations of blight were made in 1995 when the Project Area was established. The 2004 Amendment does not impact the 1995 blight determinations. Thus, there should not be a disincentive for Project Area property owners to invest in their properties because their investment will only enhance their individual property values and improve their business opportunities. Through redevelopment the CDC retains a greater share of property tax revenue to invest in Project Area improvements. If redevelopment was eliminated, some additional property tax revenue would go to the City's General Fund, with a majority, however, being paid to other non -City governmental agencies. The 2004 Amendment does not deal with whether or not the CDC's redevelopment program should continue. If the 2004 Amendment is not approved, the existing redevelopment program would remain in place until 2040. The CDC and redevelopment played a key role in accomplishing these two projects. The CDC provided redevelopment funds to build the library, and redevelopment funds and property acquisition services were used for the Education Center. 3. Kile Morgan — The letter is concerned with the size of the existing Project Area and believes the 2004 Amendment provides the CDC with more authority than was available in 1969 when the first Project Area was adopted. The 2004 Amendment does not change or modify the scope of the existing redevelopment authority. The Project Area was established in 1995 after public discussion and a public hearing. If the 2004 Amendment was not adopted, the properties currently included in the Project Area would remain and the CDC would have the authority to implement redevelopment initiatives. The CDC would not have the authority, however, to acquire commercial, industrial, vacant and abandoned properties through eminent domain in certain areas. The CDC currently does have eminent domain authority to acquire non-residential properties in the Harbor Area (west of Interstate 5) and along National City Boulevard. 4. Judy de los Santos — Development in National City has excluded residential owners and small business owners for the benefit of large developers. She believes condemnation should be voted on by citywide referendum so residents and small businesses can participate. Ms. Santos alleges that the CDC has implemented redevelopment programs through back room deals involving only large developers. This has not been the case. The CDC has a history of working with local property owners and businesses. This includes the Trophy Lounge where an existing small business owner was assisted by the CDC in rehabilitation and expansion of an existing business, MSI, a National City business who was seeking expansion opportunities outside of National City until the CDC facilitated their expansion within the City (WE NEED TO HAVE PAUL DEROCHERS WEIGH IN HERE FOR OTHER EXAMPLES). The CDC must also WrittenResponses2NOVO4[ 1 ] 3 follow its Owner Participation Rules that give existing property and business owners the first right to participate in site specific redevelopment projects. 5. Herman Baca, President for the Committee on Chicano Rights(September 21, 2004) — Allowing a twelve (12) year authority for condemnation of properties is too long and requests to know where funding is coming from. The CDC currently has the authority to purchase non-residential property in the portions of the Project Area that are west of Interstate 5, and along National City Boulevard, until 2007. This follows the authority established in the California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") that allows redevelopment agencies to establish a 12 year term for the use of eminent domain. The existing authority was established in 1995. The 2004 Amendment proposes to extend the CDC's eminent domain authority for an additional 12 years to provide sufficient time to implement redevelopment initiatives. The author did not cite examples of the "political power grab" that he states accompanied past CDC projects, nor the unannounced plans that will negatively affect Project Area single-family residences. Thus, staff cannot provide comment on these concerns because they are unaware of these circumstances. Regarding funding, the CDC proposes to use a combination of tax increment revenue and private funding to implement site specific redevelopment projects. While the proposed 2004 Amendment expands the existing eminent domain authority, it the CDC does not contemplate, nor does the 2004 Amendment commit, the CDC to acquiring any or all of the property in the Project Area. 6. Herman Baca, President for the Committee on Chicano Rights (October 5, 2004 letter) — Requests the October 5, 2004 joint public hearing for the 2004 Amendment be postponed until after the November 2, 2004 elections to better inform people in the Project Area, wait for a United States ("U. S.') Supreme Court case to be decided and create a citizens advisory committee. The CDC has delayed action on the 2004 Amendment pending a public information meeting on November 15, 2004. A U.S. Supreme Court decision could take years and the court ruling may not even be germane to the 2004 Amendment. The CDC is scheduled to next consider this action in January 2005. Input on future redevelopment implementation activities will be facilitated by the neighborhood councils the City will be establishing in 2005. 7. Rev. Patricia E. Andrews-Calloi — Expresses a need for more public meetings and workshops and requests the CDC provide more information on what financial benefits might be expected from the 2004 Amendment, particularly with affordable housing. The CDC staff will be holding a workshop on the 2004 Amendment on November 15, 2004. The City is also forming neighborhood councils that will provide input and direction regarding neighborhood specific revitalization efforts that will be implemented through a variety of means including redevelopment. At this time, the WrittenResponses2NO VO4[ 1 ] 4 CDC has not identified any developer or developers that it will be working with to implement its redevelopment program. The 2004 Amendment will not effect the revenue the CDC will receive to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing in the community. If the 2004 Amendment is not approved, the existing redevelopment program will remain in place and the CDC will continue to deposit 20% of the annual tax increment revenue the CDC receives into a fund to underwrite affordable housing preservation and development. 8. Manager, ENS MANAGEMENT, LLC — They are opposed to the amendment and do not include reasons or other concerns. No response is required. 9. Unsigned with no organization listed — Supporters of the 2004 Amendment should be concerned as to the example provided to children and that taxpayers rights should be protected. The letter is a general statement that does not list specific objections to the 2004 Amendment. 10. Gary Himaka — Requests the following revisions: o Create specific and limited areas. o Remove areas already redeveloped. o List specific projects related to the 2004 Amendment. o Shorten eminent domain authority from 12 to 6 or 8 years. o Limit rezoning of property in the Project Area. o Provide more information on abandoned, blighted and vacant properties. In developing the 2004 Amendment, the CDC staff reviewed potential areas that would benefit from revitalization and redevelopment activities. These were vacant, commercial and industrial areas of the Project Area which included properties that are in need of improvement. With this information, CDC staff then identified the geographical areas that would be the included in the 2004 Amendment. If different properties or a smaller area should be considered, staff would request that Mr. Himaka meet with them to identify these areas. Areas that have already been redeveloped were not removed because they will not be affected by the 2004 Amendment. There are no specific projects being considered at this time that would be implemented by the 2004 Amendment. Given that, staff is recommending that the eminent domain authority be granted for the 12 year period allowed by the CRL to allow greater flexibility for the community to implement future redevelopment projects. It is important to note that just because a redevelopment agency has eminent domain authority it is not required to use the authority. Regarding limits on rezoning, Mr. Himaka does not indicate why they may be needed; staff cannot respond to this point without additional information as to what the concerns may be. The CDC's public information workshop on November 15, 2004 will provide more WrittenResponses2NOVO4[1] 5 information on abandoned and vacant properties as well as blight findings that were required when the Project Area was established in 1995. 11. Tony Bedford — No compensation will justify the taking property and the 2004 Amendment will only benefit large developers. The 2004 Amendment does not entail the "taking" of a person's property. If adopted, eminent domain can only be used after the lengthy process detailed in Response 1 above, payment of a fair market purchase value, and relocation compensation. Further, there are no facts to support the statement that the CDC is considering the 2004 Amendment to benefit large developers, or any developers. 12. Leticia Camacho — Requests a listing how many times the City of National City has used eminent domain. She further requests to know if this was motivated by blighting conditions or desire for revenue. The City of National City can only use eminent domain for a public purpose such as a library, fire station or other public use facility. Cities themselves may not use this form of eminent domain authority for economic development activities. The CDC does have limited eminent domain authority and to date, has used this authority (CAN PAUL WEIGH IN HERE?) When the CDC has considered using its existing eminent domain authority it has been to eliminate substandard properties and expand economic development activities in the Project Area. 13. Rosina Monaco — This letter appears to discuss renter's rights and Ms. Monaco's term of residency in National City. The 2004 Amendment excludes occupied residential properties even if they are zoned commercial or industrial. 14. Stephanie Leif — Is concerned about the term blight and its' possible negative affect on property values, ability of property owners to negotiate long-term leases, overall desire of owners to improve their property, as well as possible plans the CDC may have for property located in existing Harbor District Redevelopment Project Area. The Harbor District Redevelopment Project Area ("Harbor District") has satisfied all legal requirements for blight findings required at the time of its adoption in 1995, this adoption included eminent domain authority all properties, except properties occupied for residential use, in the Harbor District. The 2004 Amendment proposes the same eminent domain authority for the commercial and industrial zoned, and vacant and abandoned properties, in the rest of Project Area. During the 9 years since the Harbor District was included in the Project Area, property values have increase and there is evidence that tenants have been able to obtain long term leases. A June 2004 field study did find evidence of blight, and it also surfaced evidence that a number of property and business owners are redeveloping and improving their properties. The CDC will continue to follow the Harbor District WrittenResponses2NOVO4[ 1] 6 Master Plan when facilitating rehabilitation and redevelopment activities in the Harbor District. 15. Vincent Bartolotta & Karen Frostrom, Attorneys at Law — The law firm of Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire (`TBM") represents the owner of property in the Harbor Project and asserts that the 2004 Amendment is improper in extending the time for existing eminent domain authority as well as extending it to additional areas, because it does not meet the required blight findings. Blight findings were made when each of the seven constituent projects areas were originally adopted. These findings were reaffirmed in the 1995 Report to Council when the Project Area was established. The 1995 Report was approved by the CDC and supported findings for the ordinance that adopted the Project Area. This ordinance was not contested. Pursuant Section 33368 of the CRL, these findings are considered to be final and conclusive. The CDC does not have to reaffirm blight to as part of the 2004 Amendment because no new properties are being added to the Project Area. TBM also requests that non -blighted parcels should not be included in the proposed authority of the 2004 Amendment because these properties have not been designated as necessary for redevelopment. Again, the CDC is not adding property to the Project Area and as such, it does not have to evaluate past findings as to why non -blighted property was included in the Project Area when it was established in 1995. The 2004 Amendment does not deal with blight or the inclusion of non -blighted property because it is not required by the CRL. TBM is concerned about the 2004 Amendment being classified as a tool of last resort. The proposed language that would be added to the Redevelopment Plan to extend the CDC's eminent domain authority does not reference using eminent domain as a last resort. Instead the language states "The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the Project Area. Specifically excluded from eminent domain are properties that are used for residential purposes. The CDC's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property shall run for 12 years from the effective date of the 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan." The reference to a "tool of last resort" is included in the Report to Council and describes the historical context that the CDC has used eminent domain; as a last resort to facilitate property acquisition. If the 2004 Amendment is adopted, the CDC must go thorough additional processes and make additional findings that justify the public purpose for acquiring property through eminent domain. These findings are not required when considering a WrittenResponses2NOVO4[ 1 ] 7 redevelopment plan amendment that would establish or expand eminent domain authority. This is because no specific projects have been identified to date that require eminent domain to implement. The National City Redevelopment Plan must protect individual rights. The Redevelopment Plan provides for participation by property owners and tenants in any CDC redevelopment project that involves private property. These requirements are further defined in the CDC's Owner Participation Guidelines. Both of these documents outline measures that the CDC must follow to ensure that property and business owner rights are safeguarded. Further, the 2004 Amendment does not identify projects or programs that require eminent domain. Thus, determinations regarding public purpose, benefits and just compensation are not required at this time. TBM has also requested fifty four (54) separate areas of information regarding conditions of blight, the economic feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, economic provisions for funding eminent domain acquisitions, and particular plans for particular properties in the Project Area. Regarding blight and the economic feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, evidence of blight and an analysis of the economic feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan are provided in the 1995 Report. The 1995 Report presented conditions of blight and evaluated the economic feasibility of the redevelopment proposal. Further, the Report incorporated by reference, all previous Reports to Council that supported the adoption of the constituent project areas. The 1995 Report was approved by the CDC and supported findings for the ordinance that adopted the Project Area. This ordinance was not contested. Pursuant Section 33368 of the CRL, these findings are considered to be final and conclusive. The 2004 Amendment does not require reaffirmation of blight and economic feasibility because it does not include actions that modify or change the bight findings and economic feasibility analysis that supported the 1995 actions. Regarding the economic provisions for funding eminent domain actions, the CDC would use tax increment revenue and bond proceeds that are available at the time a property acquisition took place. Since the CDC has not identified any site specific redevelopment projects that may require eminent domain, it has not identified the financial resources to support these unknown activities. Regarding particular plans for certain Project Area properties on Cleveland and McKinley Avenues, the CDC does not have specific plans. Instead we would refer TBM to the Harbor District Master Plan to ascertain what the overall plans are for the Harbor District. W ri ttenResponses2NO V 04 [ 1 ] 8 City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1.D. ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission Executive Director EXPLANATION: The Community Development Commission has 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, regardless of their zoning designation, within 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 be excluded from eminent domain. Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, which shall become effective in thirty (30) calendar days, the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority will be extended until March 31, 2017. Environmental Review N/A Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Commission has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment. As the Lead Agency, the City Council will consider the approval of the Negative Declaration. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. xx adopting the 2004 Amendment. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2004 Amendment. J ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Ordinance No. xx Resolution No. ORDINANCE NO. 2005 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City has adopted and subsequently amended the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan"), on November 18, 1969 by Ordinance No. 1233, June 24, 1975 by Ordinance No. 1471, April 13, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1505, and December 13, 1977 by Ordinance No. 1610, and subsequently amended on December 1, 1981 by Ordinance No. 1762, May 22, 1984 by Ordinance No. 1821, April 16, 1985 by Ordinance No. 1851, June 18, 1991 by Ordinance No. 91-2013, and June 18, 1995 by Ordinance No. 95-2095, incorporated herein by reference, and has designated the Redevelopment Plan as the official redevelopment plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") has requested that the City Council consider the 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2004 Amendment") in order to provide the authority to acquire by eminent domain all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings, regardless of their zoning designation, within the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the CDC has previously certified an Negative Declaration prepared in connection with the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., and the local procedures adopted by the CDC pursuant thereto, the CDC has prepared and completed a proposed Negative Declaration for the 2004 Amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33452 of the Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code), public notice has been duly given, and a full and fair public hearing has been held on the proposed 2004 Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City does ordain as follows: Section 1. The 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby adopted and approved. 2005 Ordinance 1 Amending the Redevelopment Plan Section 2. Based upon the evidence contained in the Report to the City Council for the 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan, incorporated herein by reference, the City Council does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows: (a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes as set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law ("the Law"); and (b) The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Lawand in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and (c) The City Council have determined that the 2004 Amendment is consistent with the City of National City's ("City") General Plan, including, but not limited to the Housing Element of the General Plan; and (d) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Law; and (e) The condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law; and (f) (g) The CDC has a feasible method for the relocation of families and persons displaced from the Project Area, to the extent that implementation of the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of Project Area housing facilities; and There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment; and (h) Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and 33411.1 of the Law. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5 of the Law; and 2005 Ordinance 2 Amending the Redevelopment Plan (i) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the CDC. Section 3. Though the 2004 Amendment does not propose displacement of permanent housing facilities, the City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities would be available within three years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced and that, pending the development of the facilities, there will be available to the displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. Section 4. A full and fair public hearing having been held on the 2004 Amendment, and the City Council having considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the 2004 Amendment and all written and oral objections thereto, and this City Council being fully advised in the premises, all written and oral objections to the 2004 Amendment to the extent not otherwise addressed in the Redevelopment Plan or not otherwise responded to are hereby overruled. Section 5. The City Clerk shall publish a copy of this Ordinance as required by Law. PASSED and ADOPTED this ATTEST: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H.Eiser, III City Attorney day of , 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor 2005 Ordinance 3 Amending the Redevelopment Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed 2004 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2004 Amendment. The proposed text modification is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the Project Area. Specifically excluded from eminent domain are properties that are used for residential purposes. The CDC's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property shall run for 12 years from the effective date of the 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until March 31, 2017. 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan Report to the City Council February 17, 2005 Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 RSG INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. 309 West 4th Street Santa Ana, Califomia 92701-4502 P : 714.541.4585 F : 714.541.1175 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com Table of Contents Introduction 1 Plan Amendment 2 Contents of this Report 3 Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specfic Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area 4 A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Project Area 5 Five -Year Implementation Plan 6 Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Agency's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment 6 The Method of Financing 6 The Relocation Plan 7 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan 8 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission 8 Report of the Project Area Committee 8 General Plan Conformance 9 Environmental Documentation 10 Report of the County Fiscal Officer 10 Neighborhood Impact Report 11 A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies 11 Exhibit - A 12 Exhibit - B 13 Introduction Introduction The Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is processing an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2004 Amendment'). This is being done to facilitate commercial and industrial revitalization and introduce a variety of residential development where appropriate by expanding the CDC's authority to acquire property through eminent domain in the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") over commercial, industrial, vacant and abandoned properties. The Project Area is comprises approximately 2,400 acres and is generally bounded by Tidelands Avenue and the San Diego Bay to the west, Interstate 805 to the east, and the National City limits to the north and south. Major land uses in the Project Area include commercial, industrial, public and residential. Exhibit A presents a map of the boundaries of the Project Area. Currently, the Plan permits the CDC to acquire real property, except residential property, by any means authorized by law, including eminent domain for specific geographical areas. Exhibit A identifies the properties currently subject to eminent domain authority, which include the following: • All parcels located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • All parcels located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • All parcels located immediately west and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • All parcels located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • All parcels located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • All parcels located immediately south and adjacent to East Plaza Boulevard, between E Avenue and Highland Avenue. • All parcels 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL These properties were identified in 1995 and 2001 on the basis that they could be needed to facilitate commercial revitalization projects in the Project Area, where land assembly and parcel consolidation would be essential to the success of the project. Although the CDC has used eminent domain sparingly, it has been a necessary adjunct to acquisition negotiations. Over the past several years, it has become evident that additional non-residential used properties also need to be included in the list of properties subject to eminent domain as most of the properties in the Project Area are exempt from eminent domain authority. This document is the CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report') for the proposed 2004 Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law'). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the this Report provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the City of National City Council with their consideration of the 2004 Amendment, and in making the various determinations in connection with its adoption. This Report supplements the documentation and evidence contained in previous' Reports to the City Council ("Original Reports"), prepared in connection with the original Plan and subsequent amendments; the Original Reports are incorporated herein by reference. Plan Amendment The proposed 2004 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2004 Amendment. The proposed text modifications is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the Project Area. Specifically excluded from eminent domain are properties that are used for residential purposes. The CDC's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property shall run for 12 years from the effective date of the 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Due to the fact that the 2004 Amendment proposes only to extend or establish the eminent domain provision within a portion of the Project Area, Section 33457.1 of the CRL dictates the required components of this Report to Council. More specifically, Section 33457.1 of the CRL states that the reports and information required by Section 33352 are only the reports and information warranted by the 2004 Amendment. Much of the information normally required that pertain to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports. Pursuant to Section 33368 of the CRL, the CDC's adoption of the ordinance adopting the Plan is final and conclusive, and it is now conclusively presumed and beyond legal challenge that the Project Area is ' Dated June 13, 1995 and June 19, 2001 respectively. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 2 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL a blighted area as defined by Sections 33030 and 33031 of the CRL and that all prior proceedings have been duly and regularly taken. Thus, no additional "blight findings" are required for adoption of the 2004 Amendment with respect to properties where existing eminent domain authority is being extended. Contents of this Report The contents of this Report are presented in fourteen (14) sections, which generally correspond to the subdivisions presented in Section 33352 of the Law. The sections are as follows: Section A Reasons for the Proposed Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area Section B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Project Area Section C Five -Year Implementation Plan Section D Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Agency's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section E The Method of Financing Section F The Relocation Plan Section G Analysis of the Preliminary Plan Section H Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission Section I Report of the Project Area Committee Section J General Plan Conformance Section K Environmental Documentation Section L Report of the County Fiscal Officer Section M Neighborhood Impact Report Section N A Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specfic Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area The CDC seeks to amend the Plan to extend CDC's authority (subject to all required procedures under California law) to use eminent domain to acquire all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the Project Area. Specifically excluded from eminent domain are properties that are used for residential purposes. The CDC's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property shall run for 12 years from the effective date of the 2004 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The 2004 Amendment does not amend, modify, change or affect in any way modify the Project Area boundaries nor does it modify any other provisions of the Plan. The CDC is undertaking the 2004 Amendment in order to expand its ability to assemble site to facilitate commercial and industrial redevelopment projects in other areas of the Project Area. Since the 1995 Redevelopment Plan was adopted that authorized the current limited eminent domain authority, the CDC has elected to initiate redevelopment projects that eliminate blight in other areas of the Project Area that are not subject to acquisition through eminent domain. Their efforts have been limited, however, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. Expanding the scope of Plan's eminent domain authority will afford the CDC one additional tool to facilitate the elimination of blight in the commercial and industrial zoned areas of the Project Area, by permitting land assemble activities within these areas. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Project Area Section 33352(b) of the Law requires a description of the physical and economic conditions that cause the Project Area to be blighted. This description was provided in the documentation, which was prepared as evidence in the Original Reports that the Project Area was deemed blighted at the time of adoption of the existing Plan. Sections 33030-33031 of the Law defined specific physical, economic and social conditions of blight within a redevelopment project area at the time properties were first placed in the Project Area, Given the language in both Sections 33368 and 33457.1 of the CRL, additional description would only appropriate and required for properties that establish new eminent domain authority. With respect to establishing eminent domain authority, the CDC's consultant surveyed commercial, industrial, and abandoned properties throughout the Project Area and identified the following blighting conditions over 80% of commercial and industrial zoned parcels in June of 2004: • Defective design and character of physical construction; • Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing; • Age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, and shifting of uses; • Lack of adequate on -site parking' • Economic dislocation, deterioration, and disuse, resulting from faulty planning; and • Deferred Maintenance. The establishment of eminent domain authority would provide another tool to assist the CDC in correction this and other blight for these commercial, industrial, and abandoned properties. Many of these properties were developed decades prior to the adoption of the existing Project Area. Neighborhoods and portions of the Project Area, particularly the properties where eminent domain authority would be established are experiencing transitional changes and continue to suffer from the affects of age. Pursuant to Section 33368 of the Law, the adoption of the ordinances adopting the Plan and subsequent amendments are final and conclusive, and it is thereafter conclusively presumed that the Project Area is a blighted area as defined by Sections 33030 and 33031 of the Law and that all prior proceedings have been duly and regularly taken. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 5 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL Five -Year Implementation Plan On May 16, 2000, the CDC adopted its current Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Project Area, which expired in June of 2004. The CDC is currently in the process of adopting a new Implementation Plan for the fiscal years 2004-05 through 2008-09. The existing Implementation Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 33490 of the CRL and contains specific goals and objectives for the Project Area, the specific projects, and expenditures to be made during the five-year planning period, and an explanation of how these goals, objectives and expenditures will eliminate blight within the Project Area. The Implementation Plan is not affected by the proposed 2004 Amendment. The Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Agency's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the CRL requires an explanation of why the elimination of blight in the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone, or by the CDC's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. This information was previously provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time of the adoption of the existing Project Area. The 2005 Amendment will not make any changes that would affect the validity of the previously prepared documentation supporting the need for tax increment. The Method of Financing The method of financing redevelopment activities was provided in the Original Reports when the Project Area was adopted. The 2004 Amendment will not alter the Project Area boundaries, affect the base year value or change the ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL proposed method of financing, the 2004 Amendment does not warrant that method of financing be reviewed. The Relocation Plan Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the CRL require the Agency to prepare a method or plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities located within the Project Area, and nonprofit local community institutions to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in said Project Area. The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of Relocation"). This Method of Relocation was amended on July 18, 1995. The final Method of Relocation is incorporated herein by reference and is on file with the Secretary of the CDC. Because no specific projects requiring relocation can be identified at this time, it is not feasible to identify specific businesses, residences, or local community institutions which may need to be relocated at some time during the implementation process. If relocation activities are undertaken, the CDC will handle those relocation cases that result from project activities on an individual case -by -case basis. As a public agency formed under the provisions of state law, the CDC is required to adhere to State Relocation Law (Government Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines ("State Guidelines") as established in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 6. In 1997, the State Relocation Law was amended by Assembly Bill 450 to bring State Relocation Law in conformance with federal regulations. The State Guidelines and Relocation Law comply with the requirements of CRL Section 33411.1. Prior to commencement of any acquisition activity that will cause substantial displacement of residents, the CDC will adopt a specific relocation plan in conformance with the State Guidelines. To the extent appropriate, the CDC may supplement those provisions provided in the State Guidelines to meet particular relocation needs of a specific project. Such supplemental policies will not involve reduction, but instead enhancement of the relocation benefits required by State Law. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL Analysis of the Preliminary Plan An analysis of the Preliminary Plan was provided in the supporting documentation prepared at the time the Project Area was adopted. Pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the Law, because the analysis of the Preliminary Plan remains the same and is not affected by the 2004 Amendment, additional analysis is not required. Report and . Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the CRL requires inclusion of a report and recommendation of the National City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"). The report and recommendation of the Planning Commission was provided in the supporting documentation prepared at the time the Project Area was adopted. The CDC did not request a new report and recommendation of the Planning Commission for the 2004 Amendment, because it does not affect the Plan's land use provisions and it was previously determined that the existing Plan was in conformance with the adopted General Plan of National City. Therefore, it was not necessary to require the Planning Commission to make additional findings. Report of the Project Area Committee Pursuant to the Law, a redevelopment agency shall call upon the property owners, residents, business tenants and existing community organizations in a redevelopment project area, or amendment area, to form a project area committee ("PAC") if: (1) granting the authority to the agency (CDC) to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in a project area in which a substantial number of low- and moderate -income persons reside; or (2) add territory in which a substantial number of low- and moderate -income persons ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL reside and grant the authority to the agency to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in the added territory. The CDC did not form a PAC because the 2004 Amendment specifically excludes from the proposed expansion of eminent domain properties that are used for residential purposes, and no projects or programs have been identified that will displace a substantial number of low- and moderate -income persons. Therefore, it was not necessary to form a PAC pursuant to Section 33385.3 for the purposes of making additional findings. General Plan Conformance The 2004 Amendment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 2004 Amendment affect the land use provisions of the Plan. Information that determined the Plan was in conformance with the General Plan was provided in the documentation prepared at the time the Project Area was adopted. Therefore, Section 33352(j) of the Law requiring a report of General Plan conformance per Section 65402 of the Government Code is not required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL Environmental Documentation Section 33352(k) of the Law requires environmental documentation to be prepared pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. Concurrent with the adoption of the Plan and the subsequent amendments, the CDC undertook appropriate environmental documentation as necessary. In 1995, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("1995 EIR") was prepared in conjunction with the 1995 Amendment. The 1995 El R reviewed and established mitigation policies relating to impacts associated with implementation of the Plan as amended by the 1995 Amendment. The 1995 EIR was included in the 1995 Report to the City Council and is incorporated herein by reference. For the 2004 Amendment, an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend for commercial, industrial, vacant and abandoned properties would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. As such, in August 2005 a Negative Declaration for the 2004 Amendment was completed and made available for review and comment. A copy of the Negative Declaration follows. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 2004 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area; therefore, it is not necessary for the CDC to request a base year report from the County of San Diego pursuant to CRL Section 33328. Project Area fiscal information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2004 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 10 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL Neighborhood Impact Report Section 33352(m) of the Law requires the inclusion of a Neighborhood Impact Report. This information is presented in the Original Reports that were prepared and provided at the time Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2004 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area; pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the Law no additional analysis would be appropriate or required. A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies Because the 2004 Amendment does not add area to the Project Area, submission of a request to the County to prepare a report pursuant to Section 33328 of the Law was required or appropriate. Therefore, a summary of this report is not included. With regard to consultations, the taxing agencies received all notices regarding the 2004 amendment and they were invited to contact the CDC Executive Director regarding the 2004 Amendment. However, as of the date of this Report, no taxing agency has yet contacted the CDC. The 2004 Amendment does not affect the financing in any way nor does it change land uses or public improvement projects. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FEBRUARY 17, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE February 22 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO, 2 ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION APPROVING SECTIONS 4.1.4 AND 4.3 (f) OF THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE BEAUCHAMP FAMILY TRUST PREPARED BY George H. Eiser, III F DEPARTMENT EXPLANATION City Attorney EXT. 4221 Please see attached memorandum. Environmental Review X N/A MIS Approval Financial Statement N/A Approved By: Finance Director Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. Resolution Consent/Approval of the City Sections 4.1.4 and 4.3 (f) of OPA A-200 (Rev. 7/03) City of National City Office of the City Attorney 1243 National City Boulevard., National City, CA 91950-4301 George H. Eiser, III . City Attorney (619) 336-4220 Fax: (619) 336-4327 TDD: (619) 336-1615 TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: February 17, 2005 FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Owner Participation Agreement with Beauchamp Family Trust The CDC agenda for February 22, 2005, includes an item for the approval of a proposed Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") with the Beauchamp Family Trust for the redevelopment of the block bounded by Plaza Boulevard, 11th Street, National City Boulevard, and Roosevelt Avenue. Section 4.1.4 of the proposed OPA provides that the Owner is not required to include an affordable housing component as part of its improvements, nor will it be obligated to do so in the future, nor to pay "in -lieu"" fees for affordable housing. The City does not currently require an affordable housing component nor in -lieu fees for residential developers. This provision would exempt this project from such requirements if they were to be imposed by the City Council in the future. Section 4.3 (f) of the proposed OPA provides that the amount of development impact fees that the Owner is required to pay for the project shall be calculated according to the schedule of fees in existence as of the date of approval of the OPA. The effect of this provision is to "freeze the amount of development impact fees for the purposes of this project, although those fees may be increased by the City Council in the future. This type of provision is commonly requested by developers, and granted by cities through development agreements. Copies of Section 4.1.4 and 4.3 (f) and of the Consent/Approval are attached. If the City Council is supportive of these provisions, adopting the proposed resolution is necessary, in addition to approval of the OPA by the CDC, because the subject impact fees were established by action of the City Council. Similarly, any future requirements with respect to affordable housing or in -lieu fees would be imposed by City Council action. GEORGE H. EISER, III City Attorney GHE/gmo ® Recycled Paper CONSENT/APPROVAL OF CITY The City of National City hereby consents to and approves Sections 4.1.4 and 4.3(f) of the foregoing Owner Participation Agreement dated February 22, 2005 by and between the Community Development Commission of the City of National City and the Beauchamp Family Trust dated 8/16/82. THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY By: Name: Title: 31A 017.257598.1 off -Site environmental conditions requiring mitigation. Agency shall have the right to reasonably approve all mitigation plans, if any. 4.1.4 Affordable Housing. Owner is not obligated to include an affordable housing component as at of its Improvements nor will Owner be oblid in the future to include an affordable housing component as part of its Improvements. Additionally, Owner is not obligated to pay "in -lieu" fees for affordable housing nor wild Owner be obligated in the future to Hay such fees Hrovided that Owner commence construction of the Improvements within the time outlined in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit Cl. subiect to extension of imes as permitted in Section 8 2. but no later than December 31, 2007 unless further extensions area rove y the Executive Director of the Agencv, which approval shall not be unreasonablv.withheld. 4.2 Design Review. Agency and Owner shall adhere to the attached Schedule of Performance- (Exhibit C) for project review and design review, which shall be reviewed by Agency staff and shall not be submitted for public hearing. 4.2.1 Basic Concept Drawings. Within the time set forth in the Schedule of Performance, Owner shall submit conceptual drawings for the Improvements, including site plan, building floor plans, building elevations, color and material representations, and a rendered perspective (collectively, the "Basic Concept Drawings"). Within the time set forth in the Schedule of Performance, Agency shall review, approve, or set forth the reasons for its disapproval of the Basic Concept Drawings. 4.2.2 Construction Drawings. After Agency's approval of the Basic Concept Drawings, and within the time set forth in the Schedule of Performance, Owner shall submit to Agency plans and drawings with respect to the Improvements (collectively, the "Construction Drawings"), which shall include all documents, plans and drawings, including any application materials required by the City Planning Services Division, which are necessary to obtain all City approvals for the construction of the Improvements. 4.2.3 Agency Review and Approval. Within the time set forth in the Schedule of Performance, Agency shall have the right to review and approve the Basic Concept Drawings, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Agency shall have the right to review and reasonably approve or disapprove the Construction Drawings; provided, however, that Agency shall not disapprove logical evolutions and/or extensions of drawings that it has previously approved. Owner acknowledges and agrees that Agency is entitled to approve or disapprove the Basic Concept Drawings and Construction Drawings in order to satisfy Agency's obligation to promote the sound development and redevelopment of land within the Redevelopment Project, to promote a high level of design which will impact the surrounding development, and to provide an environment for the social, economic and psychological growth and well-being of the citizens of the City and the Redevelopment Project. 4.2.4 Standards for Disapproval. Agency shall have the right to disapprove the Basic Concept Drawings in its reasonable discretion. Agency shall have the right to disapprove in its reasonable discretion any of the Construction Drawings if (a) the 15 [143576 v1/5042.011] Compare v.4 v.5 Basic Concept Drawings or Construction Drawings, nor for any delays reasonably caused by the review and approval processes established by this Section 4. 4.3 Land Use Approvals. Before commencement of construction of the Improvements or other works of improvement upon the Site, Owner shall, at its own expense, secure or cause to be secured any and all land use and other entitlements, permits and approvals whichmay be required for the Improvements by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction or work, except for those which are the responsibility of the Agency as set forth herein. Agency shall exercise every reasonable effort to assist Owner in securing any and all land use and other entitlements, permits and approvals from City and any other governmental agency from which such permits and entitlements are required. Owner shall, without limitation, apply for and secure the following and pay all costs, charges and fees associated therewith: a. Site development entitlements; b. Site permits; c. Building construction permits; d. Final Map; e. Any environmental studies and documents required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, subject to Agency's obligations under Section 3.12; and f. All other permits and fees required by the City, County of San Diego and other governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the Improvements. Agency acknowledges and agrees that the amouq of development impact fees Owner is required to pay for the Project shall be calculated according to the schedule of fees in existence as of the date of the approval of this Agreement. 4.4 Schedule of Performance. Owner shall submit all Basic Concept Drawings and Construction Drawings, commence and complete construction of the Improvements, and satisfy all other obligations and conditions of this Agreement within the time established in the Schedule of Performance. Agency shall cooperate in its timely review and approval of all documents submitted by Owner as indicated in the Schedule of Performance. 4.5 Cost of Construction. All of the cost of planning, designing, developing and constructing all of the Improvements shall be borne solely by the Owner. 4.6 Insurance Requirements/Indemnification. During the period commencing with execution of this Agreement by the Agency and until such time as Agency has issued a certificate of completion with respect to the construction of the Improvements on the Site, Owner agrees to and shall defend, indemnify and hold Agency and City and their officers, employees, contractors and agents harmless from and against all claims, actions, liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs) arising from or as a result of 17 [143576 v1/5042.011] Compare v.4 v.5 RESOLUTION NO. 2005 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CONSENTING TO AND APPROVING SECTIONS 4.1.4 AND 4.3 (f) OF THE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (OPA) BY AND BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND THE BEAUCHAMP FAMILY TRUST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK VILLAGE MIXED -USE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is engaged in activities necessary to execute and implement the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the National City Redevelopment Project (NCRP); and WHEREAS, in furtherance of the objectives of the California Community Redevelopment law (California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the private sector and the CDC desire to redevelop property located on the block bounded by Plaza Boulevard on the north, Roosevelt Avenue on the west, 11th Street on the south, and National City Boulevard on the east, the "Site"; and WHEREAS, the Implementation Plan adopted by the CDC with respect to the NCRP area calls for the CDC's objective to "increase private investment wherever possible, to promote jobs and improve the property and sales tax base of the City"; and WHEREAS, the CDC and Beauchamp Family Trust (the "Developer"), propose to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement (the "Agreement") pursuant to which the Developer would construct improvements on the Site consisting of approximately 202 residential condominiums, 14 live -work town -homes, 16,557 square feet of retail, and 319 parking spaces, (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Section 4.1.4 of the Agreement pertains to affordable housing components of residential developments and to affordable housing in -lieu fees, and Section 4.3 (f) of the Agreement pertains to development impact fees, all of which are within the jurisdiction of the City of National City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the provisions of Sections 4.1.4 and 4.3 (f) of the Agreement and has found them to be acceptable; and WHEREAS, all actions required by all applicable laws with respect to the proposed Agreement has been taken in an appropriate and timely manner. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby consents to and approves Sections 4.1.4 and 4.3 (f) of the Owner Participation Agreement by and between the Community Development Commission and the Beauchamp Family Trust. -- Signature Page to Follow -- Resolution No. 2005 — February 22, 2005 Page Two PASSED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE February 22, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION DIRECTING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSFER TO THE STATE's EDUCATION REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) PREPARED BY Park Morse, Finance Director DEPARTMENT Finance X. 4330 As part of the 2004-2005 State budget solution, redevelopment agencies were required to transfer $250M in EXPLANATION property tax revenue to K-12 schools and community colleges in both FY 2004-05 and 2005-06. The State's Director of Finance has notified agencies of their share and the revenue transfer for our Community Development Commission has been set at $696,863.93. The budget statute is written so that the agency makes the contribution unless the City elects to make the contribution for the agency. If the agency fails to complete the transfer to the county auditor, the amount of the transfer becomes an obligation of the City. If this were to occur, the City's property tax revenues are apparently in first position to pay the County. From the statute, it is clear that this is intended to be an obligation of the Community Development Commission. The City's resources are already strained from making our own contributions to the State. The statute requires the local government notify the county auditor by March 1, of how the transfer is to be made. The transfer itself is to occur on or hefore May 10, 2005. Staff recommends that the attached resolution be approved. It would: 1. Direct Community Development Commission Staff to make the remittance to the County Auditor on or hefore May 10, 2005, and; 2. Direct City Staff to work with Commission Staff and determine the specific asset, manner and timetable for the Commission's transfer to the County Auditor, and; 3. Direct City Staff to notify the County Auditor on or before March 1, 2005, that the legislative body has determined that the Commission shall render the payment to the County Auditor. In this manner we believe that City revenues are appropriately protected through a cooperative understanding of both the City and the Commission. Environmental Review ✓ N/A Financial Statement Significant loss to the City's General Fund if the Commission does not initiate the revenue transfer. Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION n/a ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Letter from State Department of Finance 2. Resolution A-200 (9/80) file; ERAFA200Feb222005.pub AC' '^ ^,ti Q 1 i�i� Z w IIII n o m * DEPARTMENT OF 9,-1F'ORNIPF 1 N A.N C E OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR November 8, 2004 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR STATE CAPITOL • ROOM 1 145 • SACRAMENTO CA • 95514-4996 ■ WWW.00F.CA.SOV TO ALL COUNTY AUDITORS, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODIES: Chapter 610, Statutes of 2004, requires redevelopment agencies to shift $250 million in property tax revenues to K-12 schools and community colleges during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 fiscal years. The Director of Finance is required to determine an amount each redevelopment agency shall transfer to the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). It further requires the Director of Finance to notify each redevelopment agency and legislative body of the amount determined. In accordance with the above requirements, the attached document provides the amount determined for your redevelopment agency. Each agency must allocate the specified amount to the county auditor for deposit into the ERAF on or before May 10, 2005. By March 1, the legislative body shall report to the county auditor how the agency intends to remit the amount required, or that the legislative body intends to remit the amount in lieu of the agency pursuant to Section 33681,14 of the Health and Safety Code. If the legislative body, pursuant to Section 33681.12 of the Health and Safety Code, .reported to the county auditor that it intended to remit the amount in lieu of the agency and the legislative body fails to transmit the full amount as authorized by May 10 of the applicable fiscal year, the county auditor, no later than May 15 of the applicable fiscal year, shall transfer an amount necessary to meet the obligation from the legislative body's allocations pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 95) of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. If the amount of the legislative body's allocations are not sufficient to meet this obligation, the county auditor shall transfer an additional amount necessary to meet this obligation from the property tax increment revenue apportioned to the agency pursuant to Section 33670, provided that no moneys allocated to the agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund shall be used for this purpose. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Pat Landingham, Assistant Program Budget Manager, at (916) 322-2263. MICHAEL C. GENEST Interim Director By: STEPHEN W. KESSLER Deputy Director Attachment Redevelopment Agency Name 2004-05 RDA TRANSFER TO ERAF - HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 33681.12 San Diego County Redevelopment Agency Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Community Development Agency of Coronado Community Development Commission of Escondido Community Development Commission of National City ._. ...... EI Cajon Redevelopment Agency Imperial _..__............_...nt Agency p al Beach�Redevelopme La Mesa CommunityRedevelopment Agency Lemon Grove Redevelopment Agency Oceanside Community Development Commission Powa Re velopment Agency Redevelopment _ Agency of the City of San Diego San Marcos Redevelopment Agency Santee Community Development Commission Vista Community Development Commission 2002-03 Tax Increment Net of Pass- Throughs 2,045,426 2,167,744 7,078,702 7,917,743 12, 728,166 6,300,674 6,195,166 1,727,754 1,863,448 1,113,363 4,875,748 24,760,247 52,350,304 17,170,241 3,426,228 8,678,680 2002-03 Gross Tax Increment 2,236,651 2,211,396 7,822,845 7,917,743 14,825,874 7,739,209 8,236,698 1,788,270 ___._ 1,913 999 �1,459,552 4,875, 748 26,247,819 55,587, 299 25,866,219 3,426,228 9,848,905 $125000000 $125000000 million on Net Tax million on Gross Increment Tax Increment (0.0548831091637 (0.04536165731667 112,259.34 101,458.20 118, 972.53 100, 312.59 388, 501.17 434, 550.35 698,561.32 345,800.58 340,009.97 94,824.51 102,271.82 61,104.82 354,857.21 359,161.94 672,526.22 351, 063.35 373, 630.27 267, 596.21 1,358,919.34 2,873,147.45 942,356.21 188,042.05 476,312.94 81,118.89 86,822.17 66, 207.70 221,172.01 Total Payment to ERAF 213,717.53 219,285.12 743,358.39 793,712.30 1,371,087.54 696,863.93 1,190,644.57 2,521,532.01 1,173,334.56 155,419.38 446, 762.65 I:\SS\Local Government\Redevelopmen62003-04 RDA ERAF allocation $135m.xls 713,640.24 175,943.40 189,093.99 127,312.52 488,768.22 2,549,563.91 5,394,679.46 2,115,690.77 343,461.43 923,075.60 RESOLUTION NO. 2005 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING A REPORT TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR CONCERNING HOW THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY INTENDS TO FUND ITS ALLOCATION TO THE COUNTY'S EDUCATIONAL RESERVE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) WHEREAS, Section 33681.12 (a)(1) of the California Health and Safety Code provides that a redevelopment agency shall, prior to May 10, remit a determined amount of revenue to the County Auditor for deposit in the County's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City is the community's redevelopment agency; and WHEREAS, Section 33681.14 (d) of the California Health and Safety Code provides that in lieu of the remittance required of the redevelopment agency by Section 33681.12, a legislative body may, prior to May 10, remit to the County Auditor an amount equal to the amount determined to be remitted by the redevelopment agency; and WHEREAS, Section 33681.12 (d) of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the legislative body shall, by March 1, report to the County Auditor as to how the redevelopment agency intends to fund the required allocation, or that the legislative body intends to remit the amount in lieu of the redevelopment agency pursuant to Section 33681.14. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that the remittance required of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City by California Health and Safety Code Section 33681.12, will be paid by the Community Development Commission from tax increment revenue which has been budgeted for this purpose. PASSED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael Dalla, City Clerk George H. Eiser, III City Attorney