Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 06-21 CC CDC JT AGENDA PKTJoint Meeting of the Community Development Commission & City Council of the City of National City Agenda Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 140 East 12th Street National City, California Joint Meeting - Tuesday — June 21, 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 receptive to 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 interpretacion en espanol se proporciona durante sesiones del Consejo Municipal. Los audiofonos estan disponibles en el pasillo al principio de la junta. 1/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 7/21/05 PAGE 2 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 1. Joint Public Hearing of City Council and Community Development Commission on the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan (Community Development Commission) NON -CONSENT RESOLUTIONS Community Development Commission 2. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City approving the Report to the City Council in connection with the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan; and authorizing the transmittal of said Report to the City Council 3. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City approving the 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan City Council 4. Resolution of the City Council approving the negative Declaration for the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan (Community Development Commission) 5. Resolution of the City Council approving the written responses to the written objections received on the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan (Community Development Commission) ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 6. Ordinance of the City of National City amending the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Plan through the adoption of the 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. (Community Development Commission) COUNCIL AGENDA 7/21/05 PAGE 3 STAFF: MAYOR/CHAIRMAN: COUNCILMEMBERS/COMMISSIONERS: ADJOURNMENT: Next Regular City Council Meeting — Tuesday — July 19, 2005 - 6:00 p.m. — Council Chambers, Civic Center Next Regular CDC Meeting — Tuesday - July 12, 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 COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY June 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 TO: CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS FROM: BENJAMIN MARTINEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VIA: BYRON ESTES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Recommendation: Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission and City Council: CONDUCT THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING of the City Council and Community Development Commission of the City of National City on the Proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan The hearing will provide the opportunity to receive the Community Development Commission staff's presentation, and to receive public testimony both for and against the proposed 2005 Amendment and the Negative Declaration. If written objections have been submitted by the public, Community Development Commission staff then recommends that the Community Development Commission and City Council continue all actions on the proposed 2005 Amendment until July 19, 2005, so that Community Development Commission staff and the consultants can prepare written responses to the written objections pursuant to the Redevelopment Law. Fiscal Impact: There will be no fiscal impact to the National City General Budget as a result of these actions. Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 1 June 21, 2005 Page 1 of 5 Background: On September 21, 2004, during a Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission, the proposed Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan was first introduced. At that time, the proposal was to extend the eminent domain authority over the entire Project Area for an additional twelve (12) years until 2017. A series on Joint Public Hearings, meetings and workshops were conducted in order to provide an opportunity for Community Development Commission staff presentations and public testimony. Upon the conclusion of the discussion on February 22, 2005, the consideration on the proposed 2004 Amendment was continued to March 22, 2005, in order to allow Community Development Commission staff the opportunity to adjust the eminent domain boundaries, and reduce the number of years that the eminent domain authority would be extended. Prior to the meeting of March 22, 2004, the City Attorney identified a recent court decision relating to Redevelopment Amendments involving eminent domain authority. Thus, as a precautionary measure, the matter was closed in order to allow Community Development Commission staff to work in collaboration with the Redevelopment consultants to prepare a Blight Analysis to accompany the newly proposed 2005 Amendment. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study (environmental review checklist) and Negative Declaration was prepared for the previously 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. Upon the completion of the revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment which resulted in what is now being referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission evaluated the Negative Declaration in which a determination was made that the removal of the residential areas from the scope of the proposed 2005 Amendment and limiting the eminent domain authority to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the Project Area does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. Thus, based on the smaller Project Area, the authority to use eminent domain within the smaller geographic areas of the Project Area would not have any significant environmental impacts. There are no environmental impacts associated with the smaller Project Area that are not addressed in the Negative Declaration for the original 2004 Amendment. A copy of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study, as well as the recent environment determination, is included in Section K of the attached Community Development Commission's Report to the City Council. Prior to approving the proposed 2005 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. Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 1 June 21, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Summary: The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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 what is now referred to as the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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 2005 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. Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 1 June 21, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Proposed 2005 Amendment: The proposed 2005 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015. " The proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan would be approved by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council. 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 2005 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 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission must approve the Report and authorize its transmittal to the City Council by adopting a Resolution. 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 2005 Amendment. Accordingly, on May 3, 2005, both the Community Development Commission and the City Council adopted their respective Resolutions authorizing Community Development Commission staff to establish June 21, 2005 as the date for a Joint Public Hearing to consider the proposed 2005 Amendment. Notices were transmitted via first class mail Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 1 June 21, 2005 Page 4 of 5 to all property and business owners, and residential owners and tenants within the entire 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 (3) consecutive weeks prior to the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission. Accordingly, the Joint Public Hearing Notice was published in the National City Star News on June 3`d, 10th and 17th, 2005. The Law provides that the Community Development Commission and City Council may only consider action on the proposed 2005 Amendment after any written objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment are answered in writing. To date, written objections have not been submitted. Should any written objections be submitted during the Joint Public Hearing, Community Development Commission staff and the redevelopment consultants will prepare the appropriate written responses. If no written objections are submitted, then Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission and City Council consider the recommended actions. Conclusion: During the Joint Public Hearing, Community Development Commission staff will provide a presentation to summarize the proposed 2005 Amendment. With this, Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission Board conduct the Joint Public Hearing, consider the adoption of the attached Resolution approving the Report to the City Council for the proposed 2004 Amendment and authorizing the transmittal of the Report to the City Council, and, consider the adoption of the attached Resolution approving the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan and recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2005 Amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 — Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney Exhibit 2 — Report to the City Council Exhibit 3 — Joint Public Hearing Notice Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 1 June 21, 2005 Page 5 of 5 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 lnzunza, 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 EXHIBIT 1 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 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 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan Report to the arty Council June 21, 2005 Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Strcct, 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 EXHIBIT 2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Plan Amendment 2 Contents of this Report 3 Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific 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 6 Study Approach and Methodology 6 Physical Blighting Conditions 9 Figure B - 1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations 18 Economic Conditions that Cause Blight 20 Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment 26 Physical and Economic Burden on Community 27 Five -Year Implementation Plan 29 Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Altematives Other Than Tax Increment 29 The Method of Financing 30 The Method of Relocation 31 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan 32 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission 32 Report of the Project Area Committee 33 General Plan Conformance 33 Environmental Documentation 34 Report of the County Fiscal Officer 34 Neighborhood Impact Report 35 A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies 35 Attachment 1 — Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain 36 Attachment 2 — Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain 37 Attachment 3 — Negative Declaration 38 Appendices Appendix A - Data Source List Appendix A-1 Appendix B - Law Section 33030 and 33031 Appendix B-1 Appendix C - Photo Survey Appendix C-1 Tables Table B-1 - Summary of Blighting Conditions 10 Table B-2 - Monthly Lease Rate Comparisons Spring 2005 21 Table B-3 - 2004 Crime Rates Per 1,000 Persons For National City and Selected Local Jurisdictions 26 Introduction The Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is processing an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). This is being done to facilitate commercial and industrial revitalization and to 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 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. Attachment 1 presents a map of the Project Area boundaries with the proposed commercial and industrial corridors that would be subject to eminent domain authority, if the 2005 Amendment is adopted. 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. Attachment 2 identifies the portions of the Project Area currently subject to eminent domain authority. These properties were identified in 1995 and 2001 on the basis that they could be needed to facilitate commercial revitalization projects through land assembly and parcel consolidation. It is important to note that most properties (over 80%) in the Project Area are currently exempt from eminent domain authority. 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 commercial and industrial properties need to be subject to eminent domain. Projects requiring land assembly in non -eminent domain areas were not developed and the blighting conditions remaining on these properties have not been cured in most instances. This document is the CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") for the proposed 2005 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 Report provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the City Council of National City with their consideration of the 2005 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 'Dated June 13, 1995 and June 19, 2001 respectively. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and subsequent amendments; the Original Reports are incorporated herein by reference. Plan Amendment The proposed 2005 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2005 Amendment. The proposed text modification is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and 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 10 years2 from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33457.1 of the Law dictates the required components of this Report. More specifically, Section 33457.1 states that the report and information required by Section 33352 is the only the report and information warranted by the 2005 Amendment. Much of the information normally required that pertains to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports. 2 The Law allows commissions to establish eminent domain authority for up to 12 years. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Altematives 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 SPEVACEK.GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Sermon A Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area The CDC seeks to amend the Plan by extending the CDC's eminent domain authority (subject to all required procedures under California law) to potentially acquire properties identified in Attachment 1, 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The 2005 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 2005 Amendment in order to expand its ability to assemble sites, thereby facilitating commercial, industrial and residential redevelopment projects in the Project Area. The CDC adopted the 1995 Redevelopment Plan authorizing the current limited eminent domain authority. The 1995 Report to the City Council ("1995 Report") cited socioeconomic conditions such as low median household income, high unemployment, high proportion of residential tenants versus home owners and low residential rents as blighting factors. The 1995 Report also discussed the mixture of land uses many of which are incompatible and/or obsolete as well as small parcel sizes and limited public infrastructure as additional blighting conditions. To facilitate the elimination of the above blighting conditions the CDC has initiated public right-of-way improvements, specific plans for development andenvironmentalremediation-of-toxic sites over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. The CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of these properties continue to be neglected 10 years later. Adopting the 2005 Amendment will expand the scope of the Plan's eminent domain authority and afford the CDC one additional tool to eliminate blight in the ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project Area, through the facilitation of land assemblage activities within the areas identified in Attachment 1. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 5 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Seclion B 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. However, additional blight documentation is required when eminent domain authority is established for new properties. As the 2005 Amendment expands the CDC's eminent domain authority to additional properties within the existing Project Area, a re -substantiation of blight for these new properties is required. Sections 33030-33031 of the Law (Appendix A) define the specific physical, economic and social conditions of blight that must exist within a redevelopment project area for adoption of the 2005 Amendment. The following section discusses each of the factors contributing to blight, as defined by the Law and is discussed and statistically documented. To that end, the CDC's consultant surveyed the properties presented on Attachment 1 and identified at least one blighting condition for 86% of properties. The survey was conducted on a parcel basis from March through May of 2005. Study Approach and Methodology Several data sources were utilized to quantify existing conditions in the Project Area. A complete listing is included as Appendix B. An important data source for evaluating the existence and prevalence of conditions that characterize blight in the Project Area was the field survey conducted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., consultants to the CDC, from March through May of 2005. The survey documented existing physical and economic conditions of each parcel in the Project Area. Both physical and economic indicators were observed during the field survey, including inadequate lot size, defective/substandard design, impaired investments, substandard building materials, inadequate parking and access, deterioration and dilapidation, faulty additions, incompatible uses, poor handling of hazardous materials and unsafe traffic conditions. Surveyors' Qualificatlons The lead surveyor, David Parsons, has a masters' degree in City Planning and Public Administration and has worked in local govemment for 3 years. At his previous position, Mr. Parsons worked in the Planning Department as a liaison to the Code Compliance Department and the neighborhood revitalization task force. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL He assisted property owners with their housing rehabilitation projects, including determining zoning compliance. Mr. Parsons has worked with RSG nearly two years, principally assisting in the amendment and adoption of redevelopment project areas as well as other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area amendment projects in the cities of Carlsbad, National City, Pinole, Poway and San Diego. Assistant to the lead surveyor, Walt Lauderdale holds a bachelors of Science degree in urban and regional planning and has worked in the field of community development and land use planning for nearly eleven years. Mr. Lauderdale has worked with RSG for over 3 years and has assisted in plan adoption and amendment activities of redevelopment project areas in addition to other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area adoption or amendment projects in communities such as South Central Los Angeles, Los Angeles Mid - City, the Watts area of Los Angeles and the Crossroads and Grantville areas of San Diego. Based upon initial reconnaissance, RSG prepares and refines a survey instrument for each project area. Each parcel has its own survey sheet and is identified by parcel numbers using county parcel maps. The survey forms include physical blighting conditions as prescribed by section 33031(a) of the Law, and economic blighting conditions listed in section 33031(b) of the Law, which are amenable to a visual survey. The survey forms contain consistent, educated assessments regarding the condition of parcels in the Project Area. The land use survey results in a nominal assessment of whether a condition is "present" or "not present." RSG acknowledges that different degrees of deterioration or deficiencies are present in each parcel. RSG staff at a minimum cites a condition as present if a reasonable person, shown the condition, could see the damage. In most circumstances, this deterioration was visible from the right-of-way (streets or alleys). In the commercial and industrial properties inspectors may have viewed properties from parking lots or driveways. The following list describes the condition(s) that are present when a property/parcel is designated as having physical deficits. Deterioration/Dilapidation Broken/deteriorated roofing material • Describes broken and worn shingles • Tarped roofs that presumably are leaking • Roofing materials that are approaching the end of their useful life Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing • Describes wood rot deterioration • Likely insect infestation causing damage • Physical damage from age or unknown causes Damaged building materials • Describes voids in building materials • Significant cracking ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Crumbling materials Exposed wiring • Signifies electrical wiring either strung or dangling from buildings. • Describes excessive exterior conduit on outer walls from multiple additions • The presence of extension cords protruding from windows/doors, appearing to supply indoor or outdoor electrical power Broken window/door • Indicates a broken or cracked window • Describes exterior doors including garage doors with voids or severely damaged wood Structural damage of roof, foundation or walls • A visual bow or curve in the roof • Crooked roof • Significant cracking about the foundation (not cracked stucco) Substandard exterior plumbing • Describes piping usually attached to the exterior of a structure that appears to not meet current code requirements Faulty weather protection - lack of paint • Indicates instances where areas of buildings lack paint or color coat or paint is peeling Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access • Driveways that do not allow two vehicles to pass • Curves or turns in driveways that prevent seeing on -coming traffic _ Substandard exterior building materials • Structures built with tin, corrugated metal, plywood, etc. (materials that do not meet current building codes) Poorly constructed addition • Structures that do not meet current building codes because of design, configuration, materials Lack of light/ventilation • Buildings with inadequate set -backs and or windows • Industrial buildings with inadequate mechanical ventilation systems. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 8 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site • Indicates that the number of parking spaces does not meet current code requirements • Designates situations of inadequate parking that were observed during the survey Inadequate loading facilities • Indicates properties that have inferior loading facilities due to size, configuration • No loading facilities Excessive coverage • Designates commercial and industrial properties that lack parking, open space, landscaping, and/or access Outdoor storage/garbage/debris • Species properties that have trash strewn about • Indicates properties that have commerce, storage or displays outdoors Commercial and Industrial businesses with persons working outdoors • Circumstances in which persons were observed working outdoors (primarily on automobiles and light -manufacturing) No off -site parking • Indicates that on -street parking is not available along the curb in front of a parcel Physical Blighting Conditions The Law describes physical conditions that cause blight. These physical conditions are assessed in terms of the health and safety of persons and the economic viability of development in an area. To make this assessment, data from field surveys, City code enforcement, fire and police, the County and other sources are evaluated to determine what conditions may be adversely affecting the health and safety of persons in an area, as well as the adverse economic conditions that result from these physical conditions. Generally as economic retums from an area decline there is a corresponding lack of investment in physical upkeep of properties, further perpetuating physical blight. The Law requires that both physical and economic blighting conditions be present for the establishment of eminent domain authority for new properties, in an existing project area. Overall, 86% of all properties in the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting conditions (Table B-1). The physical blighting conditions include deterioration and dilapidation, inadequate lot size, inadequate vehicle access, substandard building materials along with faulty additions and obsolescence. The ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY 9- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL presence of these conditions reflects a lack of investment by property owners in maintaining their properties in good condition to assure the safety of persons who work in the area. Poor physical conditions place a burden on the community by reducing its ability to meet its goal of fostering vibrant neighborhoods. Table B-1 summarizes the blighting conditions observed during the field survey of the Project Area. There were nearly 1,300 distinguishable properties among 1,560 parcels. Parcels or property uses not individually reflected in the table include; parking lots that were part of developments, condominium designations (commercial and industrial) that were part of a single property use and some vacant parcels. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS Parcles in the Project Area 1560 Total number of properies surveyed 1,300 Physical Blighting Conditions Total Parcels Surveyed with Blighting Conditions Total Percent of Parcels Surveyed wl Blighting Conditions Deterioration and Dilapidation Lack of paint - faulty weather protection Exposed wiring Damaged exterior building materials Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing Broken/deteriorated roofing material 578 766 621 182 159 44% 59% 48% 14% 12% Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access Substandard exterior building materials Poorly constructed addition Inadequate pedestrian access 134 375 208 46 10% 29% 16% 4% Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site Inadequate loading facilities Excessive coverage/inadequate setbacks Outdoor storage or production Garbage/debris/stagnant water/combustible materials No off -site parking 631 27 149 678 595 42 49% 2% 11% 52% 46% 3% Total Number of Properties Surveyed With at Least One Blighting Condition 1,113 86% ource. Kosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. land use survey ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 10 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Physical Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Economically Viable Use of Buildings or Lots Section 33031(a)(2) of the Law describes physical conditions that cause blight to include "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors." The following discussion substantiates the presence of inadequate lot and building size, lack of parking, substandard design and obsolescence. Lot Size Small parcel sizes particularly in the commercial corridors of Highland Avenue and 8th Street as well as the industrial portions of the Westside area north of 22nd Street hinder their capacity to be rehabilitated and redeveloped. Current market standards for neighborhood commercial development generally require at least a two -acre site and a four -acre site for light -industrial development. There are only 21 properties of four or more acres and 71 properties of two or more acres affected by the 2005 Amendment with 543 commercial or industrial properties being less than on -half acre. Inadequate lot size results in development that either (1) lacks adequate parking, loading and vehicle access; or (2) prohibits redevelopment and reuse of parcels because the density of development that exists today would not be allowed without provisions for adequate parking, loading and vehicle access. New development constructed to modem development standards would be required to provide adequate parking, loading and vehicle access, which many commercial and industrial parcels in the Project Area cannot accommodate. Once these amenities are included, the small lot sizes yield development that is substantially below allowed floor -area -ratios (density) and cause new development to be incapable of supporting the going land values in the Project Area. The only solution to this dilemma is to consolidate parcels into larger areas that allow development yield to be maximized while at the same time providing the parking, loading and vehicle access that the current commercial/industrial markets mandate. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with a tool to assemble adequately sized properties, in which site development can meet modem market standards. Due to inadequate parcel size, the zoning in the Westside Industrial Area and Highland Commercial Corridor does not limit the lot coverage of new structures. If there were lot coverage limitations many of the smaller parcels would never have been developed. The problem however is that many buildings in these areas have little or no setbacks, which becomes a fire hazard as fire can spread more easily from structure to structure when buildings are connecting or in close proximity to one another. Adequate setbacks also serve as a buffer between uses, such as commercial/industrial uses next to residential structures. Without adequate buffers between uses, noise as well as toxic fumes and dust cross property lines and negatively affect surrounding properties. As the Project Area is ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL already built -out, it is infeasible for small -lot owners to now provide buffers and reduce excessive coverage of existing buildings within existing site constraints. The 2005 Amendment will provide a tool for the CDC to assemble sites large enough to have adequate buffers between uses. 149 properties were considered by RSG surveyors to have excessive coverage. Complicating this problem are industrial buildings which lack adequate floor space for inside manufacturing and storage. As operations overflow outside into already constrained parking areas there is nowhere for the parking needs to be met, except for the already congested street area. Over 70% properties in the 2005 Amendment Area have buildings that are 25 years or age (prior to 1981) or older. The sites these buildings occupy were not designed with to meet modern-day market demands and display inadequate site design as evidenced by the 631 surveyed properties (49%) that have inadequate parking. These businesses use the street to meet their parking and storage needs, which reduces the off -site parking for surrounding uses many of which were also designed with inadequate on -site parking. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with the ability to correct this physical constraint, thereby reducing the impaired investment these properties represent when compared to properties with proper site design and adequate parking. Inadequate loading is another typical characteristic of properties with insufficient lot size. Often small lots must employ sidewalk and/or street loading due to the lack of adequate on -site space. Unloading in the right-of-way; impedes access to businesses, reduces vehicle sight lines for pedestrian and other vehicular traffic as well as restricts traffic flow creating a hazardous traffic condition. Trucks often park on sidewalks to make deliveries putting pedestrians at risk due to tripping or being struck by vehicles, when they have to walk into the street to avoid the delivery that is blocking the sidewalk. In addition, sidewalk and street loading suggests that the current site use might not be in accordance with its original design. For example, a residential structure that was converted to a commercial or industrial use typically has a small lot size, the only way to correct the small lot size and provide enough area for safe loading is through parcel consolidation. When businesses do have on -site loading and parking, these features are often difficult to access due to narrow driveways that allow only one car to enter/exit at a time. Access is further restricted by outdoor storage and production taking place in the parking lots. Buildings were observed to have a loading dock and parking area only to be blocked by outdoor storage and production activities. This practice of outdoor staging areas for production on small industrial lots, further exacerbates the on -street parking problems. The City has tried to compensate for this by using diagonal parking particularly in the Westside Area, but this has created safety problems for vehicles due to reduced sight -lines at intersections and congested work areas extending into the public right-of-way which compromises pedestrian safety. As the vast majority of the parcels in the Project Area are fully developed and there is little opportunity or incentive for businesses to provide additional parking, no significant "new" parking can be anticipated ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 12- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL without the assistance of redevelopment and the approval of the 2005 Amendment to facilitate assemblage of larger lots for improved site design. The lack of parking hinders the economically viable use of these commercial and industrial properties, as tenants who desire adequate parking can pay market rent for properties with adequate parking and loading facilities to operate their businesses at a higher efficiency than those businesses operating on a constrained site. Property owners of inadequately sized properties cannot realize these higher revenue rates as their sites are too small to properly accommodate amenities that are desirable to tenants willing to pay higher rents. Also, as the economic revenue from a property levels off and/or declines, property owners are unlikely to make the needed physical improvements to their properties contributing to the further decline of the Project Area. Outdoor storage and manufacturing is a common problem throughout the Project Area for both commercial and industrial properties and is another indicator of inadequate lot and buildings size. Commercial properties often use outdoor storage for excess materials, trash and other items. Unscreened dumpsters, which are also very prevalent in the Project Area lead to unsanitary conditions affecting the health and safety of those in the general area as trash becomes strewn about, attracting insects and rodents. The presence of outdoor storage is an indicator that the existing building stock provides inadequate building space for existing business activities. Also, outdoor storage contributes to the declining appearance and perception of the Project Area, this perception of decline reduces the revenue properties can generate as investors will not pay the same rate commanded by non -blighted properties for properties perceived to be in decline. Overall, 52% of properties either had outdoor storage and or outdoor production. To further accommodate outdoor repairs and production, many businesses are using temporary canvas tarp (tent) buildings as permanent additions to existing areas for outdoor manufacturing. These tarp buildings present a fire hazard to existing buildings which the tarp is attached to. For example, sparks from welding operations under these tarps can smolder in the tarps and then spread to the building itself or nearby chemical or combustible materials storage as many of the manufacturing and repair businesses use chemicals and other combustible materials in their operations. Outdoor uses therefore, are often a safety hazard due to environmental, fire and vehicle access deficiencies. Structural Obsolescence While inadequate loading, parking and storage are characteristics of small lot size, these deficiencies are also indicative of properties 25 years or older. The deficiencies associated with many older properties are often referred to as obsolescence. Obsolescence is the result of a combination of blight factors, including the age of a buildings, lack of maintenance, and a lack of desirable amenities such as parking and tenant improvements that occur as contemporary market standards evolve. For these reasons, obsolescence results in factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings and lots. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 13 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL The appeal of obsolete buildings diminishes as market conditions and consumer preferences change causing other uses to fill the void. Many auto repair businesses locate in the Project Area to compliment the retail operations of the Mile of Cars area. However, most of these supporting businesses are located on side streets behind the modem buildings of the Mile of Cars, where the rents are significantly less and in obsolete/inadequate buildings without the needed amenities to properly operate these supporting businesses. Commercial and industrial development standards have changed significantly since the 1965 when over 40% of the commercial and industrial properties in the Project Area were developed. Modem industrial developments offer larger floor and lot sizes along with amenities such as landscaping, on -site parking and adequate loading areas for larger delivery vehicles. Commercial and industrial uses without adequate area often negatively affect surrounding properties through competition for on -street parking and on -street deliveries that restrict access to surrounding properties. Inadequate vehicle access is another indicator of obsolescence. The commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area were developed in a style that is deficient by today's development standards. Principally it did not provide driveways that had adequate site lines into oncoming traffic nor were the driveways properly designed to accommodate two-way traffic or traffic queuing particularly in commercial corridors. 134 parcels or 10% of the parcels in the Project Area exhibited inadequate vehicle access condition. Buildings Unsafe/Unhealthy to Live or Work In Section 33031(a)(1) of the Law identifies several blighting conditions that denote a building that is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These include the following: serious code violations, deterioration or dilapidation, and defective design or physical conditions, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. Substandard building materials, faulty additions and incompatible uses are other factors of defective design. Code Enforcement Violations Violations of local or state building codes are a blighting condition identified under Section 33031(a) of the Law, which characterizes buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Buildings and structures that do not meet current uniform building requirements, or other local codes mandated to ensure human health and safety, pose a threat to the workers, patrons, and residents of an area. Code enforcement efforts are, for the most part, limited to complaint generated enforcement. The majority of complaints come from property owners or tenants who observe potential violations in their neighborhoods. However, since code violations are primarily investigated only if a complaint is filed or observed by City staff, many violations go unnoticed and the true number of building and other code violations is likely to be greater than those reported. Even if adequate ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 14 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL funding was available for City staff to pursue all initial code enforcement violations from the first time each violation was observed, there would need to be at least two times this number of personnel to do the proper follow up that each case typically requires. Based on discussions with City staff, most code enforcement cases require at least one, if not two to three additional follow up visits to make sure the violation is not reoccurring. The following is a list of code violations observed by City staff in the commercial and industrial corridors of the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: • Unsafe wiring such as extension cords being used as permanent wiring, this fire hazard was typically observed in residential structures converted to commercial and industrial uses: • Unsafe and excessive signage that is improperly secured or with supports that have rusted, which then becomes a falling hazard; • A -frame signs on sidewalk and signage for a one-time use (real estate leasing) that was not permitted and laying in the public right-of-way, which becomes a tripping hazard; • Inventory (displays) stored on sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian access; • Public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks) being used for manufacturing and repair area, particularly for auto related businesses, which leads to manufacturing debris and pollution being left in the public right-of-way and a hazard to pedestrians; • Due to overcrowding on street parking in commercial and industrial areas, commercial and industrial vehicles are stored on nearby residential streets. Small parcel size also leads to parking of vehicles on grass and other non -paved surfaces, which has contributed to environmental contamination of the Project Area; • Public streets being used for loading and unloading of merchandise, usually blocking or impairing traffic, which is a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians; • Canvass or plastic tarps were often observed being used as long-term roof covering or to creating an unsafe building addition as well as permanent outdoor work areas; • Inadequate securing of trash in dumpster enclosures leads to unsanitary conditions; • Illegal dumping of trash (including vehicles) was observed throughout the Project Area, particularly on vacant property or abandoned commercial and industrial properties; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 15- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Unlicensed businesses operating on the site of another business or conducting operations, which are not allow under the current license. For example a car audio sales business doing installation in the parking lot contributes to overcrowding and promotes vehicles repair activity in the parking lots instead of the safety of a properly designed service facility, • Residential structures converted to non-residential uses without proper permits. Without proper permitting/inspections residential structures cannot be properly evaluated if they are suitable for industrial conversion. For example, multiple residential structures that were being used for commercial/industrial uses were observed to have excessive storage facilities (over 120 square feet of area) in the dedicated setback area, creating a fire hazard; • Outdoor chemical usage in addition, to toxic manufacturing with exhaust and particle venting not to code. This was often observed with outdoor auto repair shops, which in multiple cases are next to residential uses; • Along Highland Avenue several abandoned office/commercial buildings are illegally converted to residential uses, which has lead to substandard living conditions for residents; • Motels have illegally converted from short-term (less than 30-days) stay to long-term residential usage and attracting criminal activity as a result; • Abandoned houses in commercial areas attract criminal activity. In addition, several declining businesses have become storefronts for organized criminal activity such as narcotics, prostitution and general gang activity; • Decaying retaining walls along with dilapidated wood and corrugated fences threaten safety of those using the buildings, observed through the Project Area; • Overgrown vegetation becomes a fire hazard; and • Barbed/razor wire used to secure commercial and residential structures. It is important to note that if all code enforcement violations were corrected in the proper -ties affected by the 2005 Amendment, blighting factors such as environmental contamination, flooding, inadequately sized parcels and unsafe traffic conditions would still remain and the 2005 Amendment would still be justified and beneficial for the Project Area. Dilapidation and Deterioration During the field survey, the safety and condition of buildings in the Project Area were assessed using Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. This code section provides conditions that characterize a building as ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 16 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL substandard, unsafe, and unhealthy. Accordingly, a substandard building is one that exhibits any of the following conditions to an extent that it presents safety or property hazards' • General dilapidation or improper maintenance; • Wiring which does not conform to building codes and is in poor condition; • Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster; • Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint or weather stripping; • Broken or rotted, split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings; • Construction materials not up to code which have not been property maintained and are in poor condition; • Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, stagnant water or similar materials or conditions which constitute a safety hazard; • Any building or portion thereof which is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; and • Buildings or portions thereof occupied for commercial and industrial purposes, which were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies. Deterioration and dilapidation is also an indicator of buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, as identified under the Law, section 33031(a)(1). It is a common physical blighting condition found in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Evidence of dilapidation and deterioration in these properties includes buildings with damaged exterior building materials (48% of properties), deteriorated paint or weather proofing (44% properties), deteriorated eaves or wood rot (14% properties), and exposed wiring (64% properties). The older age of many of the buildings, combined with deferred maintenance, are contributory factors to their current state. Review of Table B-1 indicates deterioration existing in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. As stated in the book How Buildings Leam, What Happens After They're Built (Stewart Brand), a lack of maintenance results in buildings becoming unusable, with a threat of structural failure. Brand states that due "to deterioration and obsolescence, a building's capital value (and the rent it can charge) about halves by twenty years after construction. Most buildings you can expect to completely refurbish from eleven to twenty-five years after construction. The rule of thumb about abandonment is simple...if repairs will cost half of the value of the building, don't bother." ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL As demonstrated in the figure below, if regular maintenance is not done, first minor, and then major failures will result over time. As the cost of renovating the building goes up exponentially over the years, structural failure occurs and the building cannot be recovered. Because property owners may fear that they will not realize a retum on an investment in rehabilitation, buildings are often neglected. Poor building conditions indicate limited reinvestment in the building stock through renovation and rehabilitation, and reflect a weak environment for private sector development or redevelopment. Figure B -1: Time!Repair Cost Correlations 0 U a Structural failures occur Structure not usable Start of major failures Start of minor failures B Normal wear A Time in years Total cost of major repair (C) Total cost of minor repair (B) Total cost of preventive maintenance (A) r / // / Major repair 10. Minor repair Preventive maintenance PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (bottom line) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense. This diagram is adapted from Preventive Maintenance of Buildings (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991), p.3. Quantification of the severity of building dilapidation would require access to building interiors and detailed review of the core structural, electrical, plumbing and roofing systems of each building. This type of extensive evaluation is not feasible as part of the documentation for the 2005 Amendment. However, it is possible to extrapolate from viewing the exterior of buildings that if little investment has been made to maintain and improve the exterior of a building, it is also likely that few improvements have been made to the core support systems and interior of the buildings. The fact that over 70% of buildings are over 25 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 18 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL years old and over 80% exhibit dilapidation and deficient exterior improvement, suggests significant interior dilapidation exists. Substandard Building Materials and Faulty Additions There were several examples of substandard building materials observed in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Corrugated metal sheeting is a primary example and is not a permitted building material according to the City code. The corrugated metal readily deteriorates from the weather and becomes more structurally unsound as it warps from the elements. Canvas and plastic tarps are even more prevalent and are not permitted to be used as building materials by the City. The results of the field survey indicate at least 375 incidences of substandard building materials and 208 buildings with faulty additions. Predominately, the industrial parcels affected by the 2005 Amendment represent the older style of development, offering limited or no amenities. Modem industrial buildings often use concrete tilt -up walls that can withstand the physical demands associated with industrial uses. The Project Area has multiple examples of wood - frame residential structures converted to industrial use. Residential wood -frame buildings are not designed to withstand industrial use requirements that may include production equipment or storage mounted to the walls as well as the high level of wear and tear associated with these non-residential activities. These activities cause the wood -frame structure to become dilapidated and wear down prematurely from the high -demands of industrial as well as commercial usage. Other inadequacies of older structures built for other uses include insufficient electrical supply, storage, and indoor manufacturing areas. Incompatible Adjacent Uses Incompatible adjacent uses where commercial and/or industrial properties are directly adjacent to residential uses were noted on 299 of the properties within the area affected by the 2005 Amendment and particularly in the Westside area between National City Blvd. and Interstate 5. As previously mentioned with respect to small -lot size, outdoor manufacturing was commonly observed without any noise buffers to surrounding residences. Furthermore, toxic dust created by outdoor industrial repairs and production drifts in an airbome state to surrounding residential properties, presenting a significant detrimental health and safety condition to these residents. Auto related uses on parcels of substandard size often have outdoor repairs and vehicle storage that spill out onto the street. These industrial uses congest streets for surrounding residents and reduce vehicle and pedestrian safety. Lack of Economic Viability These physical conditions of blight have had a serious impact on the economic viability of the Project Area. The lack of economic viability has resulted in all major chain grocery stores leaving the Project Area, where previously there were three (3). In their place, liquor stores have become the primary grocery providers ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 19- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL to many residents of the Project Area, which offer limited grocery services and contribute to the excessive number of alcohol distribution outlets in the Project Area and City as a whole. In addition, there are only four (4) banks operating in the Project Area, augmented by lenders such as payday loan outlets which charge interest rates that are substantially higher than commercial banks and lack the wide -range of financing services found at typical financial institutions. Within the last year a vacant Wells Fargo bank building was converted to a used car lot depriving the Project Area of another banking site. As preferred community serving businesses (banks and grocery stores) leave or refrain from locating stores in the Project Area, residents are left with fewer retail options. Community servicing businesses also create a synergy with existing retail and attract new customers to the businesses in the Project Area. In addition, to providing outside customers to augment the revenue of Project Area businesses, these outside customers often provide a positive retum to the City treasury through sales tax revenue. Not only do major chain retailers provide a wide -range of services to the Project Area, but they traditionally serve as anchor tenants to shopping centers. A former Albertson's site of 65,000 square feet has remained vacant for over two years, the lack of this anchor tenant reduces the overall business traffic drawn to the shopping center and reduces the overall revenue existing business might realize in this shopping center. Over time this lack of total revenue may force some businesses to close further contributing to the economic blighting conditions of the Project Area. Economic Conditions that Cause Blight Recent court decisions have ruled that to qualify a new portion of an existing Project Area for eminent domain authority as the 2005 Amendment proposes to do, it must not only exhibit conditions of physical blight, but also must contain and suffer from economic blight. To accurately represent existing economic conditions, the Project Area has been analyzed and information has been gathered from the City, the County, and private sources to document the deteriorating economic conditions of the Project Area. The following describes economic blighting conditions that contribute to lack of proper utilization of Project Area properties. Impaired Investments Industrial Realtors familiar with the industrial properties in the Project Area cited a number of different problems that act in concert to impede the economic success of real estate within the older industrial corridors of the Project Area. For example, when ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 20- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL the area developed, the standards for industrial development allowed for smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and reduced set -backs from other properties. These conditions negatively impact the appearance and detract from the marketability of the area. Most realtors also noted that the age of many industrial buildings renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned are listed on the following page. • Small building size; • Lack of parking on -site and off-street; • Lack of access to industrial sites; • Lack of other amenities or inadequate amenities such storage; • Low ceiling heights which restrict indoor operations and manufacturing and/or storage; • Inadequate construction materials such as wood frame used for industrial production; and • Lack of adequate utilities servicing properties. as loading and lead to outdoor buildings being The overall lack of amenities offered by a majority of industrial properties in the Project Area has created a lower tier market according to realtors. Most realtors graded the National City industrial market as a Class B or C (with Class A being the highest ranking) depending upon the condition of the building. This lower ranking attracts less desirable uses, such as outdoor auto repair and salvage, which further diminishes the image of the Project Area and the rents landowners are able to charge. Realtors surmise that the types of industrial businesses locating in the Project Area are looking for lower rents. Table B-2 shows a gross lease rate of $.85 per square foot monthly lease rate compared to the overall County rate of $1.02 per square foot or 17% lower. These lower lease rates generally result in little net income to reinvest in buildings to improve their condition. TABLE B-2 MONTHLY LEASE RATE COMPARISON SPRING 2005 Areas Industrial Office Retail National City $0.85 $1.20 $1.65 San Diego County Market Average $1.02 $2.03 $2.00 Source: CB Richard Ellis & Various Broker Interviews. Commercial In discussing the proposed Project Area with realtors familiar with the commercial properties in the area, a number of different problems were cited that act in ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 21 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL concert to impede economic success. For example, when the Project Area developed, the standards, as stated before, allowed smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and no off-street parking particularly along Highland Avenue. Also noted is the age of many commercial buildings which renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned were: • Small building size; • Close proximity to uses (industrial) that detract from the physical appearance of the area. • Lack of streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way; • Lack of parking on and off-street; • Lack of proper access to site; and • Lack of amenities or inadequate amenities such as landscaping, loading and storage; and Several reactors stated that the cost of land in the area is too high to be supported by the low lease rates that the existing uses bring, making improvement of existing buildings unlikely. Generally, commercial developers are looking for a minimum 2 acre parcels for development of a new neighborhood commercial center, which is available in only 5% of properties. An adequate revenue stream is necessary to enable property owners to perform routine maintenance of their real estate. Without funding for repairs, deferred maintenance issues become health and safety concems. This is especially true for older buildings. Table B-3 shows retail and office lease rates for the Project Area are in the low range when compared to the County average. Competition is also strong from other surrounding commercial offerings such as Chula Vista, San Ysidro or the Plaza Bonita shopping center. It appears many businesses along portions of Highland Avenue and National City Blvd. north of 14th Street are just surviving due to vacancies or retail businesses being closed during normal working hours. This problem is likely to worsen if the physical constraints present in these portions of the Project Area are not addressed. The development proforma on the following page depicts the economic infeasibility of developing small lots in the Project Area market due to the lack of revenue generated by these small lots. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with additional ability to address small lot sizes through lot assemblage. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 22 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROFORMA B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Assumes a lot 125 feet x 175 feet in size Commercial Rental Income 10,938 Sf 5.0% of Gross Income $19.80 /Sf $216,563 (10,828) Gross Annual Rental Income (Less): Vacancy & Collection Gross Effective Income $205,734 Operating Expenses 8.0% of Gross Effective Income ($16,459) Property Management 3.0% of Gross Effective Income (6,172) Reserves 2.0% of Gross Effective Income (4,115) Total Expenses (S26,745) Net Operating Income $178,989 Cap Rate 9.0% Total Project Revenue $1,988,766 (Less) Development Costs (2,305,712) Profit/(Feasibility Gap) ($316,947) Per S.F. of Building 10,938 St ($28.98) Per S.F. of Land 21,875 Sf ($14.49) Hazardous Materials The Project Area has multiple locations of environmental concem, most of these sites are found in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment (Harbor District). Generally there are three land -uses generating environmental contamination in the 2005 Amendment area; large industrial uses (particularly in the Harbor District) along with auto repair facilities and small-scale industrial manufacturing (primarily in the Westside Area). The Harbor District is approximately 300 acres of industrial and distribution area at the westem edge of the Project Area between Interstate 5 and the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port District") Property along San Diego Bay. In 2003 the CDC undertook a Brownfields Grant Study Project ("Study Project") with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to determine the extent of the pollution in the Harbor District. The Study Project divided the Harbor District into fourteen (14) sites for individual analysis and concluded that each of the sites likely suffered from hazardous materials contamination. Historically the Harbor District was developed between 1885 and 1925 as a railroad staging area for transferring goods to ships on San Diego Bay. Industrial uses in the Harbor District over the last 100 years include: oil recycling and other oil distribution/refining facilities that used underground and aboveground storage tanks (including several gas stations), an ordnance company, aircraft parts manufacturer, a battery manufacturer, tank cleaning businesses, automotive servicing (including wreckers), machine and lumber storage, tool machining and metal fabrication, finishing and plating companies and gravel operations. At the time some of these businesses operated protective environmental regulations that are in place today did not exist. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL According to the Study Project many of these uses have resulted in the following types of pollution: soil and groundwater contamination with oils, lubricants, solvents, lead, asbestos, PCBs, corrosives, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and volatile organic compounds('VOC's"). Many of these uses generated hazardous wastes that in several cases was illegally disposed of onsite. At least 10 monitoring wells have been installed in the Harbor District to investigate subsurface conditions, with elevated petroleum hydrocarbons having been detected in soil as well as the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and VOCs confirmed in groundwater monitoring wells. While the CDC currently has eminent domain authority in the Harbor District, it is set to expire in July of 2007 and the 2005 Amendment would extend the CDC's eminent domain authority until 2015 to assist, if necessary in the clean up of these properties. Outside of the Harbor District are several other know sites of contamination which include; the Education Village, Police Station, Library site, and Public Works Yard, which were polluted by previous or surrounding industrial uses. It is important to note that the sites above are the most recently disturbed sites where significant excavation took place. It is suspected as more sites are excavated in the industrial and commercial corridors more polluted sites will be identified. Also, an area referred to as Duck Pond at the intersection of 30th Street and National City Boulevard was a former County of San Diego ("County") dumpsite, that suffers from methane gas discharge and ground sinking. It is likely there are more polluted sites in the Westside area, but as discussed above the CDC has only done environmental evaluation on sites where public buildings have been constructed. This is due to the CDC's very limited eminent domain authority outside of the Harbor District. Adoption of the 2005 Amendment will assist the CDC in facilitating development in these areas currently with limited eminent domain authority and provide a tool to expedite the cleanup of polluted sites as they are identified. The National City Fire Department ("Fire Department") in conjunction with the County issues permits for businesses handling hazardous materials ("Haz-Mat"). Currently, there are approximately 123 Haz-Mat permits in the City, with most of these being issued in the commercial and industrial corridors of the 2005 Amendment area. Fire Department staff believes the number of actual hazardous materials users or businesses with Haz-Mat permits that do not list all of the hazardous materials used on site, is significantly higher than the 123 permits issued. During the 2004 calendar year, the Fire Department responded to 42 Haz-mat calls. Outdoor manufacturing is a primary cause of hazardous materials being released in the outside environment, particularly with automobile related businesses. Many auto body shops were observed to be doing grinding of parts and spraying of toxic materials outside. This practice sends these hazardous materials airbome, often to surrounding residents. When these contaminants settle to the ground they either soak into the soil or run into the storm drains as contaminated urban runoff. This runoff eventually finds its way into San Diego Bay. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 24 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Further, contributing to these conditions are some of the storage practices for chemicals and debris observed during the field survey. 46% of properties were found to have signs of garbage, debris, stagnant water and/or combustible materials on site. Outdoor storage while being unsightly is also dangerous as holding containers are subjected to weather elements and decompose more rapidly. Numerous substandard building additions were observed to be used for hazardous materials storage. Many of these sheds are made of plywood or canvass tarps that in and of themselves present a fire hazard, but when these substandard structures are combined with hazardous materials storage and usage, it become a significant environmental and fire hazard to the surrounding structures many of which are residential. Crime A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and welfare is a condition of economic blight. In order to assess the impact of crime within the Project Area, information regarding the incidence of violent and other serious property crime reported by the National City Police Department was analyzed. All police agencies in the County report their crime statistics to the Automated Regional Justice Information System ("ARJIS"), which is a regionally standardized system that enables comparison of the number of crimes reported by jurisdictions across the County. ARJIS reports to the same categories as the nationally recognized Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Crime Index. The Index includes four violent offenses (willful homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and three types of property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft). The offenses included in the FBI Index were selected due to their serious nature and/or volume, as well as the probability that these crimes will be reported to the police. Crime rates in Table B-3 were computed by occurrence per 1,000 population using current San Diego Association of Govemment population estimates. The regional crime rate based on ARJIS incorporates both local jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in the County. The 2004 County crime rate based upon ARJIS is 36.3 crimes per 1,000 population. The 2004 crime rate for the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego are 38.4 and 40.4 respectively. The 2004 crime rate in National City is 57.1 per 1,000 or57% higher than the County average and 49% and 41 % higher than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego respectively. The table on the following page uses data from the 2004 calendar year for all jurisdictions with the overall crime totals for the City being higher in every category. Due to the reporting format, crime data for National City is city-wide, which is larger than the proposed 2005 Amendment area. It is important to note that the existing Project Area represents over 60% of the City's non-military/Port District land3 and the city-wide data represents a good comparison to evaluate crime in the Project Area. 3 Military and Port District police patrd their properties and maintain their own crime data fa these areas. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 25 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TABLE B-3 2004 CRIME RATES PER 1,000 PERSONS FOR NATIONAL CITY AND SELECTED LOCAL JURI� City Murder Rape Robbery Aggv. Assault Total Burglary Total Larceny/ Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Total Crime National City 0.1 0.3 2.4 4.6 6.8 27.1 15.8 57.1 City of Chula Vista 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.2 5.7 19.2 9.6 38.4 City of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.3 3.6 5.6 19.4 10.0 40.4 County of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.2 3.1 5.8 18.0 7.9 36.3 Sources: ARJIS and SANDAG Note: Comparison crime rates are for calendar year 2004. These types of crime can negatively impact existing Project Area businesses, discouraging business investment and patronage. Crime represents an additional cost in conducting, retaining and attracting businesses to the commercial corridors of the Project Area. Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment Section 33321 of the Law states that a project area need not be restricted to buildings and properties that are detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. Areas cannot be included for the sole purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue but must have substantial justification that they are necessary for effective redevelopment. This Report documents that in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment there are parcels that do not exhibit blighting conditions but that they are interspersed with parcels that are blighted and necessitate inclusion in the 2005 Amendment area. The number of and severity of blighted parcels in the Project Area negatively affects the non -blighted parcels because of their appearance and proximity. In addition, there are certain types of blighting conditions that cannot be directly linked to a particular parcel such as substandard on -street parking, which is a cumulative factor. Given the overall condition of the Project Area and the economic status of both industrial and commercial property owners, it is clear that many of the parcels that do not exhibit significant blighting conditions now may do so over the life of the Project Area if nearby blighted parcels are not addressed. For example, if large- scale hotels on the Westside Area north of 9th Street were vacated due to worsening surrounding economic conditions, the resulting economic effect of such a large business closure would be severe to the Project Area because these hotels provide jobs to many in the surrounding community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 26 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL To spur economic development efforts, non -blighted parcels should be included in the 2005 Amendment area because the small parcel sizes further confounds revitalizing the area. Should the CDC attempt to assist new businesses in locating to the Project Area, parcel consolidation may be necessary. However, if all of the parcels in a section are not included in the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment it would severely impede the process and compromise the CDC's success. If only parcels that exhibited blighting conditions were included, the 2005 Amendment would be piecemeal. The CDC has already excluded many commercial and industrial properties at the southwest comer of 24th Street and National City Boulevard, commercial properties along portions of 30th Street and Plaza Boulevard and southern portions of National City Boulevard. The intention of the CDC through the 2005 Amendment is to facilitate rehabilitation programs that will cure health and safety issues and improving the appearance of the Project Area. Physical and Economic Burden on Community When evaluated in whole, the numerous physical and economic conditions described in this section of the Report are a serious physical and economic burden on the community. This burden cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise and/or existing govemmental authority, without the 2005 Amendment. A summary of the issues includes: • The documented presence of environmental contamination in the industrial corridors of the Project Area, causes safety hazards to area occupants and the cost of removal of these substances increases rehabilitation costs. These conditions are an economic burden on the community as property owners choose to maintain obsolete buildings on polluted sites, instead of pursuing new development which would likely require an expensive cleanup of pollutants. The 2005 Amendment will extend the CDC's eminent domain authority to provide another tool for the remediation of environmental pollutants through land acquisition where appropriate. • Many 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. These obsolete buildings attract lower commercial and industrial lease rates, which provide less revenue for property owners to make regular repairs and upgrades (such as electrical amperage and facade improvement). Without periodic maintenance, buildings become deteriorated or even dilapidated and higher maintenance costs are associated with older buildings. Buildings that are not upgraded as market needs change become less desirable to tenants for two reasons: 1) the buildings does not meet current market standards; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 27 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and 2) the costs associated with providing the necessary upgrades. This circle of disinvestment places a physical burden on the surrounding community as more properties forgo maintenance to maximize economic revenue. • The higher crime rates in the City/Project Area require more calls for service which increases municipal costs and creates an additional burden on community services as public resources are diverted to criminal apprehension. Crime also negatively impacts the lives of those working in or visiting the City/Project Area. • Incompatible adjacent uses typically require relocation or expensive upgrades to buildings, many of which are obsolete. The 2005 Amendment is the only viable method for the CDC to facilitate the relocation of incompatible uses to more appropriate sites. However, some properties owners may be reluctant to enter into relocation negotiations with the CDC and the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment can serve as an adjunct to initiate these discussion for the benefit of the community. • Response -based code enforcement is unable to address all of the health and safety code violations that exist in the commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area. The added municipal cost of code enforcement activity is also a burden on the community as municipal resources are diverted from other programs to address code violations. • Inadequate lot size compounds blighting conditions in the Project Area, as these parcels are not adequate area to accommodate the necessary parking and loading amenities, while maintaining safe access to the site. Redevelopment of the small sized parcels that predominate the Project Area is not economically viable for private development, which results in a lack of investment in new development that continues to negatively impacting the surrounding community. The establishment of eminent domain authority would provide another tool to assist the CDC in correction of these and other blighting conditions for the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. The private marketplace has not been successful in achieving the needed lot consolidations for new development due to limited number of property owners willing to enter into negotiations. The 2005 Amendment expands the pool of inadequately sized properties the CDC may acquire, thereby assembling more developable properties to reverse the escalating burden on the community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section C Five -Year Implementation Plan On June 14, 2005, the CDC adopted its current Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Project Area. The Implementation Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 33490 of the Law 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 2005 Amendment. The Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the Law 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 29 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section E The Method of Financing The method of financing redevelopment activities was provided in the Original Reports when the Project Area was adopted. The 2005 Amendment will not alter the Project Area boundaries, affect the base year value or change the proposed method of financing. Therefore the 2005 Amendment does not warrant that the method of financing be reviewed. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC, JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 30- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section F The Method of Relocation Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the Law require the CDC 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 The Law also requires a relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in said Project Area. In addition, the Law requires relocation assistance for commercial and industrial businesses displaced by redevelopment activities. The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of Relocation"), which 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 (Govemment 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 section 33411.1 of the Law. 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. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 31 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section G 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 2005 Amendment, additional analysis is not required. Section H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the Law 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 from the Planning Commission for the 2005 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 32 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section 1 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 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 2005 Amendment specifically excludes properties that are used for residential purposes, and no projects or programs have been identified that will displace 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. Section J General Plan Conformance The 2005 Amendment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 2005 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 333520) of the Law requiring a report of General Plan conformance per Section 65402 of the Govemment Code is not required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 33- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY 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 EIR 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 2005 Amendment, a Negative Declaration (Initial Study) was prepared pursuant to Califomia Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed 2005 Amendment to establish eminent domain authority for new properties and extend eminent domain for some properties would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A copy of the Negative Declaration follows as Attachment 3. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 2005 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 section 33328 of the Law. Project Area fiscal information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2005 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 34 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section M 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 2005 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 2005 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 not required or appropriate. Therefore, a summary of this report is riot included. With regard to consultations, the taxing agencies received all notices regarding the 2005 amendment and they were invited to contact the CDC Executive Director regarding the 2005 Amendment. However, as of the date of this Report, no taxing agency has yet contacted the CDC. The 2005 Amendment does not affect the financing in any way nor does it change land uses or public improvement projects. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 35- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1- Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority as proposed by the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 36 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1 1 110 ■ IN PI CITY OF SAN DIEGO lei" 0211111,;'• n• s p111• I 1 IIII11111 111112 111111 ■■ NIT,C 0 _11 1II1111 111 11u11 NI ■ . ■1 111I1i niij1 •111111112 911111111111 I III1111111- 1 I I 1 1m11122 11�1 = G_ 1n111nn nnnpl IIn1 111111 1- — 11/1 inglomis 11..-. .111.II C PE :1II IN !In II$ :ram 11 :,a1 1111 111 111111�11 1IIIllulnn1111.. Ell 1112 NNNNNIA' Palm Ave 8th Street Corridor 1225 1pnu 111111111P1 11111111111 111■-111n111 e■ 21111111 a-11111 Vu nn11p_ Ellsm =111111111 eunnll :11111111 211111111 Plaza Blvd 0 OED !Bill G rls ... .UIInin1 _'_ --- _ 1 €- 1i®='1� T TIT Highland Ave IIIIw 1111111111 mnnn T 1.. •111 Nam EN 11= Fn T 1 li�l 111 ..: • "1 _II C111111 111■nm' 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA VISTA National City Redevelopment Project Area Project Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 L.1 Municipal Boundary 0 o.us on �.. 0.5 0.75 Lime. u llflu ll11l 111 11II 1111�1 1111 • Attachment 2 - Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority prior to the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 37- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 2 mi ■ CITY OF SAN DIEGO /14 NAiig1./ �• r 'ram '�� dr a�i�• git K• = Salal!IIIIS .11IIIIuII If�l1R. Iltllllll■rliII `u gtonsk Fe.CII ..111111 .111111I Iryr �III�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIptLENE .11111• Alp. 11111I1 11111 ACE Or :GERM MENIMEE El PL. is - sly I rag ME =1 on 121 r 1 1■ '.11 -111111l. 11111111■IIII 111111 U1111 111t11111■ =.111111G IOII1u1l 1111I1111S 1 11111 LC 11■1 11111 111■ •II ■.11 11111 111101011 11111 hill 11111 1.1 o 11 In I -= VW gss ee am: �r'ill�li 1111 Cn at MCI 1M 11= 11■ - =1= Pdi 1.. 1111 ®l"- ( � _■ ' iIIIIl111111111 :,-.-11 I Ills ice 11111111111 JII 1pla 1 IIIG ■M 1 A1111 if T """' '11101NflhlP1 a. r.= 11■ ■15 LI! mammal 1111 C: !In�G 6c tmr II/fj �' �4 •priry.e /fI//%!I//�► hfrib.4:NN c'+n,�yni .................: . t ®nn ��\1�„i �1111 ■a iii Palm IAve II I 1 rice 1 rice 8th Street Corridor h.1 Eg e11111: L . ._i111.-11111 1 ��':Mk tin ■II`;I I. nlnil�;�l ■m�4� F _ 'l i _Ill 1.1.. .f.< iIMnlq„IIIIIII—!i�'.iii_�l1.='ice �11=l1111. !1■11111!./=�0 .7- •Ilill Plaza Blvd ,iAAII a ul.n.p 1■IIIIII. •lli 1111■1111 .....■111 Highland Ave =t �� 111 .1 Ill F'■1� iEast i.11"I11IU UM 00 1.0 CIM 00 . - -- ti • ff mos i tIM _'ri _------ MCC 0: 00 30th StIS 111 1-747 CHULA VISTA I111�, 1111 11111■ 111 11111■1■I I111111 111111 111. 01111= 101 ; 11111111 I11,=• �411111111 111m l/ lu �inl4no Illlllul:.• En LIE 3: Ifu nh. MEE EME 1.RN=.g111T 1 .-SI= am= National City Redevelopment Project - Existing Eminent Domain Authority( QProject Area Boundary ME Existing Eminent Domain Authority En Municipal Boundary 0.125 0.25 0.5 075 Attachment 3 - Negative Declaration See attached Negative Declaration following this page. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 38- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Califomia Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12h Street, Suite B National City, Cal 9195( Telephone (619) 336-4250 Fax (619) 336-4286 Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment flan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Contact: Oliver Mujica Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Location: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805 as shown in Figure 1. Project Description: The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as,",/ defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single-family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 in the following areas: • Properties located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • Properties located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • Properties located immediately north and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • Properties west of Interstate 5, excepting the San Diego Unified Port District property. • Specific properties located immediately southwest of the intersection of Plaza Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2014. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in thiL 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 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN DIEGO • • ■ ' ;', : =_ €= - :gin 11'111n11I111�• IYIIIIvl.11lll\I II.Iun111.. 11.11 IIt11n111 11•111,. 1 1 II rS116' IlI 1 _.1 IIIIII1 nnr Inln1 111r11 11lunI1 11111IIIIII: 4411'U �Il I11 IIIIIII_ IISII1111II p111111I1 nnnol 11111 n111 -s IC 41 eaggEp�e i11--r�1 ■11:2aMal.I.E1111 ` �IN0110/*••■ TI11M®■ -•u• Inn il�■ a -II11 ."$I11 1 ARM■I1 11 11111111 1�11Wnnliui 11IOIIIIllllll IIh II1111111111111.P2 1111 nu1•- Illlu.11llll 1111111 1111111 1111111 111 ■ MINOR I 111111111111121 u• n nnu .nu IN■ • 11 Go V FIE • EEL nnlpIP cnn 1= Nag — lone 1 • ass It au- "mli1 - ■Ix n1. GEM i= III um _....... — •II n ii 1111 _1_ 8th Street Corridor 1111 I!_ Pn �•lnn I1; Vim ia11111- -r 1 _ — alll I• - ■ 11 c1111i aI I umw =-;III fluor 2111111111 rylllllll 21111111/ — 1 1r Plaza Blvd :lI. Ilnllllr.. I111111111 111111111 7iLij 1.1 Highland Ave 1C e6 .r- C 11= nil 1 I"Ji �U41IL NIS -. --SIM •III :.•••• .__- Un •■ ■ 111 1• 1111 1-1 Nam r 1111101 1�1�P ' og.� - - MB WI Ili' 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA VISTA National City Redevelopment Project Area 1♦ Project Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 0 0.125 Municipal Boundary 0.25 0.5 0.75 ..0 Palm Ave N_ II • 111111111 11111111 nil 1111 IN 111111 II EniE . II11 • :111111111111 — i 1 Nixes ffili Ntber 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 Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils DETERMINATION: On the basis of this evaluation: 0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services 0 Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Land Use/Planning O Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings ® 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 al' 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 b) c) Environmental Factors AESTHETICS: Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: 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? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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) b) c) Conflict with or obstruct applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality substantially to an existing violation? implementation of the standard or contribute or projected air quality 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: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ July 2004 Page 5 Environmental Factors as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ 0 0 ■ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ 0 ❑ ■ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 ❑ 0 ■ 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 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 iv) Landslides? 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? ❑ 0 0 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? 0 0 0 [I. 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 O ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Nep_ative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ ■ • ■ July 2004 Page 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? 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 ❑ ■ 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 ❑ ❑ ■ 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ X. MINTERAL 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? ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 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 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ iv) Parks? 0 ❑ 0 • v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management Commission for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, 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 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ 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 10 Environmental Factors 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? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ?' iJII. 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact g) O ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?• ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with • 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 AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Amendment indirectly could encourage development in the redevelopment project area . The National City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city; therefore, future development in the project area due indirectly to the adoption of the Amendment would not impact any scenic vista. The Amendment would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Amendment would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the redevelopment project. A section of National City Boulevard in the Mile of Cars section of National City is a state scenic highway. The city would require all development along this portion of National City Boulevard to comply with the appropriate state and city guidelines to protect a state scenic highway. Development that indirectly occurs in any other section of the project area would not damage or impact any trees, rocks, or historic buildings since none of these features exist. The Amendment would not have any significant scenic resource impacts. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the redevelopment project area and the surroundings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project area. Subsequent development in the project area due indirectly to the use of eminent domain as allowed by the Amendment could impact the existing visual character of a specific site and its surroundings. The Community Development Commission and/or City of National City would conduct subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the time projects are submitted for approval to determine if a project would have an impact on the visual character or quality of a specific site and its surroundings. If the city determines a project could impact the visual character of a site and/or its surroundings, changes or modifications would be required. The city adopted the National City Design Guidelines to assure that development is in harmony with the character and quality of the environment that the city finds desirable to foster. The purpose of the National City Design Guidelines Manual is to provide a "guide" to what the city considers appropriate, quality design, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Guidelines articulate the city's goals and basic design philosophy for quality development within the city limits and provide the framework for the design review process. The Guidelines are not specifications nor do they preclude alternatives or restrict imagination. Rather, Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 13 they are the city's preferences and provide examples of what the city considers acceptable) The Guideline - supplement the development standards and regulations contained in the National City Land Use Code and at, applicable in accordance with the requirements for site plan review under Chapter 18.128 of the Code. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would require changes to projects to ensure that they do not degrade the visual character of a specific site or its surroundings. All projects would be required to meet the applicable guidelines in the National City Design Guidelines based on the project proposed. The Amendment would not degrade the visual character of the project area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The Amendment would not create any new sources of substantial light or glare and affect day or nighttime views in the redevelopment project area because development is not proposed directly in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create new sources of light or glare. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of development, light and/or glare could impact surrounding land uses. Nighttime lighting including safety and security lights, interior building lights, automobile headlights, etc. could impact surrounding development. Glare from windows and metal surfaces could also impact adjacent development. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all projects for potential light and glare impacts and require changes and modifications when necessary to reduce light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown or. 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 fainiland 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 fa,niland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use since none exist. b)— Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not directly propose any public or private development projects that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan(s). ' City of National City Design Guidelines, February 1991, Amended by Resolution No. 96-19, February 6, 1996, page I-1. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 14 National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could encourage new development. Depending upon the type and density of development, project air emissions could impact and obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all development projects for potential impacts to air quality plans and require project changes or modifications to ensure compliance. The Amendment would not directly impact the implementation of any air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact_ The Amendment would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing projected air quality violation. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of new development the project air emissions could violate an air quality standard or standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all future projects for potential violations to existing air quality standards such as exceeding air emission thresholds during either project construction or the life of the project. If a project is expected to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation specific measures would be required to be incorporated into the project to reduce air emissions in compliance with air quality standards in force at that time. The Amendment would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation, including ozone. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 only and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is non -attainment. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development that is constructed, the Amendment could cumulatively add criteria pollutants that are non -attainment in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, including ozone. The air emissions generated by future development due indirectly to the Amendment could contribute emissions to the air basin that are cumulative and further non -attainment of ozone. The Community Development Commission and/or city would review all projects for potential impacts to criteria pollutants and require the use of all applicable pollution control measures as applicable to control emissions to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly impact criteria pollutants for which the San Diego Air Pollution Control District is non -attainment, including ozone. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 15 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 coulc,,) expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential impacts to sensitive receptors at the time projects are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce the impacts. The Amendment would not directly impact sensitive receptors by exposing them to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Amendment would not create objectionable odors that could affect people because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create objectionable odors. The Amendment could indirectly result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development odors could be generated and affect people in close proximity to the site. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would evaluate all projects for odor impacts to people that either live or work in close proximity at the time they are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could generate odors that affect a substantial number of people the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce or eliminate odor impacts accordingly. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications to any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would impact plant or wildlife species. The property in the project area is most developed and urbanized. Due to the lack of suitable habitat there are not any candidate plant or wildlife species that would be impacted if development occurs indirectly due to the Amendment. There are no habitat conservation plans associated with any property in the project area. The Amendment would not have any biological resource impacts directly or indirectly because there are no biological resources in the project area that can be impacted. b) Have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Have substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? vs.) 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 eIIIS e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely impact a historical resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical buildings. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a historical resource could be impacted, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require measures to ensure the protection of the resource in compliance with the law. If resources suspected of being historically significant were uncovered during construction the city would evaluate the resources and protect it in compliance with CEQA Guideline § 15064.5, as applicable. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause adversely impact an archaeological resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any archaeological resources within the project area that would be impacted by future development. If archaeological resources, or artifacts of historical importance are uncovered during construction all construction activity shall cease and the city shall be notified immediately. The city would take the lead to determine whether or not the resources are significant and need to be protected in compliance with CEQA Guideline § 15064.5. The Amendment would not impact archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Amendment would not destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any paleontological resources in the city, including the project area. The Amendment would not impact paleontological resources. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 17 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 coup 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 he impacted by earthquake faults in the area or the region. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause strong seismic ground shaking because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the 2 City of National City General Plan, approved September 10, 1996, page 18. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 18 Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 for commercial and industrial property and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause or be impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Residents, employees, and buildings would not be exposed to any greater degree of ground shaking with the adoption of the Amendment than currently exists. All projects, independently of the use of eminent domain, must provide applicable earthquake construction measures and hardware as required by the Uniform Building Code to reduce ground -shaking impacts. The Amendment would not change the exposure of people and buildings to seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause ground -failure, such as liquefaction. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the location a project could be impacted by liquefaction or other seismic — related ground failures. However, whether or not development is impacted by liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure is not dependent upon the use of eminent domain. The use of eminent domain to would not change the exposure of a project to liquefaction or any other type of ground failure. Geotechnical reports would be prepared for individual projects to determine if they would be exposed to seismic -related ground failures. If a site is subject to liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure, measures would be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to mitigate the impact. The Amendment would not have any seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause any landslides or expose people or property to landslides because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or be exposed to landslides. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. There are no large hillside areas within or adjacent to the project areas that could impact development. Therefore, landslides would not impact development and the Amendment would not have any landslide impacts. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development of projects could result in soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs and proper measures to reduce soil erosion are not implemented and Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 soiJ� erosion protection measures such as soil binders are not used. The incorporation of all applicable soil erosic 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 soi because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. Th 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 al] 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 o hazardous materials? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The development of projects could include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, depending upon the project. The city would review all future projects for potential hazards and the projects that generate or use hazardous materials would be required by the city would require each project to meet all applicable laws and regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the transport and use of hazardous materials would minimize hazards to the public and the environment to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not have any hazardous impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) d) 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. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. They're no sites in the redevelopment project area that are listed as a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Amendment would not have any direct or indirect impacts with regards to listed hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The redevelopment project area is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project area is the San Diego International Airport, which is approximately seven miles northwest of National City. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No Impact. The Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. All development would be required to provide emergency access that allows for safe and effective access routes for fire and police equipment and personnel as well as people leaving the site in the event of an emergency. The city would review all projects for safe emergency access to ensure that emergency access is provided. The Amendment would not have any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan impacts. g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 2] use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create 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 o' construction and maintained throughout the construction to reduce soil erosion. The BMP's would be installer 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. July 2004 Page 22 Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain raN The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to National City and obtains most of its water supply from the Colorado River. It does, however, obtain some of its water supply from local wells. Development that reduces the amount of permeable soil available for rainfall to recharge the local groundwater could impact the Sweetwater Authority's water supply. However, the Amendment itself would not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of any property or result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially alter existing drainage patterns. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could require the existing drainage pattern of some sites to be modified that could .alter existing drainage patterns. The city would review the grading plans of projects for potential erosion and siltation impacts due to modifications or changes to the existing drainage patterns. If existing drainage patterns are altered that could result in substantial erosion or siltation impacts on or off the site the city would require changes and the incorporation of measures to reduce erosion impacts. The Amendment would not impact drainage patterns or cause substantial erosion or siltation impacts. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. Please see the response to c) above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Amendment would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects the could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could generate quantities of runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As stated in response a) above, all applicable projects would be required to install and maintain proper measures to reduce the amount of sediments and other potential sources of surface water pollution. The development of property that is currently vacant or underdeveloped could generate quantities of surface water runoff and impact the local or regional storm drain system. The generation of surface water beyond the capacity of the storm drain system could significantly impact the storm drain system. The city would review all projects to determine if the existing system has capacity to handle the surface water flows or if upgrades are required. The Amendment itself would not impact the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 23 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Floo Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The Amendment would not plac 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 nc expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding due to the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? No Impact. There are no large bodies of water either located within or adjacent to the project area that could impact a project due to a seiche. While there are a few areas in National City with hillsides, there are no areas that are known to have mudflows and could impact development. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could be inundated by a seiche or mudflow. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment would not expose people or property to inundation or impacts by a seiche because there are no large bodies of water that could impact development. The areas in National City where hillsides do exist are not large enough in area to have mudflows that could impact development. The Amendment would not impact any development due to inundation by a seiche or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Amendment would not physically divide an established community because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could physically divide an established community. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 24 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development must be consistent with and comply with the National City General Plan, which does not allow development to divide an established community. The proposed Amendments would not directly or indirectly divide an established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over development in the project area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with a land use plans, policies or regulations. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could conflict with the land use adopted by the general plan, a specific plan or the city's development code. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the adopted plans and codes and changes or revisions would be require if necessary to comply with the applicable plans and codes. The Amendment itself would not directly impact or conflict with any adopted land use plans or codes. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with that adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The city does not have any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. However, there are areas in close proximity to the project area with habitat and wildlife resources that are protected and development could impact the resources. The city would review projects for potential conflicts with these known wildlife resource areas and require measures to protect the resources when necessary. Since no development is directly proposed with the Amendment, no impacts due to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans would occur. 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 recoverysite 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 of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could expose persons to or generate noise in excess of standards established by the National City General Plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could expose residents or employees to noise levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance or projects could generate noise levels that exceed the city's allowable noise levels. The city would review all development proposals for noise impacts and require changes or modifications accordingly to ensure compliance with the city's noise standards. The Amendment would not have any noise impacts by exposing people to levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance. b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects and would not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or noise levels. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could expose people to ground vibrations and impact them. The city would review all development plans for potential ground borne vibrations and require project changes or modifications accordingly to reduce vibration impacts. The Amendment would not have any direct ground borne vibration impacts. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could increase existing noise levels above existing levels and result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise. The city would review development proposals potential for noise level increases that could substantially increase existing noise levels and impact residents or employees. If necessary, the city would require changes to reduce ambient noise levels impacts to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise level. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above existing levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 26 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels above existing levels. Temporary or periodic noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment could occur during project construction and impact surrounding land uses. The city would review development proposals at the time they are submitted for approval for potential temporary or short-term noise level increases that could impact surrounding land uses and require changes to reduce noise impacts. The Amendment would not directly result in substantial temporary noise level increases. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project areas associated with the Amendment are not located in an adopted airport land use plan. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to the project areas and is located approximately seven miles northwest of National City. The project would not expose people to excessive noise levels at an airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project would not induce a substantial population growth directly because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could induce substantial population growth. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could induce a substantial population growth depending upon the type of development, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The city would review development proposals for population growth impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. If projects would induce substantial population increases the city would determine at that time if an increase would be substantial and the impact the growth could have on the environment. The Amendment would not have a substantial population growth impact since no development is proposed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not displace a substantial number of houses requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could displace existing housing. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. The Amendment excludes using eminent domain for residential purposes. Therefore, the Amendment could not use eminent domain authority to acquire residential property resulting in the demolition of existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please see the response to b) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 27 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact fire protection services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for new fire stations and other facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on fire protection services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the fire departments ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans, conducting fire inspections in buildings, etc. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development and includes fire protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as fire protection to serve new development. The fee can be used to construct new fire protection facilities, expand existing fire facilities, purchase fire trucks, fire equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area due indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on the fire department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to fire protection services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. ii) Police protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact police services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for police protection services and facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on police services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the police department's ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development, including police protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and;,----. would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as police protection. The fee can be used to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 28 construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development hnpact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts to the police department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to police services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. iii) Schools? No Impact. The project would not impact schools because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact schools. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The proposed Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial land uses and not residential. Although commercial and industrial development does generate students, the generation rate is much lower than residential. The number of students that would be generated by commercial or industrial development would be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of schools serving the project area. The two school districts, National City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that serve National City collect school impact fees from development as allowed by state law. The school impact fee is used by both school districts to provide classroom space for students. New commercial and industrial development would be required to pay school impact fees as applicable, which would be used to provide additional classroom space for students. The proposed Amendment would not impact area schools since development is not directly proposed at this time. iv) Parks? No Impact. The project would not impact city parks because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact parks. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities or increase the use of existing park facilities in National City. The city strives to maintain or expand the current (1996) ratio of park and open space land to population, which is 43/4 acres per 1000 residents (including local parks, public -owned wetlands, golf courses, and school recreational facilities). The Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial development and not residential. The Amendment would not indirectly result in the development of residential uses, which typically increases the population and generates the need for park and recreational facilities. While commercial and industrial development may incrementally increase the need for parks, that need would be minimal and is not expected to impact existing facilities. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services and parks. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as park facilities to serve new development. The fee can be used to purchase parkland and provide park facilities. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on park facilities. The Amendment would not have any impacts to parks since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. v) Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no additional public facilities that would be impacted by the Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 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 (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could increase traffic. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic with a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on area roads, or congestion at intersections. Additional development could impact the street system in the project area as well as the street system outside the project area. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development including the circulation system. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as street improvement to serve new development. The fee can be used to widen streets, construct needed intersection improvements, purchase and install traffic signals, restripe roadways, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts by development to circulation - facilities throughout the project area as well as the city. The Amendment would not have any impacts to the circulation systems since development is not proposed as pan 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 July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 30 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially increase hazards due to design features. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could require new design features for traffic to flow properly, which could increase hazards and impact traffic and circulation. The city would review all future development proposals for potential impacts associated with street design, including sharp curves and roadway intersections that could impact traffic flow and safety. When necessary, the city would require project changes or modifications to provide safe circulation features, including curves and intersections. Because development is not proposed by the Amendment, no circulation impacts would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project would not provide any inadequate emergency access because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not proposed public or private development projects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city along with the police and fire departments would review all development proposals for adequate emergency access. Projects would be required to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Amendment would not have any emergency access impacts because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. e) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project would not result in any inadequate parking capacity because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in inadequate parking capacity. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city would review development proposals to ensure that adequate parking capacity is provided in compliance with the city's parking code. Since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment the project would not have any parking capacity impacts. J) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with adopted policies. plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city has adopted policies requiring projects to provide alternative forms of transportation, including bus turnouts and bicycle racks when applicable. The city would review development proposals to ensure that bus turnouts and/or bicycle racks are provided as required. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 31 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 g) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would have a need for potable water. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate a need for potable water for drinking, landscape irrigation, and fire flow. Depending upon the type and intensity of development the existing water supplies may not be adequate to provide a sufficient water supply for a project. The city along with the Sweetwater Authority would review all development proposals to determine if there is a sufficient supply of water or if additional water supplies would be required. As applicable, all projects would be required to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. The Amendment would not have any water supply impacts since development is not proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Amendment would not exceed wastewater treatment capacity of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would be treated by the Point Loma treatment plant. The wastewater would not impact the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and its ability to provide wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallons of wastewater per day to the South Metro Interceptor Sewer. Flows in National City as of August 2003 were 5.67 million gallons per day, which allows capacity for additional wastewater flows by future development without requiring the San Diego Wastewater Department to increase or expand the capacity of any trunk lines or the Point Loma treatment plant. j) 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. 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 solic waste. XVI. ENERGY: Would the project: a) Result in an adverse impact on local and regional energy supplies, including base or peak period demands, regardless of the presence of a would -serve letter from the appropriate energy provider? No Impact. The project would not impact local or regional energy supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would require energy. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would require energy in the form of electricity and natural gas for heating, cooling, lighting, etc. The city would require would -serve letters from the utility companies to ensure that adequate energy supplies are available to serve projects prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At this time the city does not anticipate that development would impact energy supplies. The Amendment would not directly have any impact on energy supplies. b) Conflict with existing energy standards? No Impact. Please see response a) above. c) Would the project reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on the site or nearby property? No Impact. The project would not reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on any property in the project areas because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could reduce solar access. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could reduce solar access or impact opportunities for passive heating and cooling depending upon the intensity and design of the project. The city would review all projects for potential solar access impacts and require changes accordingly to reduce solar access impacts and enhance passive solar heating and cooling opportunities. The Amendment would not directly have any solar access impacts. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project would not impact fish or wildlife populations because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below a self-sustaining level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No t 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 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could have adverse environmental effects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to humans and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 35 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B California Environmental Quality Act National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 2004/2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Ilan - Negative Declaration A. INTRODUCTION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain ("2004 Amendment"). The Community Development Commission prepared the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority over all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20), regardless of their zoning designation, the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017. Properties that are currently being used for residential purposes would continue to be excluded from eminent domain. The Community Development Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur by amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received on the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment during the public review period. The community raised many issues and concerns during the public review and public hearing process for the proposed 2004 Amendment. Due to the community's concerns and public testimony, the Community Development Commission has subsequently reduced the geographic areas that could be subject to the authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area to those areas that are now referred to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors. The commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area that would now subject to the use of eminent domain are shown on the attached map. Additionally, the Community Development Commission reduced the number of years to extend its eminent domain authority from twelve (12) years to ten (10) years until 2015. The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, which reflects the stated changes. B. CEQA PROVISIONS As stated above, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed 2005 Amendment does not require the recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) which states: "Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: ...(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects." Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain emiN The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and Community Development Commission due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain for the originally proposed 2004 Amendment. The Negative Declaration also adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the currently proposed 2005 Amendment due to the fact that no new avoidable significant effects would occur. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain C6-06-2765 16:17 Prom-SP2, 'IMC. 7i?67,67,V '-5?f .662/.'( "-567 California Environmental Quality Act Addendum — Negative Declaration Community Development i; ornr.:ussion �f NatiIDna1 City 14C E. 12tb Street, Suite El National City, (:'alifenti,a 9:1950-331.2 Tel ;phone (619) :336-4250 A. PROJECT IN]FOR'MATION Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12a' Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-33 ]i2 (619) 336-4250 Project Contact: Oliver Mujica Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12`s Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3311;2 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12"' Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 Project Location: Project Description: • Prepared By: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west. of Interstate 805. The Community Development Cornmission of the City of National City proposes to amend the :Redevelopment Plan :fir the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's, authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminentdomain 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 emine_:nt domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2015. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in 's Amendment. Date: Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06/09/2005 THU 16:20 ;JOB NO. 55221 f1002 06-09-2005 16:17 From-SP2, INC. 9496600920 T-694 P.003/004 f-588 B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (the "CDC") prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received to the Negative Declaration during the public review period. The Negative Declaration evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur with amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use enunent domain for commercial and industrial properties west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission has since reduced the commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain to specific areas due to concerns raised by the community during the public hearing process. Thus, the Community Development Commission has restricted the use of eminent domain to those commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area as shown on the attached map. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain as proposed last year. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the authority to use eminent domain for the reduced number of commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area. The reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties that are subject to the use of eminent domain does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration complies with the California Environmental Quality Act in its analysis of the reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain as shown in the attached map. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 11R/nQ/7005 TWIT 1R 2n f.tnR No SS221 ifinnz Appendix A CRL Section 33030 and 33031 The CRL sets forth specific parameters that define blight. According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area contains both of the following: 1. An area that is predominantly urbanized and is an area in which the combination of physical and economic blighting conditions is so prevalent and substantial that it causes "a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment" (CRL Section 33030(b)(1)). 2. An area that is characterized by either physical blight and economic blight or the "existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership" (CRL Sections 33030(b)(2) and 33031(a)(4)). Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. The characteristics of both physical and economic blight, as defined above, are present throughout the Project Area. The characteristics of physical blight include deteriorated and dilapidated structures, lots/buildings suffering from defective design, substandard design, and lots of inadequate size, and incompatible uses. The characteristics of economic blight include low lease rates, depreciated property values, impaired investments, low per capita retail sales tax, and crime, all of which are indicative of declining market conditions. These blighting conditions are detrimental to surrounding uses and the community. CRL Section 33031(a) describes the following physical conditions that constitute blight: 1. Lots/buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; examples of these conditions include: a. Dilapidated and deteriorated buildings. b. Lots/buildings suffering from defective design or physical construction. c. Lots/buildings suffering from faulty or inadequate utilities. d. Serious building code violations. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL /041 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots; examples of these conditions include: a. Lots/buildings suffering from substandard design. b. Lots/buildings of inadequate size, given present standards and market conditions. c. Lack of available parking. 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape, inadequate size for proper usefulness and development, and that are in multiple ownership. ECONOMIC BLIGHT CRL Section 33031(b) describes the following economic conditions that constitute blight: 1. Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments. This condition includes the presence of hazardous waste. 2. Stagnant or declining market conditions; examples of this include: a. Abnormally high business vacancies. b. Abnormally low lease rates. c. High turnover rates. d. Abandoned buildings. e. Excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban uses and served by utilities. 3. A lack of necessary commercial facilities such as those normally found in neighborhoods including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 4. Residential overcrowding_or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 5. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix B Data Source List 1. Land use survey performed by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (March through May 2005). 2. San Diego County Assessor's parcel maps and assessed value data provided by Metroscan data service (2003-04 and 2004-05). 3. California Health and Safety Code including Sections 17920.3, 33030 and 33031. 4. Automated Regional Justice Information System from the San Diego Association of Governments, 2004 calendar year. 5. Data from the City of National City a. Code enforcement violations b. Hazardous Materials — Fire Department c. Traffic — Police Department d. City of National City Fire Department — 2004 Annual Report e. 1999-2000 Survey of Underage Drinking and Perceptions of Alcohol in National City. 6. How Buildings Learn, What Happens After They're Built. Stewart Brand, Penguin Books, (1994). 7. Local realtors and shopping center managers provided information, vacancy rates and lease rates (Spring 2005). 8. Environmental Protection Agency web site article, Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. 9. Environmental Hazardous Site — Environmental Protection Agency — Brownfields Grant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix C Photo Survey The following is a photographic depiction of some of the conditions observed from properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: Parcel Number — 562 330 24 On four separate occasions at least 12 semi -trailers related to the same business were observed using the street as long-term storage for trailers and materials. This is an example of inadequate lot size as the operator does not have sufficient on -site storage for materials and trailers. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number— 559 117 05 The loading area for this industrial building is inadequate to accommodate larger delivery vehicles such as the one pictured. This creates access issues for the other vehicles seeking to enter and exit the area. Parcel Number — 559 072 07 Residential building between two industrial uses is incompatible for both residential occupants and industrial uses as there are no buffers between the two. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 063 07 This obsolete motel has been the site of various criminal activity and as revenue has declined the owner has been cited for illegally converting short-term rooms to long-term apartments. Parcel — 560141 05 Outdoor welding under canvas tarp is a fire hazard as well as detracts from surrounding uses. Industrial sites with inadequate building sizes resort to substandard outdoor manufacturing as there are no other on -site altematives. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-3 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel— 555111 08 Across the street from this residence are multiple industrial buildings with inadequate parking as shown in the picture below. This lack off -site parking forces residents to illegally park their vehicles on already crowded streets. Parcel— 555 112 09 This property cannot accommodate the number of cars seeking repairs as well as parking for employees. Business such as this adversely effect on street parking for residents and reduce vehicle site lines at intersections. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-4 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel - 560 202 09 The business where this vehicle is waiting to be repaired is stored with five other vehicles on the street. This practice is common throughout the Project Area and contributes to the overall crowded street conditions. Parcel Number - 562 251 36 This site suffers from environmental contamination and cannot be built upon for the foreseeable future. Storage activities are the only usage this site is able to maintain until the pollution subsides and the ground stops sinking. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-5 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 556 35410 This site is one of several on Highland Avenue that are vacant or are used for storage instead of typical commercial activity. As the site only has on -street parking it reduces the types of businesses that might occupy the site. The owner was cited for attempting to illegally convert the building to residential units. Parcel Number — 559 105 01 Substandard construction was used to connect this residential building to the industrial building and is a fire hazard to both structures. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-6 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 560 202 01 This site and building are obsolete for the business operating out of it. Substandard building materials such as corrugated metal flex during an earthquake or fire and compromise the structural integrity of buildings. Parcel Number — 563 370 43 This former grocery store has been vacant for over 2 years and detracts from the surrounding businesses who have to survive without an anchor tenant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-7 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number— 559 125 16 This residential building next to a manufacturing facility represents an incompatible use. This property shows how residential buildings are less likely to be maintained as surrounding incompatible uses detract from the rent these properties might realize. Parcel Number— 559 010 04 If companies cannot find a consolidated site for operations they use nearby sites and have to transport goods between the areas. This is an unsafe condition for other vehicles as well as the driver of the forklift ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-8 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Chairman Nick Inzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Members Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez May 20, 2005 Preservi #>‘I s to r Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City Dear Property Owner, Business Tenant, or Interested Party: You are receiving the attached 2005 Redevelopment Plan Amendment notice and map because you own property, own a business or reside in the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area".) A joint public hearing will be held to receive your input regarding the proposed Amendment on: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:00 p.m. (or as soon as possible thereafter) Martin Luther King Community Center 140 E. 12th Street National City, California 91950 As a result of extensive public input, this revised proposal for the use of eminent domain is now ready for public hearing. The proposed Amendment will only affect commercial and industrial corridors within the City's redevelopment project area. If adopted, the proposed Amendment would allow the CDC to purchase, at fair market value, non-residential properties in the redevelopment project area through the eminent domain process. This could only occur after an extensive public input and hearing process. Eminent domain authority is proposed for a period of 10 years, or until 2015 and would only be used as a last resort. The enclosed map presents the Project Area boundaries and the commercial and industrial corridors that are the focus of the 2005 Amendment. Residential Properties are excluded from the 2005 Amendment and could not be acquired using eminent domain. The 2005 Amendment does not make any other changes to the Redevelopment Plan and does not affect your taxes in anyway. Should you have any comments concerning the 2005 Amendment, you are invited to share your ideas at the joint public hearing or submit written comments to the City Clerk prior to the time of the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the National City Community Development Commission at (619) 336-4250. Sincerely, Benjamin Martinez Executive Director Enclosures: Notice of Joint Public Hearing Project Area Map (Attachment 1) 140 E. 12' Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336A250 Fax: (619) 336.4296 EXHIBIT 3 Chairman Nick Inzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Members Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Preserving History... Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City Executive Director Benjamin Martinez CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND COMM JNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY • NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT Public Review Period: May 20, 2005 to June 20, 2005 The City Council of the City of National City ("City Council") and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") will hold a Joint Public Hearin on June 21, 2005, at approximately 6:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter, in the Martin Luther King Center, 140 East 12th Street, National City, California 91950, to consider the adoption of the proposed 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the City of National City Redevelopment Project ("2005 Amendment") pursuant to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code. Any person interested in this matter may appear at the above time and place and be heard. The proposed 2005 Amendment would allow the CDC to purchase properties in specific commercial and industrial corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") through eminent domain. Eminent domain authority would exist for 10 years, or until 2015, and would only be used as a last resort. Properties in residential use are excluded from the proposed 2005 Amendment and could not be acquired using eminent domain. The Attachment accompanying this Notice is a map that presents the existing Project Area boundaries and the commercial and industrial corridors that may be affected by the proposed 2005 Amendment. A metes and bounds legal description for the Project Area may be obtained at no charge at the CDC's offices located at 140 East 12th Street, Suite B, National City, California 91950. The CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") on the proposed 2005 Amendment (that provides detailed information regarding the proposed 2005 Amendment) will be presented at the Joint Public Hearing. The Report will include a Negative Declaration (that reviews the potential environmental impacts that may be generated by the proposed 2005 Amendment) and other documents required by the California Community Redevelopment Law. At the Joint Public Hearing, the City Council and the CDC will consider all evidence and testimony for and against the proposed 2005 Amendment and/or the Negative Declaration. All persons having any objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment may appear before the City Council and the CDC and show cause why the proposed 2005 Amendment or the Negative Declaration should not be adopted. At any time not later than the hour set for the Joint Public Hearing, any person(s) may file a written statement with the City Clerk, of their objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment. Public comment will close at the Joint Public Hearing. The City Council will make written findings in response to written objections filed at the Joint Public Hearing prior to adoption of the 2005 Amendment. A copy of the CDC's Report to the City Council, including the Negative Declaration, on the proposed 2005 Amendment may be reviewed at the office of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City, at 140 East 12th Street, Suite B, National City, and the City Clerk's Office, Civic Center, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City. Members of the public are invited to comment. Written comments should be received by the Community Development Commission on or before 3:00 p.m., June 20, 2005. Any questions regarding this matter shouldbe directed to Maricela Leon at (619) 336-4250. If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising ,only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the public hearing entity conducting the hearing at, or prior to, the public hearing. City Of National City Michael Dalla, City Clerk Published in the National City Star News, Friday, May 20, 2005 140 E. 12e Street, Suite 8; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 Chairman Nick Inzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Members Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez 20 de Mayo del 2005 Presery Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City Estimado propietario, alquiler de negocios, o persona interesada: Usted este recibiendo el aviso y mapa adjunto para Ia Enmienda del Plan de Desarrollo del 2005 porque usted es dueno de un negocio o vive en el Area del proyecto de desarrollo en National City ("Project Area") Una Audiencia Publics se Ilevara a cabo para recibir su opinion en cuanto a Ia proposicion de la enmienda propuesta el: Martes, 21 de Junio de122005 6:00 p.m. (o to mas pronto posible a partir de entonces) Martin Luther King Community Center 140 E. 12th Street National City, California 91950 Como resultado del extenso interes en el ptiblico, esta modificada propuesta para el uso de dominio eminente se encuentra lista para una audiencia publica. La enmienda propuesta solamente afectara los corredores comerciaies e industriales que se encuentran dentro del area del proyecto de desarrollo de la ciudad. Si la propuesta de enmienda se adopta, esta le permitira al CDC comprar, a un valor justo del mercado, propiedades que no son residenciales y que se encuentran en el area de proyecto de desarrollo a traves delprocesode eminente de dominio. Esto solamente podria ocurrir despues del • extenso proceso de aportacion publica y la audiencia. La autoridad de dominio eminente existira por 10 anos o haste el ano 2015, y solamente se usara como ultimo recurso. El mapa adjunto representa los limites existentes del area de Proyecto y los corredores comerciaies e industriales que son el enfoque de la enmienda 2005. Las propiedades de uso residencial se descartaran de la proposicion de enmienda 2005 v no se oueden adquirir or medio de dominio eminente. La enmienda 2005 no hace ningun otro cambio al Plan de Desarrollo y en ninguna manera afecta sus impuestos. Si usted tiene algun comentario con respecto a la enmienda 2005, le invitamos a compartir sus ideas en la Audiencia Ptibiica o presentar sus declaraciones por escrito al Secretario de la cuidad antes de Ia Audiencia Pubiica. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta, por favor contacte a Ia Comision de Desarrollo Comunitario (CDC) de National City al (619) 336-4250. Atentamente, Benjamin Martinez Director Ejecutivo Documentos Adjuntos: Aviso de la Audiencia Publica Mapa del Area de Proyecto (Anexo 1) 140 E. 12`h Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 Chairman Nick Innmza Vice Chairman Ron Monson Members Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez 41111111140 Preservi. Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City AVISO DE UNA AUDIENCIA PUBLICA CONJUNTA POR EL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL DE LA CIUDAD DE NATIONAL CITY Y LA COMISION DE DESAROLLO COMUNITARIO DE LA CIUDAD DE NATIONAL CITY (CDC) PARA LA ADOPCION DE LA PROPOSICION DE ENMIENDA 2005 PARA EL PLAN DE DESAROLLO EN NATIONAL CITY, Y AVISO DE DISPONIBILMAD DEL REPORTE DEL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL EN LA PROPOSICION DE ENMIENDA 2005 Periodo de revision para el publico: 20 de Mayo del 2005 hasta el 20 Junio del 2005 El consejo municipal de la cuidad de National City ("Consejo Municipal") y la Comision de Desarrollo de la cuidad de National City ("CDC") conducira una Audiencia Publica el 21 de Junio del 2005, aproximadamente a las 6:00 p.m. o a partir de entonces, en el Martin Luther King Center, que se encuentra ubicada en el 140 East 126 Street, National City, California 91950, pars considerar la adopcion de la proposition de enmienda 2005 para el Plan de Desarrollo del Proyecto de Desarrollo en la cuidad de National City ("Enmienda 2005") segun los requisitos del Codigo de Salubridad y Seguridad de California. Cualquier persona interesada en esta materia puede it a esta audiencia en la bora y lugar especificada anteriormente. La proposition de enmienda 2005 le permitira al CDC comprar propiedades en ciertas areas comerciales e industriales que se encuentran en la area en el Proyecto de Desarrollo en National City ("Project area") por medio de dominio eminente. La autoridad de domino eminente exisfua por 10 ahos o hasta el aflo 2015, y solamente se usara como ultimo recurso. Las propiedades de use residential se descartaran de la proposicion de enmienda 2005 v no se pueden adquirir por medio de dominio eminente. El mapa adjunto este Aviso representa los limites existentes del area de Proyecto y los corredores comerciales e industriales que se pueden encontrar afectados por la proposition de enmienda 2005. Una description legal de reparticion y limitation para el area de Proyecto se puede obtener.sin costo alguno en las oficinas del CDC ubicadas en el 140 East 12th Street, Suite B, National City, California 91950: El reporte del CDC al Consejo Municipal ("Report") en cuanto a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 (lo cual provee information detallada en cuanto a 1a proposicion de enmienda 2005) se presentara en la Audiencia Publica. El reporte incluira una dec]aracion negativa (que revisa los impactos potcnciales del ambiente que puede generar la proposicion de enmienda 2005) y otros documcntos que requiere la Ley de Desarrollo Comunitario de California. En la Audiencia Publica, el Consejo municipal y el CDC consideraran toda la evidencia y testimonio a favor y en contra la proposicion de enmienda 2005 y/o la declaration Ncgativa. Cualquier persona que tiene alguna objecion a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 puede presentarse ante el Consejo Municipal y el CDC y mostrar la razon por la cual la proposicion de enmienda 2005 o la declaration Negativa no se deberia adoptar. Cualquier persona puede presentar una declaration por escrito con el Secretario de la cuidad de sus objeciones a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 a cualquier hora antes del dia de la Audiencia Publica. La Audiencia Publica terminara con los comentarios del publico. El Consejo Municipal presentara las declaraciones bechas por escrito en la Audiencia Publica antes de la adopcion por la proposicion de enmienda 2005. Un copia del reporte del CDC al Consejo Municipal, incluyendo la Declaration Negativa, en cuanto a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 puede ser examinada en la oficina de la Comision de Desarrollo Comunitario (CDC) de la cuidad de National City, ubicada en el 140 East 126 Street, Suite B, National City, y en la oficina del Secretario de la cuidad, Civic Center, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City. Todos los miembros del publico estan invitados a dar su opinion. Los comentarios hechos por escrito se deberan recibir por la Comision de Desarrollo Comunitario a las o antes de las 3:00 p.m., el 20 de Junio del 2005. Para cualquier pregunta sobre esta materia por favor dirigase con Maricela Leon al (619) 336-4250. Si usted disputa este asunto en una tribunal, puede ser limitado a tratar nada mas aquellos puntos que usted u otra persona dispute. en la Audiencia Publica que se le describe en este aviso, o que se disputaron por testimonio escrito enviados a la entidad de la Audiencia Publica que llevara a cabo la audiencia en o antes de la Audiencia Publica. Ciudad de Nacional City Michael Dalla, Secretario de la Cuidad Publicada en el periodico National City Star News, el Viernes 20 de Mayo del 2005 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN DIEGO MN: z e= III ' 11111'! _IIIllllU 111111::IIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111 BImII. 11111111E /1111111/M r �414..44 14I4. nn 1/ mii 151100 110 'minimum 1, Ii11IIIalq !ImI 1., I lluiiiiiiiiP 'Ir1 111.n11111111111111 111111111111102 IIIIII�IIIIII rTh ��rrrrrrrr� Palm Ave \ lll�,�l�l�����,� 8th Street Corridor Miffi ® � m onnnn _11.111: EE�f�� kg ® ®❑ ®Highland Ave �1 � Plaza Blvd National City Redevelopment Project Area Project Area Boundary Municipal Boundary Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 0 0.125 0.25 1-1 1-1 11/111111/ 11/11/111 111111 I 1 CHULA VISTA 0.6 0.75 I MIkS {II' 111111 City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .MEETING DATE: June 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 / ITEM TITLE: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NA- TIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMEN PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez �' DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission Executive Director EXPLANATION: The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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 what is now referred to as the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area fora period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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 2005 Amendment. Pursuant to the requirements of the Califomia Health and Safety Code (also referred to as the Community Redevelopment Law), a Notice of Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Oommission was published in the National City Star News on June 3, 10 and 17, 2005. Additionally, a Notice of Availability of the Community Development Commission's Report to the City Council on the Proposed 2005 Amendment was published in the National City Star News on May 20, 2005, in which the required 30-day public review period was conduct from May 20 to June 20, 2005. Public Notices were also mailed to all property owners, businesses and tenants within the entire Redevelopment Project Area advising them of this Joint Public Hearing. 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 2005 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. J STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the Joint Public Hearing. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On June 21, 2005, during the Joint Public Hearing, the Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2005 Amendment. ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Supplemental Staff Report 2. Report to the City Council 3. Joint Public Hearing Notice Resolution No. 4. Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Background: On September 21, 2004, during a Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission, the proposed Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan was first introduced. At that time, the proposal was to extend the eminent domain authority over the entire Project Area for an additional twelve (12) years until 2017. A series on Joint Public Hearings, meetings and workshops were conducted in order to provide an opportunity for Staff presentations and public testimony. Upon the conclusion of the discussion on February 22, 2005, the consideration on the proposed 2004 Amendment was continued to March 22, 2005, in order to allow Staff with the opportunity to adjust the eminent domain boundaries, and reduce the number of years that the eminent domain authority would be extended. Prior to the meeting of March 22, 2004, the City Attorney identified a recent court decision relating to Redevelopment Amendments involving eminent domain authority. Thus, as a precautionary measure, the matter was closed in order to allow Staff to work in collaboration with the Redevelopment consultants to prepare a Blight Analysis to accompany the newly proposed 2005 Amendment. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study (environmental review checklist) and Negative Declaration was prepared for the previously 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. Upon the completion of the revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment which- resulted- in what is now being referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission evaluated the Negative Declaration in which a determination was made that the removal of the residential areas from the scope of the proposed 2005 Amendment and limiting the eminent domain authority to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the Project Area does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. Thus, based on the smaller Project Area, the authority to use eminent domain within the smaller geographic areas of the Project Area would not have any significant environmental impacts. There are no environmental impacts associated with the smaller Project Area that are not addressed in the Negative Declaration for the original 2004 Amendment. A copy of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study, as well as the recent environment determination, is included in Section K of the attached Community Development Commission's Report to the City Council. Prior to approving the proposed 2005 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. Attachment 1 Summary: The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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 what is now referred to as the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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 2005 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 2005 Amendment: The proposed 2005 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015." The proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan would be approved by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council. 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 2005 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 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission must approve the Report and authorize its transmittal to the City Council by adopting a Resolution. 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 2005 Amendment. Accordingly, on May 3, 2005, both the Community Development Commission and the City Council adopted their respective Resolutions authorizing Staff to establish June 21, 2005 as the date for a Joint Public Hearing to consider the proposed 2005 Amendment. Notices were transmitted via first class mail to all property and business owners, and residential owners and tenants within the entire 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 (3) consecutive weeks prior to the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission. Accordingly, the Joint Public Hearing Notice was published in the National City Star News on June 3`d, 10th and 17th, 2005. The Law provides that the Community Development Commission and City Council may only consider action on the proposed 2005 Amendment after any written objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment are answered in writing. Responses to those written comments submitted to date are attached to the accompanying Resolution Item. Should any additional written objections be submitted during the Joint Public Hearing, Staff and the redevelopment consultants will prepare the appropriate written responses. Thus, at this time, the Community Development Commission and City Council may appropriately consider the recommended actions. 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan Report to the Oily Council June 21, 2005 Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B NationalCity, California 91950-3312 _ RSG INTELLIGENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. 309 West 4th Street Santa Ana, California 92701-4502 P : 714.541.4585 F : 714.541.1175 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com Attachment 2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Plan Amendment 2 Contents of this Report 3 Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific 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 6 Study Approach and Methodology 6 Physical Blighting Conditions 9 Figure B - 1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations 18 Economic Conditions that Cause Blight 20 Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment 26 Physical and Economic Burden on Community 27 Five -Year Implementation Plan 29 Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Altematives Other Than Tax Increment 29 The Method of Financing 30 The Method of Relocation 31 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan 32 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission 32 Report of the Project Area Committee 33 General Plan Conformance 33 Environmental Documentation 34 Report of the County Fiscal Officer 34 Neighborhood Impact Report 35 A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies 35 Attachment 1 — Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain 36 Attachment 2 — Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain 37 Attachment 3 — Negative Declaration 38 Appendices Appendix A - Data Source List Appendix A-1 Appendix B - Law Section 33030 and 33031 Appendix B-1 Appendix C - Photo Survey Appendix C-1 Tables Table B-1 - Summary of Blighting Conditions ..10 Table B-2 - Monthly Lease Rate Comparisons Spring 2005 21 Table B-3 - 2004 Crime Rates Per 1,000 Persons For National City and Selected Local Jurisdictions 26 Introduction Introduction The Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is processing an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). This is being done to facilitate commercial and industrial revitalization and to 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 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. Attachment 1 presents a map of the Project Area boundaries with the proposed commercial and industrial corridors that would be subject to eminent domain authority, if the 2005 Amendment is adopted. 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. Attachment 2 identifies the portions of the Project Area currently subject to eminent domain authority. These properties were identified in 1995 and 2001 on the basis that they could be needed to facilitate commercial revitalization projects through land assembly and parcel consolidation. It is important to note that most properties (over 80%) in the Project Area are currently exempt from eminent domain authority. 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 commercial and industrial properties need to be subject to eminent domain. Projects requiring land assembly in non -eminent domain areas were not developed and the blighting conditions remaining on these properties have not been cured in most instances. This document is the CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") for the proposed 2005 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 Report provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the City Council of National City with their consideration of the 2005 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 Dated June 13,1995 and June 19, 2001 respectively. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 -1- NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and subsequent amendments; the Original Reports are incorporated herein by reference. Plan Amendment The proposed 2005 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2005 Amendment. The proposed text modification is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and 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 10 years2 from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33457.1 of the Law dictates the required components of this Report. More specifically, Section 33457.1 states that the report and information required by Section 33352 is the only the report and information warranted by the 2005 Amendment. Much of the information normally required that pertains to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports. 2 The Law allows commissions to establish eminent domain authority for up to 12 years. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2095 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Altematives 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 Confomiance 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 SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section A Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area The CDC seeks to amend the Plan by extending the CDC's eminent domain authority (subject to all required procedures under California law) to potentially acquire properties identified in Attachment 1, 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The 2005 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 2005 Amendment in order to expand its ability to assemble sites, thereby facilitating commercial, industrial and residential redevelopment projects in the Project Area. The CDC adopted the 1995 Redevelopment Plan authorizing the current limited eminent domain authority. The 1995 Report to the City Council ("1995 Report") cited socioeconomic conditions such as low median household income, high unemployment, high proportion of residential tenants versus home owners and low residential rents as blighting factors. The 1995 Report also discussed the mixture of land uses many of which are incompatible and/or obsolete as well as small parcel sizes and limited public infrastructure as additional blighting conditions. To facilitate the elimination of the above blighting conditions the CDC has initiated public right-of-way improvements, specific plans for development and environmental remediation of toxic sites over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. The CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of these properties continue to be neglected 10 years later. Adopting the 2005 Amendment will expand the scope of the Plan's eminent domain authority and afford the CDC one additional tool to eliminate blight in the ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project Area, through the facilitation of land assemblage activities within the areas identified in Attachment 1. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 5 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section B 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. However, additional blight documentation is required when eminent domain authority is established for new properties. As the 2005 Amendment expands the CDC's eminent domain authority to additional properties within the existing Project Area, a re -substantiation of blight for these new properties is required. Sections 33030-33031 of the Law (Appendix A) define the specific physical, economic and social conditions of blight that must exist within a redevelopment project area for adoption of the 2005 Amendment. The following section discusses each of the factors contributing to blight, as defined by the Law and is discussed and statistically documented. To that end, the CDC's consultant surveyed the properties presented on Attachment 1 and identified at least one blighting condition for 86% of properties. The survey was conducted on a parcel basis from March through May of 2005. Study Approach and Methodology Several data sources were utilized to quantify existing conditions in the Project Area. A complete listing is included as Appendix B. An important data source for evaluating the existence and prevalence of conditions that characterize blight in the Project Area was the field survey conducted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., consultants to the CDC, from March through May of 2005. The survey documented existing physical and economic conditions of each parcel in the Project Area. Both physical and economic indicators were observed during the field survey, including inadequate lot size, defective/substandard design, impaired investments, substandard building materials, inadequate parking and access, deterioration and dilapidation, faulty additions, incompatible uses, poor handling of hazardous materials and unsafe traffic conditions. Surveyors' Qualifications The lead surveyor, David Parsons, has a masters' degree in City Planning and Public Administration and has worked in local govemment for 3 years. At his previous position, Mr. Parsons worked in the Planning Department as a liaison to the Code Compliance Department and the neighborhood revitalization task force. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL He assisted property owners with their housing rehabilitation projects, including determining zoning compliance. Mr. Parsons has worked with RSG nearly two years, principally assisting in the amendment and adoption of redevelopment project areas as well as other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area amendment projects in the cities of Carlsbad, National City, Pinole, Poway and San Diego. Assistant to the lead surveyor, Walt Lauderdale holds a bachelors of Science degree in urban and regional planning and has worked in the field of community development and land use planning for nearly eleven years. Mr. Lauderdale has worked with RSG for over 3 years and has assisted in plan adoption and amendment activities of redevelopment project areas in addition to other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area adoption or amendment projects in communities such as South Central Los Angeles, Los Angeles Mid - City, the Watts area of Los Angeles and the Crossroads and Grantville areas of San Diego. Based upon initial reconnaissance, RSG prepares and refines a survey instrument for each project area. Each parcel has its own survey sheet and is identified by parcel numbers using county parcel maps. The survey forms include physical blighting conditions as prescribed by section 33031(a) of the Law, and economic blighting conditions listed in section 33031(b) of the Law, which are amenable to a visual survey. The survey fomis contain consistent, educated assessments regarding the condition of parcels in the Project Area. The land use survey results in a nominal assessment of whether a condition is "present" or "not present." RSG acknowledges that different degrees of deterioration or deficiencies are present in each parcel. RSG staff at a minimum cites a condition as present if a reasonable person, shown the condition, could see the damage. In most circumstances, this deterioration was visible from the right-of-way (streets or alleys). In the commercial and industrial properties inspectors may have viewed properties from parking lots or driveways. The following list describes the condition(s) that are present when a property/parcel is designated as having physical deficits. Deterioration/Dilapidation Broken/deteriorated roofing material • Describes broken and wom shingles • Tarped roofs that presumably are leaking • Roofing materials that are approaching the end of their useful life Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing • Describes wood rot deterioration • Likely insect infestation causing damage • Physical damage from age or unknown causes Damaged building materials • Describes voids in building materials • Significant cracking ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Crumbling materials Exposed wiring • Signifies electrical wiring either strung or dangling from buildings. • Describes excessive exterior conduit on outer walls from multiple additions • The presence of extension cords protruding from windows/doors, appearing to supply indoor or outdoor electrical power Broken window/door • Indicates a broken or cracked window • Describes exterior doors including garage doors with voids or severely damaged wood Structural damage of roof, foundation or walls • A visual bow or curve in the roof • Crooked roof • Significant cracking about the foundation (not cracked stucco) Substandard exterior plumbing • Describes piping usually attached to the exterior of a structure that appears to not meet current code requirements Faulty weather protection - lack of paint • Indicates instances where areas of buildings lack paint or color coat or paint is peeling Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access • Driveways that do not allow two vehicles to pass • Curves or tums in driveways that prevent seeing on -coming traffic Substandard exterior building materials • Structures built with tin, corrugated metal, plywood, etc. (materials that do not meet current building codes) Poorly constructed addition • Structures that do not meet current building codes because of design, configuration, materials Lack of light/ventilation • Buildings with inadequate set -backs and or windows • Industrial buildings with inadequate mechanical ventilation systems. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site • Indicates that the number of parking spaces does not meet current code requirements • Designates situations of inadequate parking that were observed during the survey Inadequate loading facilities • Indicates properties that have inferior loading facilities due to size, configuration • No loading facilities Excessive coverage • Designates commercial and industrial properties that lack parking, open space, landscaping, and/or access Outdoor storage/garbage/debris • Specifies properties that have trash strewn about • Indicates properties that have commerce, storage or displays outdoors Commercial and Industrial businesses with persons working outdoors • Circumstances in which persons were observed working outdoors (primarily on automobiles and light -manufacturing) No off -site parking • Indicates that on -street parking is not available along the curb in front of a parcel Physical Blighting Conditions The Law describes physical conditions that cause blight. These physical conditions are assessed in terms of the health and safety of persons and the economic viability of development in an area. To make this assessment, data from field surveys, City code enforcement, fire and police, the County and other sources are evaluated to determine what conditions may be adversely affecting the health and safety of persons in an area, as well as the adverse economic conditions that result from these physical conditions. Generally as economic retums from an area decline there is a corresponding lack of investment in physical upkeep of properties, further perpetuating physical blight. The Law requires that both physical and economic blighting conditions be present for the establishment of eminent domain authority for new properties, in an existing project area. Overall, 86% of all properties in the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting conditions (Table B-1). The physical blighting conditions include deterioration and dilapidation, inadequate lot size, inadequate vehicle access, substandard building materials along with faulty additions and obsolescence. The ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 9 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL presence of these conditions reflects a lack of investment by property owners in maintaining their properties in good condition to assure the safety of persons who work in the area. Poor physical conditions place a burden on the community by reducing its ability to meet its goal of fostering vibrant neighborhoods. Table B-1 summarizes the blighting conditions observed during the field survey of the Project Area. There were nearly 1,300 distinguishable properties among 1,560 parcels. Parcels or property uses not individually reflected in the table include; parking lots that were part of developments, condominium designations (commercial and industrial) that were part of a single property use and some vacant parcels. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CON Parcles in the Project Area 1560 Total number of properies surveyed 1,300 Physical Blighting Conditions Total Parcels Surveyed with Blighting Conditions Total Percent of Parcels Surveyed w/ Blighting Conditions Deterioration and Dilapidation Lack of paint - faulty weather protection Exposed wiring Damaged exterior building materials Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing Broken/deteriorated roofing material 578 766 621 182 159 44% 59% 48% 14% 12% Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access Substandard exterior building materials Poorly constructed addition Inadequate pedestrian access 134 375 208 46 10% 29% 16% 4% Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site Inadequate loading facilities Excessive coverageInadequate setbacks Outdoor storage or production Garbage/debris/stagnant water/combustible materials No off -site parking 631 27 149 678 595 42 49% 2% 11% 52% 46% 3% Total Number of Properties Surveyed With at Least One Blighting Condition 1,113 86% R�aeiivw Spevacek Group, Inc. an ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 10 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Physical Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Economically Viable Use of Buildings or Lots Section 33031(a)(2) of the Law describes physical conditions that cause blight to include "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors." The following discussion substantiates the presence of inadequate lot and building size, lack of parking, substandard design and obsolescence. Lot Size Small parcel sizes particularly in the commercial corridors of Highland Avenue and 8th Street as well as the industrial portions of the Westside area north of 22nd Street hinder their capacity to be rehabilitated and redeveloped. Current market standards for neighborhood commercial development generally require at least a two -acre site and a four -acre site for light -industrial development. There are only 21 properties of four or more acres and 71 properties of two or more acres affected by the 2005 Amendment with 543 commercial or industrial properties being less than on -half acre. Inadequate lot size results in development that either (1) lacks adequate parking, loading and vehicle access; or (2) prohibits redevelopment and reuse of parcels because the density of development that exists today would not be allowed without provisions for adequate parking, loading and vehicle access. New development constructed to modem development standards would be required to provide adequate parking, loading and vehide access, which many commercial and industrial parcels in the Project Area cannot accommodate. Once these amenities are included, the small lot sizes yield development that is substantially below allowed floor -area -ratios (density) and cause new development to be incapable of supporting the going land values in the Project Area. The only solution to this dilemma is to consolidate parcels into larger areas that allow development yield to be maximized while at the same time providing the parking, loading and vehicle access that the current commercial/industrial markets mandate. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with a tool to assemble adequately sized properties, in which site development can meet modem market standards. Due to inadequate parcel size, the zoning in the Westside Industrial Area and Highland Commercial Corridor does not limit the lot coverage of new structures. If there were lot coverage limitations many of the smaller parcels would never have been developed. The problem however is that many buildings in these areas have little or no setbacks, which becomes a fire hazard as fire can spread more easily from structure to structure when buildings are connecting or in close proximity to one another. Adequate setbacks also serve as a buffer between uses, such as commercial/industrial uses next to residential structures. Without adequate buffers between uses, noise as well as toxic fumes and dust cross property lines and negatively affect surrounding properties. As the Project Area is ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL already built -out, it is infeasible for small -lot owners to now provide buffers and reduce excessive coverage of existing buildings within existing site constraints. The 2005 Amendment will provide a tool for the CDC to assemble sites large enough to have adequate buffers between uses. 149 properties were considered by RSG surveyors to have excessive coverage. Complicating this problem are industrial buildings which lack adequate floor space for inside manufacturing and storage. As operations overflow outside into already constrained parking areas there is nowhere for the parking needs to be met, except for the already congested street area. Over 70% properties in the 2005 Amendment Area have buildings that are 25 years or age (prior to 1981) or older. The sites these buildings occupy were not designed with to meet modem -day market demands and display inadequate site design as evidenced by the 631 surveyed properties (49%) that have inadequate parking. These businesses use the street to meet their parking and storage needs, which reduces the off -site parking for surrounding uses many of which were also designed with inadequate on -site parking. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with the ability to correct this physical constraint, thereby reducing the impaired investment these properties represent when compared to properties with proper site design and adequate parking. Inadequate loading is another typical characteristic of properties with insufficient lot size. Often small lots must employ sidewalk and/or street loading due to the lack of adequate on -site space. Unloading in the right-of-way; impedes access to businesses, reduces vehicle sight lines for pedestrian and other vehicular traffic as well as restricts traffic flow creating a hazardous traffic condition. Trucks often park on sidewalks to make deliveries putting pedestrians at risk clue to tripping or being struck by vehicles, when they have to walk into the street to avoid the delivery that is blocking the sidewalk In addition, sidewalk and street loading suggests that the current site use might not be in accordance with its original design. For example, a residential structure that was converted to a commercial or industrial use typically has a small lot size, the only way to correct the small lot size and provide enough area for safe loading is through parcel consolidation. When businesses do have on -site loading and parking, these features are often difficult to access due to narrow driveways that allow only one car to enter/exit at a time. Access is further restricted by outdoor storage and production taking place in the parking lots. Buildings were observed to have a loading dock and parking area only to be blocked by outdoor storage and production activities. This practice of outdoor staging areas for production on small industrial lots, further exacerbates the on -street parking problems. The City has tried to compensate for this by using diagonal parking particularly in the Westside Area, but this has created safety problems for vehicles due to reduced sight -lines at intersections and congested work areas extending into the public right-of-way which compromises pedestrian safety. As the vast majority of the parcels in the Project Area are fully developed and there is little opportunity or incentive for businesses to provide additional parking, no significant "new" parking can be anticipated ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21,2005 NATIONAL CITY - 12- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL without the assistance of redevelopment and the approval of the 2005 Amendment to facilitate assemblage of larger lots for improved site design. The lack of parking hinders the economically viable use of these commercial and industrial properties, as tenants who desire adequate parking can pay market rent for properties with adequate parking and loading facilities to operate their businesses at a higher efficiency than those businesses operating on a constrained site. Property owners of inadequately sized properties cannot realize these higher revenue rates as their sites are too small to properly accommodate amenities that are desirable to tenants willing to pay higher rents. Also, as the economic revenue from a property levels off and/or declines, property owners are unlikely to make the needed physical improvements to their properties contributing to the further decline of the Project Area. Outdoor storage and manufacturing is a common problem throughout the Project Area for both commercial and industrial properties and is another indicator of inadequate lot and buildings size. Commercial properties often use outdoor storage for excess materials, trash and other items. Unscreened dumpsters, which are also very prevalent in the Project Area lead to unsanitary conditions affecting the health and safety of those in the general area as trash becomes strewn about, attracting insects and rodents. The presence of outdoor storage is an indicator that the existing building stock provides inadequate building space for existing business activities. Also, outdoor storage contributes to the declining appearance and perception of the Project Area, this perception of decline reduces the revenue properties can generate as investors will not pay the same rate commanded by non -blighted properties for properties perceived to be in decline. Overall, 52% of properties either had outdoor storage and or outdoor production. To further accommodate outdoor repairs and production, many businesses are using temporary canvas tarp (tent) buildings as permanent additions to existing areas for outdoor manufacturing. These tarp buildings present a fire hazard to existing buildings which the tarp is attached to. For example, sparks from welding operations under these tarps can smolder in the tarps and then spread to the building itself or nearby chemical or combustible materials storage as many of the manufacturing and repair businesses use chemicals and other combustible materials in their operations. Outdoor uses therefore, are often a safety hazard due to environmental, fire and vehicle access deficiencies. Structural Obsolescence While inadequate loading, parking and storage are characteristics of small lot size, these deficiencies are also indicative of properties 25 years or older. The deficiencies associated with many older properties are often referred to as obsolescence. Obsolescence is the result of a combination of blight factors, including the age of a buildings, lack of maintenance, and a lack of desirable amenities such as parking and tenant improvements that occur as contemporary market standards evolve. For these reasons, obsolescence results in factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings and Tots. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 13 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL The appeal of obsolete buildings diminishes as market conditions and consumer preferences change causing other uses to fill the void. Many auto repair businesses locate in the Project Area to compliment the retail operations of the Mile of Cars area. However, most of these supporting businesses are located on side streets behind the modem buildings of the Mile of Cars, where the rents are significantly less and in obsolete/inadequate buildings without the needed amenities to properly operate these supporting businesses. Commercial and industrial development standards have changed significantly since the 1965 when over 40% of the commercial and industrial properties in the Project Area were developed. Modem industrial developments offer larger floor and lot sizes along with amenities such as landscaping, on -site parking and adequate loading areas for larger delivery vehicles. Commercial and industrial uses without adequate area often negatively affect surrounding properties through competition for on -street parking and on -street deliveries that restrict access to surrounding properties. Inadequate vehicle access is another indicator of obsolescence. The commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area were developed in a style that is deficient by today's development standards. Principally it did not provide driveways that had adequate site lines into oncoming traffic nor were the driveways properly designed to accommodate two-way traffic or traffic queuing particularly in commercial corridors. 134 parcels or 10% of the parcels in the Project Area exhibited inadequate vehicle access condition. Buildings Unsafe/Unhealthy to Live or Work In Section 33031(a)(1) of the Law identifies several blighting conditions that denote a building that is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These include the following: serious code violations, deterioration or dilapidation, and defective design or physical conditions, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. Substandard building materials, faulty additions and incompatible uses are other factors of defective design. Code Enforcement Violations Violations of local or state building codes are a blighting condition identified under Section 33031(a) of the Law, which characterizes buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Buildings and structures that do not meet current uniform building requirements, or other local codes mandated to ensure human health and safety, pose a threat to the workers, patrons, and residents of an area. Code enforcement efforts are, for the most part, limited to complaint generated enforcement. The majority of complaints come from property owners or tenants who observe potential violations in their neighborhoods. However, since code violations are primarily investigated only if a complaint is filed or observed by City staff, many violations go unnoticed and the true number of building and other code violations is likely to be greater than those reported. Even if adequate ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 14 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL funding was available for City staff to pursue all initial code enforcement violations from the first time each violation was observed, there would need to be at least two times this number of personnel to do the proper follow up that each case typically requires. Based on discussions with City staff, most code enforcement cases require at least one, if not two to three additional follow up visits to make sure the violation is not reoccurring. The following is a list of code violations observed by City staff in the commercial and industrial corridors of the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment • Unsafe wiring such as extension cords being used as permanent wiring, this fire hazard was typically observed in residential structures converted to commercial and industrial uses: • Unsafe and excessive signage that is improperly secured or with supports that have rusted, which then becomes a falling hazard; • A -frame signs on sidewalk and signage for a one-time use (real estate leasing) that was not permitted and laying in the public right-of-way, which becomes a tripping hazard; • Inventory (displays) stored on sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian access; • Public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks) being used for manufacturing and repair area, particularly for auto related businesses, which leads to manufacturing debris and pollution being left in the public right-of-way and a hazard to pedestrians; • Due to overcrowding on street parking in commercial and industrial areas, commercial and industrial vehicles are stored on nearby residential streets. Small parcel size also leads to parking of vehicles on grass and other non -paved surfaces, which has contributed to environmental contamination of the Project Area; • Public streets being used for loading and unloading of merchandise, usually blocking or impairing traffic, which is a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians; • Canvass or plastic tarps were often observed being used as long-term roof covering or to creating an unsafe building addition as well as permanent outdoor work areas; • Inadequate securing of trash in dumpster enclosures leads to unsanitary conditions; • Illegal dumping of trash (including vehicles) was observed throughout the Project Area, particularly on vacant property or abandoned commercial and industrial properties; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 15 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Unlicensed businesses operating on the site of another business or conducting operations, which are not allow under the current license. For example a car audio sales business doing installation in the parking lot contributes to overcrowding and promotes vehicles repair activity in the parking lots instead of the safety of a properly designed service facility; • Residential structures converted to non-residential uses without proper permits. Without proper permitting/inspections residential structures cannot be properly evaluated if they are suitable for industrial conversion. For example, multiple residential structures that were being used for commercial/industrial uses were observed to have excessive storage facilities (over 120 square feet of area) in the dedicated setback area, creating a fire hazard; • Outdoor chemical usage in addition, to toxic manufacturing with exhaust and particle venting not to code. This was often observed with outdoor auto repair shops, which in multiple cases are next to residential uses; • Along Highland Avenue several abandoned office/commercial buildings are illegally converted to residential uses, which has lead b substandard living conditions for residents; • Motels have illegally converted from short-term (less than 30-days) stay to Tong -term residential usage and attracting criminal activity as a result; • Abandoned houses in commercial areas attract criminal activity. In addition, several declining businesses have become storefronts for organized criminal activity such as narcotics, prostitution and general gang activity; • Decaying retaining walls along with dilapidated wood and corrugated fences threaten safety of those using the buildings, observed through the Project Area; • Overgrown vegetation becomes a fire hazard; and • Barbed/razor wire used to secure commercial and residential structures. It is important to note that if all code enforcement violations were corrected in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment, blighting factors such as environmental contamination, flooding, inadequately sized parcels and unsafe traffic conditions would still remain and the 2005 Amendment would still be justified and beneticiai for the Project Area. Dilapidation and Deterioration During the field survey, the safety and condition of buildings in the Project Area were assessed using Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. This code section provides conditions that characterize a building as ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 16 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL substandard, unsafe, and unhealthy. Accordingly, a substandard building is one that exhibits any of the following conditions to an extent that it presents safety or property hazards' • General dilapidation or improper maintenance; • Wiring which does not conform to building codes and is in poor condition; • Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster, • Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint or weather stripping; • Broken or rotted, split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings; • Construction materials not up to code which have not been property maintained and are in poor condition; • Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, stagnant water or similar materials or conditions which constitute a safety hazard; • Any building or portion thereof which is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; and • Buildings or portions thereof occupied for commercial and industrial purposes, which were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies. Deterioration and dilapidation is also an indicator of buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, as identified under the Law, section 33031(a)(1). It is a common physical blighting condition found in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Evidence of dilapidation and deterioration in these properties includes buildings with damaged exterior building materials (48% of properties), deteriorated paint or weather proofing (44% properties), deteriorated eaves or wood rot (14% properties), and exposed wiring (64% properties). The older age of many of the buildings, combined with deferred maintenance, are contributory factors to their current state. Review of Table B-1 indicates deterioration existing in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment As stated in the book How Buildings Leam, What Happens After They're Built (Stewart Brand), a lack of maintenance results in buildings becoming unusable, with a threat of structural failure. Brand states that due "to deterioration and obsolescence, a building's capital value (and the rent it can charge) about halves by twenty years after construction. Most buildings you can expect to completely refurbish from eleven to twenty-five years after construction. The rule of thumb about abandonment is simple...if repairs will cost half of the value of the building, don't bother? ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL As demonstrated in the figure below, if regular maintenance is not done, first minor, and then major failures will result over time. As the cost of renovating the building goes up exponentially over the years, structural failure occurs and the building cannot be recovered. Because property owners may fear that they will not realize a retum on an investment in rehabilitation, buildings are often neglected. Poor building conditions indicate limited reinvestment in the building stock through renovation and rehabilitation, and reflect a weak environment for private sector development or redevelopment. Figure B -1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations Structural failures occur Structure not usable Start of major failures Start of minor failures Normal wear A B Time in years Total cost of major repair (C) Total cost of minor repair (B) Total cost of preventive maintenance (A) r •• Major repair Minor repair Preventive maintenance PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (bottom line) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense. This diagram is adapted from Preventive Maintenance of Buildings (New York Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991), p.3. Quantification of the severity of building dilapidation would require access to building interiors and detailed review of the core structural, electrical, plumbing and roofing systems of each building. This type of extensive evaluation is not feasible as part of the documentation for the 2005 Amendment. However, it is possible to extrapolate from viewing the exterior of buildings that if little investment has been made to maintain and improve the exterior of a building, it is also likely that few improvements have been made to the core support systems and interior of the buildings. The fact that over 70% of buildings are over 25 ROSENOW SPEVACEK-GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 18 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL years old and over 80% exhibit dilapidation and deficient exterior improvement, suggests significant interior dilapidation exists. Substandard Building Materials and Faulty Additions There were several examples of substandard building materials observed in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Corrugated metal sheeting is a primary example and is not a permitted building material according to the City code. The corrugated metal readily deteriorates from the weather and becomes more structurally unsound as it warps from the elements. Canvas and plastic tarps are even more prevalent and are not permitted to be used as building materials by the City. The results of the field survey indicate at least 375 incidences of substandard building materials and 208 buildings with faulty additions. Predominately, the industrial parcels affected by the 2005 Amendment represent the older style of development, offering limited or no amenities. Modem industrial buildings often use concrete tilt -up walls that can withstand the physical demands associated with industrial uses. The Project Area has multiple examples of wood - frame residential structures converted to industrial use. Residential wood -frame buildings are not designed to withstand industrial use requirements that may include production equipment or storage mounted to the walls as well as the high level of wear and tear associated with these non-residential activities. These activities cause the wood -frame structure to become dilapidated and wear down prematurely from the high -demands of industrial as well as commercial usage. Other inadequacies of older structures built for other uses include insufficient electrical supply, storage, and indoor manufacturing areas. Incompatible Adjacent Uses Incompatible adjacent uses where commercial and/or industrial properties are directly adjacent to residential uses were noted on 299 of the properties within the area affected by the 2005 Amendment and particularly in the Westside area between National City Blvd. and Interstate 5. As previously mentioned with respect to small -lot size, outdoor manufacturing was commonly observed without any noise buffers to surrounding residences. Furthermore, toxic dust created by outdoor industrial repairs and production drifts in an airbome state to surrounding residential properties, presenting a significant detrimental health and safety condition to these residents. Auto related uses on parcels of substandard size often have outdoor repairs and vehicle storage that spill out onto the street. These industrial uses congest streets for surrounding residents and reduce vehicle and pedestrian safety. Lack of Economic Viability These physical conditions of blight have had a serious impact on the economic viability of the Project Area. The lack of economic viability has resulted in all major chain grocery stores leaving the Project Area, where previously there were three (3). In their place, liquor stores have become the primary grocery providers ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 19- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL to many residents of the Project Area, which offer limited grocery services and contribute to the excessive number of alcohol distribution outlets in the Project Area and City as a whole. In addition, there are only four (4) banks operating in the Project Area, augmented by lenders such as payday loan outlets which charge interest rates that are substantially higher than commercial banks and lade the wide -range of financing services found at typical financial institutions. Within the last year a vacant Wells Fargo bank building was converted to a used car lot depriving the Project Area of another banking site. As preferred community serving businesses (banks and grocery stores) leave or refrain from locating stores in the Project Area, residents are left with fewer retail options. Community servicing businesses also create a synergy with existing retail and attract new customers to the businesses in the Project Area. In addition, to providing outside customers to augment the revenue of Project Area businesses, these outside customers often provide a positive retum to the City treasury through sales tax revenue. Not only do major chain retailers provide a wide -range of services to the Project Area, but they traditionally serve as anchor tenants to shopping centers. A former Albertson's site of 65,000 square feet has remained vacant for over two years, the lack of this anchor tenant reduces the overall business traffic drawn to the shopping center and reduces the overall revenue existing business might realize in this shopping center. Over time this lack of total revenue may force some businesses to close further contributing to the economic blighting conditions of the Project Area. Economic Conditions that Cause Blight Recent court decisions have ruled that to qualify a new portion of an existing Project Area for eminent domain authority as the 2005 Amendment proposes to do, it must not only exhibit conditions of physical blight, but also must contain and suffer from economic blight. To accurately represent existing economic conditions, the Project Area has been analyzed and information has been gathered from the City, the County, and private sources to document the deteriorating economic conditions of the Project Area. The following describes economic blighting conditions that contribute to lack of proper utilization of Project Area properties. Impaired Investments Industrial Realtors familiar with the industrial properties in the Project Area cited a number of different problems that act in concert to impede the economic success of real estate within the older industrial corridors of the Project Area. For example, when ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 20 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL the area developed, the standards for industrial development allowed for smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and reduced set -backs from other properties. These conditions negatively impact the appearance and detract from the marketability of the area. Most realtors also noted that the age of many industrial buildings renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned are listed on the following page. • Small building size; • Lack of parking on -site and off-street; • Lack of access to industrial sites; • Lack of other amenities or inadequate amenities such storage; • Low ceiling heights which restrict indoor operations and manufacturing and/or storage; • Inadequate construction materials such as wood frame used for industrial production; and • Lack of adequate utilities servicing properties. as loading and lead to outdoor buildings being The overall lack of amenities offered by a majority of industrial properties in the Project Area has created a lower tier market according to realtors. Most realtors graded the National City industrial market as a Class B or C (with Class A being the highest ranking) depending upon the condition of the building. This lower ranking attracts less desirable uses, such as outdoor auto repair and salvage, which further diminishes the image of the Project Area and the rents landowners are able to charge. Realtors surmise that the types of industrial businesses locating in the Project Area are looking for lower rents. Table B-2 shows a gross lease rate of $.85 per square foot monthly lease rate compared to the overall County rate of $1.02 per square foot or 17% lower. These lower lease rates generally result in little net income to reinvest in buildings to improve their condition. TABLE B-2 MONTHLY LEASE RATE COMPARISON SPRING 2005 Areas Industrial Office Retail National City $0.85 $1.20 $1.65 San Diego County Market Average $1.02 ( $2.03 I $2.00 Source: CB Richard Ellis 8 Various Broker Interviews. Commercial In discussing the proposed Project Area with realtors familiar with the commercial properties in the area, a number of different problems were cited that act in ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 21 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL concert to impede economic success. For example, when the Project Area developed, the standards, as stated before, allowed smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and no off-street parking particularly along Highland Avenue. Also noted is the age of many commercial buildings which renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned were: • Small building size; • Close proximity to uses (industrial) that detract from the physical appearance of the area. • Lack of streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way; • Lack of parking on and off-street; • Lack of proper access to site; and • Lack of amenities or inadequate amenities such as landscaping, loading and storage; and Several realtors stated that the cost of land in the area is too high to be supported by the low lease rates that the existing uses bring, making improvement of existing buildings unlikely. Generally, commercial developers are looking for a minimum 2 acre parcels for development of a new neighborhood commercial center, which is available in only 5% of properties. An adequate revenue stream is necessary to enable property owners to perform routine maintenance of their real estate. Without funding for repairs, deferred maintenance issues become health and safety concems. This is especially true for older buildings. Table B-3 shows retail and office lease rates for the Project Area are in the low range when compared to the County average. Competition is also strong from other surrounding commercial offerings such as Chula Vista, San Ysidro or the Plaza Bonita shopping center. It appears many businesses along portions of Highland Avenue and National City Blvd. north of 14th Street are just surviving due to vacancies or retail businesses being closed dunng normal working -hours. This problem —is likely to worsen if the physical constraints present in these portions of the Project Area are not addressed. The development proforma on the following page depicts the economic infeasibility of developing small lots in the Project Area market due to the lack of revenue generated by these small lots. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with additional ability to address small lot sizes through lot assemblage. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 22 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROFORMA B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN Commercial Rental Income 10,938 Sf 5.0% of Gross Income $19.80 /Sf $216,563 (10,828) Gross Annual Rental Income (Less): Vacancy & Collection Gross Effective Income $205,734 Operating Expenses 8.0% of Gross Effective Income (616,459) Property Management 3.0% of Gross Effective Income (6,172) Reserves 2.0% of Gross Effective Income (4,115) Total Expenses (S26.745) Net Operating Income 5178,989 Cap Rate 9.0% Total Project Revenue $1 988 766 (Less) Development Costs (2,305,712) Profit/(Feasibility Gap) (S316,947) Per S.F. of Building 10,938 Sf ($28.98) Per S.F. of Land 21,875 St ($14.49) Hazardous Materials The Project Area has multiple locations of environmental concem, most of these sites are found in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment (Harbor District). Generally there are three land -uses generating environmental contamination in the 2005 Amendment area; large industrial uses (particularly in the Harbor District) along with auto repair facilities and small-scale industrial manufacturing (primarily in the Westside Area). The Harbor District is approximately 300 acres of industrial and distribution area at the westem edge of the Project Area between Interstate 5 and the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port District") Property along San Diego Bay. In 2003 the CDC undertook a Brownfields Grant Study Project ("Study Project") with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to determine the extent of the pollution in the Harbor District. The Study Project divided the Harbor District into fourteen (14) sites for individual analysis and concluded that each of the sites likely suffered from hazardous materials contamination. Historically the Harbor District was developed between 1885 and 1925 as a railroad staging area for transferring goods to ships on San Diego Bay. Industrial uses in the Harbor District over the last 100 years include: oil recycling and other oil distribution/refining facilities that used underground and aboveground storage tanks (including several gas stations), an ordnance company, aircraft parts manufacturer, a battery manufacturer, tank cleaning businesses, automotive servicing (including wreckers), machine and lumber storage, tool machining and metal fabrication, finishing and plating companies and gravel operations. At the time some of these businesses operated protective environmental regulations that are in place today did not exist. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 23- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL According to the Study Project many of these uses have resulted in the following types of pollution: soil and groundwater contamination with oils, lubricants, solvents, lead, asbestos, PCBs, corrosives, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and volatile organic compounds("VOC's"). Many of these uses generated hazardous wastes that in several cases was illegally disposed of onsite. At least 10 monitoring wells have been installed in the Harbor District to investigate subsurface conditions, with elevated petroleum hydrocarbons having been detected in soil as well as the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and VOCs confirmed in groundwater monitoring wells. While the CDC currently has eminent domain authority in the Harbor District, it is set to expire in July of 2007 and the 2005 Amendment would extend the CDC's eminent domain authority until 2015 to assist, if necessary in the clean up of these properties. Outside of the Harbor District are several other know sites of contamination which include; the Education Village, Police Station, Library site, and Public Works Yard, which were polluted by previous or surrounding industrial uses. It is important to note that the sites above are the most recently disturbed sites where significant excavation took place. It is suspected as more sites are excavated in the industrial and commercial corridors more polluted sites will be identified. Also, an area referred to as Duck Pond at the intersection of 30th Street and National City Boulevard was a former County of San Diego ("County") dumpsite, that suffers from methane gas discharge and ground sinking. It is likely there are more polluted sites in the Westside area, but as discussed above the CDC has only done environmental evaluation on sites where public buildings have been constructed. This is due to the CDC's very limited eminent domain authority outside of the Harbor District. Adoption of the 2005 Amendment will assist the CDC in facilitating development in these areas currently with limited eminent domain authority and provide a tool to expedite the cleanup of polluted sites as they are identified. The National City Fire Department ("Fire Department") in conjunction with the County issues permits for businesses handling hazardous materials ("Haz-Mat"). Currently, there are approximately 123 Haz-Mat permits in the City, with most of these being issued in the commercial and industrial corridors of the 2005 Amendment area. Fire Department staff believes the number of actual hazardous materials users or businesses with Haz-Mat permits that do not list all of the hazardous materials used on site, is significantly higher than the 123 permits issued. During the 2004 calendar year, the Fire Department responded to 42 Haz-mat calls. Outdoor manufacturing is a primary cause of hazardous materials being released in the outside environment, particularly with automobile related businesses. Many auto body shops were observed to be doing grinding of parts and spraying of toxic materials outside. This practice sends these hazardous materials airbome, often to surrounding residents. When these contaminants settle to the ground they either soak into the soil or run into the storm drains as contaminated urban runoff. This runoff eventually finds its way into San Diego Bay. ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 24 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •COMMISSION REPORT TO THE -CITY COUNCIL Further, contributing to these conditions are some of the storage practices for chemicals and debris observed during the field survey. 46% of properties were found to have signs of garbage, debris, stagnant water and/or combustible materials on site. Outdoor storage while being unsightly is also dangerous as holding containers are subjected to weather elements and decompose more rapidly. Numerous substandard building additions were observed to be used for hazardous materials storage. Many of these sheds are made of plywood or canvass tarps that in and of themselves present a fire hazard, but when these substandard structures are combined with hazardous materials storage and usage, it become a significant environmental and fire hazard to the surrounding structures many of which are residential. Crime A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and welfare is a condition of economic blight. In order to assess the impact of crime within the Project Area, information regarding the incidence of violent and other serious property crime reported by the National City Police Department was analyzed. All police agencies in the County report their crime statistics to the Automated Regional Justice Information System ("ARJIS"), which is a regionally standardized system that enables comparison of the number of crimes reported by jurisdictions across the County. ARJIS reports to the same categories as the nationally recognized Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Crime Index. The Index includes four violent offenses (willful homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and three types of property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft). The offenses included in the FBI Index were selected due to their serious nature and/or volume, as well as the probability that these crimes will be reported to the police. Crime rates in Table B-3 were computed by occurrence per 1,000 population using current San Diego Association of Govemment population estimates. The regional crime rate based on ARJIS incorporates both local jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in the County. The 2004 County crime rate based upon ARJIS is 36.3 crimes per 1,000 population. The 2004 crime rate for the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego are 38.4 and 40.4 respectively. The 2004 crime rate in National City is 57.1 per 1,000 or 57% higher than the County average and 49% and 41 % higher than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego respectively. The table on the following page uses data from the 2004 calendar year for all jurisdictions with the overall crime totals for the City being higher in every category. Due to the reporting format, crime data for National City is city-wide, which is larger than the proposed 2005 Amendment area. It is important to note that the existing Project Area represents over 60% of the City's non-military/Port District land3 and the city-wide data represents a good comparison to evaluate crime in the Project Area. Military and Port District police patrol their properties and maintain their own crime data tar these areas. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 25 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TABLE B-3 2004 CRIME RATES PER 1,000 PERSONS FOR NATIONAL CITY AND SELECTED LOCAL JURISDICTIONS City Murder Rape Robbery Aggv. Assault Total Burglary Total Larceny/ Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Total Crime National City 0.1 0.3 2.4 4.6 6.8 27.1 15.8 57.1 City of Chula Vista 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.2 5.7 19.2 9.6 38.4 City of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.3 3.6 5.6 19.4 10.0 40.4 County of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.2 3.1 5.8 18.0 7.9 36.3 Sources: ARJIS and SANDAG Note: Comparison crime rates are for calendar year 2004. These types of crime can negatively impact existing Project Area businesses, discouraging business investment and patronage. Crime represents an additional cost in conducting, retaining and attracting businesses to the commercial corridors of the Project Area. Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment Section 33321 of the Law states that a project area need not be restricted to buildings and properties that are detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. Areas cannot be included for the sole purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue but must have substantial justification that they are necessary for effective redevelopment. This Report documents that in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment there are parcels that do not exhibit blighting conditions but that they are interspersed with parcels that are blighted and necessitate inclusion in the 2005 Amendment area. The number of and severity of blighted parcels in the Project Area negatively affects the non -blighted parcels because of their appearance and proximity. In addition, there are certain types of blighting conditions that cannot be directly linked to a particular parcel such as substandard on -street parking, which is a cumulative factor. Given the overall condition of the Project Area and the economic status of both industrial and commercial property owners, it is clear that many of the parcels that do not exhibit significant blighting conditions now may do so over the life of the Project Area if nearby blighted parcels are not addressed. For example, if large- scale hotels on the Westside Area north of 9th Street were vacated due to worsening surrounding economic conditions, the resulting economic effect of such a large business closure would be severe to the Project Area because these hotels provide jobs to many in the surrounding community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 26 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL To spur economic development efforts, non -blighted parcels should be included in the 2005 Amendment area because the small parcel sizes further confounds revitalizing the area. Should the CDC attempt to assist new businesses in locating to the Project Area, parcel consolidation may be necessary. However, if all of the parcels in a section are not included in the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment it would severely impede the process and compromise the CDC's success. If only parcels that exhibited blighting conditions were included, the 2005 Amendment would be piecemeal. The CDC has already excluded many commercial and industrial properties at the southwest comer of 24th Street and National City Boulevard, commercial properties along portions of 30th Street and Plaza Boulevard and southem portions of National City Boulevard. The intention of the CDC through the 2005 Amendment is to facilitate rehabilitation programs that will cure health and safety issues and improving the appearance of the Project Area. Physical and Economic Burden on Community When evaluated in whole, the numerous physical and economic conditions described in this section of the Report are a serious physical and economic burden on the community. This burden cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise and/or existing govemmental authority, without the 2005 Amendment. A summary of the issues includes: • The documented presence of environmental contamination in the industrial corridors of the Project Area, causes safety hazards to area occupants and the cost of removal of these substances increases rehabilitation costs. These conditions are an economic burden on the community as property owners choose to maintain obsolete buildings on polluted sites, instead of pursuing new development which would likely require an expensive cleanup of pollutants. The 2005 Amendment will extend the CDC's eminent domain authority to provide another tool for the remediation of environmental pollutants through land acquisition where appropriate. • Many 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. These obsolete buildings attract lower commercial and industrial lease rates, which provide less revenue for property owners to make regular repairs and upgrades (such as electrical amperage and facade improvement). Without periodic maintenance, buildings become deteriorated or even dilapidated and higher maintenance costs are associated with older buildings. Buildings that are not upgraded as market needs change become less desirable to tenants for two reasons: 1) the buildings does not meet current market standards; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 27 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and 2) the costs associated with providing the necessary upgrades. This circle of disinvestment places a physical burden on the surrounding community as more properties forgo maintenance to maximize economic revenue. • The higher crime rates in the City/Project Area require more calls for service which increases municipal costs and creates an additional burden on community services as public resources are diverted to criminal apprehension. Crime also negatively impacts the lives of those working in or visiting the City/Project Area. • Incompatible adjacent uses typically require relocation or expensive upgrades to buildings, many of which are obsolete. The 2005 Amendment is the only viable method for the CDC to facilitate the relocation of incompatible uses to more appropriate sites. However, some properties owners may be reluctant to enter into relocation negotiations with the CDC and the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment can serve as an adjunct to initiate these discussion for the benefit of the community. • Response -based code enforcement is unable to address all of the health and safety code violations that exist in the commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area. The added municipal cost of code enforcement activity is also a burden on the community as municipal resources are diverted from other programs to address code violations. • Inadequate lot size compounds blighting conditions in the Project Area, as these parcels are not adequate area to accommodate the necessary parking and loading amenities, while maintaining safe access to the site. Redevelopment of the small sized parcels that predominate the Project Area is not economically viable for private development, which results in a lack of investment in new development that continues to negatively impacting the surrounding community. The establishment of eminent domain authority would provide another tool to assist the CDC in correction of these and other blighting conditions for the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. The private marketplace has not been successful in achieving the needed lot consolidations for new development due to limited number of property owners willing to enter into negotiations. The 2005 Amendment expands the pool of inadequately sized properties the CDC may acquire, thereby assembling more developable properties to reverse the escalating burden on the community. ROSE NOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section C Five -Year Implementation Plan On June 14, 2005, the CDC adopted its current Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Project Area. The Implementation Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 33490 of the Law 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 2005 Amendment. The Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the Law 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 alte_ matives 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 29 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section E The Method of Financing The method of financing redevelopment activities was provided in the Original Reports when the Project Area was adopted. The 2005 Amendment will not after the Project Area boundaries, affect the base year value or change the proposed method of financing. Therefore the 2005 Amendment does not warrant that the method of financing be reviewed. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 30 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section F The Method of Relocation Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the Law require the CDC 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 The Law also requires a relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in said Project Area. In addition, the Law requires relocation assistance for commercial and industrial businesses displaced by redevelopment activities. The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of Relocation"), which 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 (Govemment 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 section 33411.1 of the Law. 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. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 31 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section G 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 2005 Amendment, additional analysis is not required. Section H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the Law 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 from the Planning Commission for the 2005 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 32- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section 1 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 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 2005 Amendment specifically excludes properties that are used for residential purposes, and no projects or programs have been identified that will displace 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. Section J General Plan Conformance The 2005 Amendment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 2005 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 Govemment Code is not required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY • 33- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section K 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 EIR 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 2005 Amendment, a Negative Declaration (Initial Study) was prepared pursuant to Cal'rfomia Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed 2005 Amendment to establish eminent domain authority for new properties and extend eminent domain for some properties would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A copy of the Negative Declaration follows as Attachment 3. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 2005 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 section 33328 of the Law. Project Area fiscal information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2005 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 34 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section M 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 2006 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 2005 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 not required or appropriate. Therefore, a summary of this report is not included. With regard to consultations, the taxing agencies received all notices regarding the 2005 amendment and they were invited to contact the CDC Executive Director regarding the 2005 Amendment. However, as of the date of this Report, no taxing agency has yet contacted the CDC. The 2005 Amendment does not affect the financing in any way nor does it change land uses or public improvement projects. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 35 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1- Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority as proposed by the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY 36- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Mann 1111 um n 'OOII • w rEX VITAM 'rat fv a41 y„c • Attachment 1 11111E11H :1111115 CITY OF SAN DIEGO 11I111.1111 1II1,IiiiiiiliiP! ■ ■ ��� ■ ME M1Si11�116r� IIh �i1 ullnl Do 1lR-i $ =• III nllII 1111111 IirD a..-,- g� nm1® eM� )• imm -,. 1■YanIM o•Mil•■ AIM ■ !1 /Y1•Y1 .,,,i 1.11111111111111111, 1111111111111oz IIIIIMIIIP!• - IIIIIrr111111 Palm Ave 8th Street Corridor jliini �® 'MM 1111111111 1 fff , I111I1111u National City Redevelopment Project Area Plaza Blvd i! II111111 � �■ :unn: _r11111 erinu: a=uE �1r1-G1Pr111C 3:r11111111 y{a 30th St/Sweetwater Project Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 L.z Municipal Boundary u 0125 025 1-4 CI-IULA VISTA 0.5 0.75 1Wes Attachment 2 - Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority prior to the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 37- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN DIEGO =,..eguiumnru. 11111181111111111Wa wale. atimmin MINIM 1111111111111: 11111111r ;111111111S IIFUllII 1111111111i 111111W11111E- iiiii ii 8th Street Corridor us Er. ell1111 107...mo,minisa weir :Gin ion • EZFFEE-t- 1fAi $1==119'111 rt I hr,-1uI annum Highland Ave orm 0. _ __ mon Mi mem Nam VIM MN Me 0110 m1M=10 10.= 0101 Mn MIN El xis L_LC:ra7 11111111M =11 llllll CHULA VISTA :tuna 1.• 1111110111111 ail§ Alma our 1111 Zi National City Redevelopment Project - Existing Eminent Domain Authority INN Project Area Boundary Existing Eminent Domain Authority ED Municipal Boundary 0 0 126 0.25 0.5 0.75 Attachment 3 - Negative Declaration See attached Negative Declaration following this page. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 38- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12' 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. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Location: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805 as shown in Figure 1. Project Description: The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single-family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 in the following areas: • Properties located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • Properties located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • Properties located immediately north and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • Properties west of Interstate 5, excepting the San Diego Unified Port District property. • Specific properties located immediately southwest of the intersection of Plaza Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2014. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in this Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 1 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 nllnlll 1110 .•,11111 111 lll hhIIhI 1 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN DIEGO D is. ig:.r it0,• . i../. • • yi v. ms 1111 1■ lr ti�/8,. l "..•«ul 11 annulnnIIII.11mu2\. Iq 01110111111alininlllia Vil 1 1 I. WNW oo � tj i111111011111111n .4 N11111111111111yt illlllllllllt•�! E ® 21111nm11_• . nnnlnlnr� -.. Irk 1. . ri 1U101N111 •. 0011111111 Inn 1 HIM 11110 !I _ Palm Ave ® lip •1• �'n EE EttlSt., �L -�j 1■ `\ h Street Corridor NOl10NNNN■ UeUf■ n11111 •. AI N AMU IN:En AMUI ' 1 N NOUN MUNN IOU� National City Redevelopment Project Area 1111� IIIII i 111111111�1 ink —. 7 :IIIUiuiii.= minnlnl 100, ::111111111Ell llllll _ Plaza Blvd 11 =11111111: �_.. _�en.m:L.11111 •= allgl= M 112 111. iuu111' �7u11111111 Ti li1en • Project Area Boundary all Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 Municipal Boundary o o1n 5,25 CHULA VISTA 0.5 1 IIIf11 1 0.75 I Wes her public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, participation agreement): The ..2ommunity Development Commission of the City of National City is the only agency whose approval is required for this proposed redevelopment plan Amendment. The proposed Amendment does not directly propose any projects, public or private at this time. Indirectly, however development could occur in the project area in the future as a result of the use of eminent domain for a specific project. It is speculative at this time to identify or determine with any certainty projects that may occur in the future and the environmental impacts, if any that would be associated with the project. The Community Development Commission and/or the City of National City would conduct the appropriate environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act at the time a project is formally submitted to either agency for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is `Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources D Utilities/Service Systems Cultural Resources 0 Noise 0 Mandatory Findings ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing DETERMINATION: On the basis of this evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment. but at least one effect I) 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 ENWIRONMENTAL 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 NEGATIVI 1 DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ER or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Phil Martin & Associates Under contract with the Community Development Commission Reviewed by: Oliver Mujica. Project Manager Date: July 28. 2004 Department Representative Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 4 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 (Fauuland), 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? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? c) III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) b) Conflict with or obstruct applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality substantially to an existing violation? implementation of the standard or contribute or projected air quality 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: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 J 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? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ 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? 0 0 ❑ ■ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 0 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 0 0 ■ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 ■ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 0 ■ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1. 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? 0 0 0 • 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? 0 0 ❑ ■ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 [] 0 ■ 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? 0 ❑ 0 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? 0 0 ❑ • f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 ❑ 0 si g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ 0 0 ■ 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 V1II. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IN ■ 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: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 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 genera] 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? 0 0 0 • b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? 0 0 0 ■ " c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ 0 0 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? ❑ ❑ 0 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)? 0 ❑ 0 ■ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ❑ s c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 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 0 ■ i) Fire protection? 0 0 ❑ ■ ii) Police protection? 0 0 0 ■ iii) Schools? 0 0 0 ■ iv) Parks? 0 ❑ 0 ■ v) Other public facilities? 0 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ■ O 0 0 ■ 0 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 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 10 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 'II. 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: 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 July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 11 Environmental Factors 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ July 2004 Page 12 Explanation of Checklist Responses AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Amendment indirectly could encourage development in the redevelopment project area . The National City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city; therefore, future development in the project area due indirectly to the adoption of the Amendment would not impact any scenic vista. The Amendment would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Amendment would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the redevelopment project. A section of National City Boulevard in the Mile of Cars section of National City is a state scenic highway. The city would require all development along this portion of National City Boulevard to comply with the appropriate state and city guidelines to protect a state scenic highway. Development that indirectly occurs in any other section of the project area would not damage or impact any trees, rocks. or historic buildings since none of these features exist. The Amendment would not have any significant scenic resource impacts. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No lmpact. The Amendment would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the redevelopment project area and the surroundings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project area. Subsequent development in the project area due indirectly to the use of eminent domain as allowed by the Amendment could impact the existing visual character of a specific site and its surroundings. The Community Development Commission and/or City of National City would conduct subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the time projects are submitted for approval to determine if a project would have an impact on the visual character or quality of a specific site and its surroundings. if the city determines a project could impact the visual character of a site and/or its surroundings, changes or modifications would be required. The city adopted the National City Design Guidelines to assure that development is in harmony with the character and quality of the environment that the city finds desirable to foster. The purpose of the National City Design Guidelines Manual is to provide a "guide" to what the city considers appropriate, quality design, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Guidelines articulate the city's goals and basic design philosophy for quality development within the city limits and provide the framework for the design review process. The Guidelines are not specifications nor do they preclude alternatives or restrict imagination. Rather, Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 13 they are the city's preferences and provide examples of what the city considers acceptable) The Guidelines 0,04 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 ]and uses. Nighttime lighting including safety and security lights, interior building lights, automobile headlights, etc. could impact surrounding development. Glare from windows and metal surfaces could also impact adjacent development. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all projects for potential light and glare impacts and require changes and modifications when necessary to reduce light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown or the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Commission, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on prime farmlands because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could impact farmland or agricultural land. There are no agricultural operations or prime farmland in the project area. Therefore, future development would not impact agricultural resources or operations and would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use since none exist. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not directly propose any public or private development projects that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan(s). City of National City Design Guidelines, February 1991, Amended by Resolution No. 96-19, February 6, 1996, page 1-1. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 14 National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could encourage new development. Depending upon the type and density of development, project air emissions could impact and obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all development projects for potential impacts to air quality plans and require project changes or modifications to ensure compliance. The Amendment would not directly impact the implementation of any air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The Amendment would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing projected air quality violation. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of new development the project air emissions could violate an air quality standard or standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all future projects for potential violations to existing air quality standards such as exceeding air emission thresholds during either project construction or the life of the project. If a project is expected to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation specific measures would be required to be incorporated into the project to reduce air emissions in compliance with air quality standards in force at that time. The Amendment would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation, including ozone. 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 coup ) expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential impacts to sensitive receptors at the time projects are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce the impacts. The Amendment would not directly impact sensitive receptors by exposing them to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Amendment would not create objectionable odors that could affect people because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create objectionable odors. The Amendment could indirectly result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development odors could be generated and affect people in close proximity to the site. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would evaluate all projects for odor impacts to people that either live or work in close proximity at the time they are submitted for approval. if it is determined that a project could generate odors that affect a substantial number of people the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce or eliminate odor impacts accordingly. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect. either directly or through habitat modifications to any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would impact plant or wildlife species. The property in the project area is most developed and urbanized. Due to the lack of suitable habitat there are not any candidate plant or wildlife species that would be impacted if development occurs indirectly due to the Amendment. There are no habitat conservation plans associated with any property in the project area. The Amendment would not have any biological resource impacts directly or indirectly because there are no biological resources in the project area that can be impacted. b) Have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Have substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 16 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. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely impact a historical resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical buildings. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a historical resource could be impacted, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require measures to ensure the protection of the resource in compliance with the law. If resources suspected of being historically significant were uncovered during construction the city would evaluate the resources and protect it in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5, as applicable. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause adversely impact an archaeological resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any archaeological resources within the project area that would be impacted by future development. If archaeological resources, or artifacts of historical importance are uncovered during construction all construction activity shall cease and the city shall be notified immediately. The city would take the lead to determine whether or not the resources are significant and need to be protected in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5. The Amendment would not impact archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Amendment would not destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any paleontological resources in the city, including the project area. The Amendment would not impact paleontological resources. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 17 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. Thf 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 Stale Geologist for the area or based on ocher 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause strong seismic ground shaking because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the 2 City of National City General Plan, approved September 10, 1996. page 18. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 18 Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 for commercial and industrial property and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause or be impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Residents, employees, and buildings would not be exposed to any greater degree of ground shaking with the adoption of the Amendment than currently exists. All projects, independently of the use of eminent domain, must provide applicable earthquake construction measures and hardware as required by the Uniform Building Code to reduce ground -shaking impacts. The Amendment would not change the exposure of people and buildings to seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause ground -failure, such as liquefaction. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the location a project could be impacted by liquefaction or other seismic — related ground failures. However, whether or not development is impacted by liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure is not dependent upon the use of eminent domain. The use of eminent domain to would not change the exposure of a project to liquefaction or any other type of ground failure. Geotechnical reports would be prepared for individual projects to determine if they would be exposed to seismic -related ground failures. If a site is subject to liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure, measures would be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to mitigate the impact. The Amendment would not have any seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause any landslides or expose people or property to landslides because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or be exposed to landslides. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. There are no large hillside areas within or adjacent to the project areas that could impact development. Therefore, landslides would not impact development and the Amendment would not have any landslide impacts. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development of projects could result in soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs and proper measures to reduce soil erosion are not implemented and Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page l9 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 erosio- 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. Th 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 hazardous materials? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 20 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The development of projects could include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, depending upon the project. The city would review all future projects for potential hazards and the projects that generate or use hazardous materials would be required by the city would require each project to meet all applicable laws and regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the transport and use of hazardous materials would minimize hazards to the public and the environment to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not have any hazardous impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. They're no sites in the redevelopment project area that are listed as a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Amendment would not have any direct or indirect impacts with regards to listed hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The redevelopment project area is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project area is the San Diego International Airport, which is approximately seven miles northwest of National City. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. 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 al] 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 the presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 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 ,...mod development plans are submitted for approval. tir/ 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 the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. Please see the response to c) above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Amendment would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects the could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could generate quantities of runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As stated in response a) above, all applicable projects would be required to install and maintain proper measures to reduce the amount of sediments and other potential sources of surface water pollution. The development of property that is currently vacant or underdeveloped could generate quantities of surface water runoff and impact the local or regional storm drain system. The generation of surface water beyond the capacity of the storm drain system could significantly impact the storm drain system. The city would review all projects to determine if the existing system has capacity to handle the surface water flows or if upgrades are required. The Amendment itself would not impact the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems. ,� f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 23 g) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ,._.) Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The Amendment would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment specifically excludes residential development; therefore no housing would be placed in a flood hazard area indirectly by the adoption and implementation of the Amendment. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The Amendment would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are areas located in a 100-year flood zone, thus it is possible that future development could be placed in a 100- year flood hazard. The city would review all development proposals for potential flood hazards and require proper protection from flooding for those structures constructed in a flood hazard area. The Amendment would not directly have any flood hazard impacts. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project area is not located in a dam inundation area and there are no levees that could break and flood properties in the project areas. The Amendment would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding due to the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? No Impact. There are no large bodies of water either located within or adjacent to the project area that could impact a project due to a seiche. While there are a few areas in National City with hillsides, there are no areas that are known to have mudflows and could impact development. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could be inundated by a seiche or mudflow. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment would not expose people or property to inundation or impacts by a seiche because there are no large bodies of water that could impact development. The areas in National City where hillsides do exist are not large enough in area to have mudflows that could impact development. The Amendment would not impact any development due to inundation by a seiche or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Amendment would not physically divide an established community because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could physically divide an established community. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 24 t Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development must be consistent with and comply with the National City General Plan, which does not allow development to divide an established community. The proposed Amendments would not directly or indirectly divide an established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over development in the project area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with a land use plans, policies or regulations. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could conflict with the land use adopted by the general plan, a specific plan or the city's development code. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the adopted plans and codes and changes or revisions would be require if necessary to comply with the applicable plans and codes. The Amendment itself would not directly impact or conflict with any adopted land use plans or codes. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with that adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The city does not have any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. However, there are areas in close proximity to the project area with habitat and wildlife resources that are protected and development could impact the resources. The city would review projects for potential conflicts with these known wildlife resource areas and require measures to protect the resources when necessary. Since no development is directly proposed with the Amendment. no impacts due to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans would occur. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value to the region and the residents of the state. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are no known mineral resources within the project area that are of value to the region or the state. Therefore. future development would not impact any mineral resources. The Amendment would not impact minerals of value to the region or the state. Cb) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 25 XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could expose persons to or generate noise in excess of standards established by the National City General Plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could expose residents or employees to noise levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance or projects could generate noise levels that exceed the city's allowable noise levels. The city would review all development proposals for noise impacts and require changes or modifications accordingly to ensure compliance with the city's noise standards. The Amendment would not have any noise impacts by exposing people to levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance. b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects and would not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or noise levels. Indirectly. the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future,...) development could expose people to ground vibrations and impact them. The city would review all development plans for potential ground borne vibrations and require project changes or modifications accordingly to reduce vibration impacts. The Amendment would not have any direct ground borne vibration impacts. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could increase existing noise levels above existing levels and result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise. The city would review development proposals potential for noise level increases that could substantially increase existing noise levels and impact residents or employees. If necessary, the city would require changes to reduce ambient noise levels impacts to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise level. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact_ The Amendment would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above existing levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 26 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels above existing levels. Temporary or periodic noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment could occur during project construction and impact surrounding land uses. The city would review development proposals at the time they are submitted for approval for potential temporary or short-term noise level increases that could impact surrounding land uses and require changes to reduce noise impacts. The Amendment would not directly result in substantial temporary noise level increases. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project areas associated with the Amendment are not located in an adopted airport land use plan. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to the project areas and is located approximately seven miles northwest of National City. The project would not expose people to excessive noise levels at an airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project would not induce a substantial population growth directly because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could induce substantial population growth. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could induce a substantial population growth depending upon the type of development, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The city would review development proposals for population growth impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. If projects would induce substantial population increases the city would determine at that time if an increase would be substantial and the impact the growth could have on the environment. The Amendment would not have a substantial population growth impact since no development is proposed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not displace a substantial number of houses requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could displace existing housing. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. The Amendment excludes using eminent domain for residential purposes. Therefore, the Amendment could not use eminent domain authority to acquire residential property resulting in the demolition of existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please see the response to b) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 27 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact fire protection services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for new fire stations and other facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on fire protection services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the fire departments ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans, conducting fire inspections in buildings, etc. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development and includes fire protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as fire protection to serve new developmen' 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 anc' 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 28 construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts to the police department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to police services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. iii) Schools? No Impact. The project would not impact schools because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact schools. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The proposed Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial land uses and not residential. Although commercial and industrial development does generate students, the generation rate is much lower than residential. The number of students that would be generated by commercial or industrial development would be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of schools serving the project area. The two school districts, National City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that serve National City collect school impact fees from development as allowed by state law. The school impact fee is used by both school districts to provide classroom space for students. New commercial and industrial development would be required to pay school impact fees as applicable, which would be used to provide additional classroom space for students. The proposed Amendment would not impact area schools since development is not directly proposed at this time. ewe44., iv) Parks? No Impact. The project would not impact city parks because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact parks. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities or increase the use of existing park facilities in National City. The city strives to maintain or expand the current (1996) ratio of park and open space land to population, which is 43/4 acres per 1000 residents (including local parks, public -owned wetlands, golf courses, and school recreational facilities). The Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial development and not residential. The Amendment would not indirectly result in the development of residential uses, which typically increases the population and generates the need for park and recreational facilities. While commercial and industrial development may incrementally increase the need for parks, that need would be minimal and is not expected to impact existing facilities. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services and parks. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as park facilities to serve new development. The fee can be used to purchase parkland and provide park facilities. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects. including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on park facilities. The Amendment would not have any impacts to parks since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. v) Other public facilities? No Impact. There are no additional public facilities that would be impacted by the Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 29 XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could increase traffic. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic with a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on area roads, or congestion at intersections. Additional development could impact the street system in the project area as well as the street system outside the project area. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development including the circulation system. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as street improvement to serve new development. The fee can be used to widen streets, construct needed intersection improvements, purchase and install traffic signals, restripe roadways, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if apprcved, 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) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially increase hazards due to design features. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could require new design features for traffic to flow properly, which could increase hazards and impact traffic and circulation. The city would review all future development proposals for potential impacts associated with street design, including sharp curves and roadway intersections that could impact traffic flow and safety. When necessary, the city would require project changes or modifications to provide safe circulation features, including curves and intersections. Because development is not proposed by the Amendment, no circulation impacts would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project would not provide any inadequate emergency access because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not proposed public or private development projects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city along with the police and fire departments would review all development proposals for adequate emergency access. Projects would be required to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Amendment would not have any emergency access impacts because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. e) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project would not result in any inadequate parking capacity because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in inadequate parking capacity. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city would review development proposals to ensure that adequate parking capacity is provided in compliance with the city's parking code. Since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment the project would not have any parking capacity impacts. 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. L Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 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. Theprojectwould 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 r d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would have a need for potable water. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate a need for potable water for drinking, landscape irrigation, and fire flow. Depending upon the type and intensity of development the existing water supplies may not be adequate to provide a sufficient water supply for a project. The city along with the Sweetwater Authority would review all development proposals to determine if there is a sufficient supply of water or if additional water supplies would be required. As applicable, all projects would be required to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. The Amendment would not have any water supply impacts since development is not proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Amendment would not exceed wastewater treatment capacity of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would be treated by the Point Loma treatment plant. The wastewater would not impact the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and its ability to provide wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallons of wastewater per day to the South Metro Interceptor Sewer. Flows in National City as of August 2003 were 5.67 million gallons per day, which allows capacity for additional wastewater flows by future development without requiring the San Diego Wastewater Department to increase or expand the capacity of any trunk lines or the Point Loma treatment plant. f) 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. g) 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. 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 tha, could reduce solar access. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could reduce solar access or impact opportunities for passive heating and cooling depending upon the intensity and design of the project. The city would review all projects for potential solar access impacts and require changes accordingly to reduce solar access impacts and enhance passive solar heating and cooling opportunities. The Amendment would not directly have any solar access impacts. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project would not impact fish or wildlife populations because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below a self-sustaining level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. The project would not have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could have adverse environmental effects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to humans and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 35 California Environmental Quality Act 2004/2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan - A. INTRODUCTION Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 Negative Declaration The Community Development Commission of the City of National City prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain ("2004 Amendment"). The Community Development Commission prepared the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority over all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20), regardless of their zoning designation, the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017. Properties that are currently being used for residential purposes would continue to be excluded from eminent domain. The Community Development Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur by amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received on the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment during the public review period. The community raised many issues and concerns during the public review and public hearing process for the proposed 2004 Amendment. Due to the community's concerns and public testimony, the Community Development Commission has subsequently reduced the geographic areas that could be subject to the authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area to those areas that are now referred to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors. The commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area that would now subject to the use of eminent domain are shown on the attached map. Additionally, the Community Development Commission reduced the number of years to extend its eminent domain authority from twelve (12) years to ten (10) years until 2015. The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, which reflects the stated changes. B. CEQA PROVISIONS As stated above, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed 2005 Amendment does not require the recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) which states: "Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: ...(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects." Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and Community Development Commission due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain for the originally proposed 2004 Amendment. The Negative Declaration also adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the currently proposed 2005 Amendment due to the fact that no new avoidable significant effects would occur. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06-09-2005 16:1T From-SP2, INC. 9496600920 T-694 P.002/004 F-588 California Environmental Quality Act Addendum — Negative Declaration A. PROJECT INFORMATION Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Project Contact: Project Sponsor: Project Location: Project Description: Prepared By: Community Development Commission of National City l40 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Oliver Mujica Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12's Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12a' Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single- family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2015. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in is Amendment. Date: l Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain nR/n4/9nns Tun 1R•9n !Ann vn 4499 1 ca nn9 06-09-2005 16:17 From-SP2, INC. 9496E-00920 T-694 P.003/004 F-588 B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (the "CDC") prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received to the Negative Declaration during the public review period. The Negative Declaration evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur with amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain for commercial and industrial properties west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission has since reduced the commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain to specific areas due to concerns raised by the community during the public hearing process. Thus, the Community Development Commission has restricted the use of eminent domain to those commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area as shown on the attached map. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain as proposed last year. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the authority to use eminent domain for the reduced number of commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area. The reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties that are subject to the use of eminent domain does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration complies with the California Environmental Quality Act in its analysis of the reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain as shown in the attached map. Community Development Commission of National City - Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain nR/09/2005 TNli 16:20 l.1O11 NO. RS221 12-1(ma Appendix A CRL Section 33030 and 33031 The CRL sets forth specific parameters that define blight. According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area contains both of the following: 1. An area that is predominantly urbanized and is an area in which the combination of physical and economic blighting conditions is so prevalent and substantial that it causes "a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or govemmental action, or both, without redevelopment" (CRL Section 33030(b)(1)). 2. An area that is characterized by either physical blight and economic blight or the "existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership" (CRL Sections 33030(b)(2) and 33031(a)(4)). Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. The characteristics of both physical and economic blight, as defined above, are present throughout the Project Area. The characteristics of physical blight include deteriorated and dilapidated structures, lots/buildings suffering from defective design, substandard design, and lots of inadequate size, and incompatible uses. The characteristics of economic blight include low lease rates, depreciated property values, impaired investments, low per capita retail sales tax, and crime, all of which are indicative of declining market conditions. These blighting conditions are detrimental to surrounding uses and the community. CRL Section 33031(a) describes the following physical conditions that constitute blight: 1. Lots/buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; examples of these conditions include: a. Dilapidated and deteriorated buildings. b. Lots/buildings suffering from defective design or physical construction. c. Lots/buildings suffering from faulty or inadequate utilities. d. Serious building code violations. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or Tots; examples of these conditions include: a. Lots/buildings suffering from substandard design. b. Lots/buildings of inadequate size, given present standards and market conditions. c. Lack of available parking. 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape, inadequate size for proper usefulness and development, and that are in multiple ownership. ECONOMIC BLIGHT CRL Section 33031(b) describes the following economic conditions thatconstitute blight: 1. Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments. This condition includes the presence of hazardous waste. 2. Stagnant or declining market conditions; examples of this include: a. Abnormally high business vacancies. b. Abnormally low lease rates. c. High turnover rates. d. Abandoned buildings. e. Excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban uses and served by utilities. 3. A lack of necessary commercial facilities such as those normally found in neighborhoods including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 4. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 5. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix B Data Source List 1. Land use survey performed by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (March through May 2005). 2. San Diego County Assessor's parcel maps and assessed value data provided by Metroscan data service (2003-04 and 2004-05). 3. California Health and Safety Code including Sections 17920.3, 33030 and 33031. 4. Automated Regional Justice Information System from the San Diego Association of Governments, 2004 calendar year. 5. Data from the City of National City a. Code enforcement violations b. Hazardous Materials — Fire Department c. Traffic — Police Department d. City of National City Fire Department — 2004 Annual Report e. 1999-2000 Survey of Underage Drinking and Perceptions of Alcohol in National City. 6. How Buildings Learn, What Happens After They're Built. Stewart Brand, Penguin Books, (1994). 7. Local realtors and shopping center managers provided information, vacancy rates and lease rates (Spring 2005). 8. Environmental Protection Agency web site article, Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. 9. Environmental Hazardous Site — Environmental Protection Agency — Brownfields Grant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix C Photo Survey The following is a photographic depiction of some of the conditions observed from properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: Parcel Number — 562 330 24 On four separate occasions at least 12 semi -trailers related to the same business were observed using the street as long-term storage for trailers and materials. This is an example of inadequate lot size as the operator does not have sufficient on -site storage for materials and trailers. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number— 559 117 05 The loading area for this industrial building is inadequate to accommodate larger delivery vehicles such as the one pictured. This creates access issues for the other vehicles seeking to enter and exit the area. Parcel Number — 559 072 07 Residential building between two industrial uses is incompatible for both residential occupants and industrial uses as there are no buffers between the two. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C•2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 063 07 This obsolete motel has been the site of various criminal activity and as revenue has declined the owner has been cited for illegally converting short-term rooms to Tong -term apartments. Parcel— 560 141 05 Outdoor welding under canvas tarp is a fire hazard as well as detracts from surrounding uses. Industrial sites with inadequate building sizes resort to substandard outdoor manufacturing as there are no other on -site altematives. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. NATIONAL CITY JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel— 555 111 08 Across the street from this residence are multiple industrial buildings with inadequate parking as shown in the picture below. This lack off -site parking forces residents to illegally park their vehicles on already crowded streets. Parcel— 555 112 09 This property cannot accommodate the number of cars seeking repairs as well as parking for employees. Business such as this adversely effect on street parking for residents and reduce vehicle site lines at intersections. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21. 2005 APPENDIX C-4 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 202 09 The business where this vehicle is waiting to be repaired is stored with five other vehicles on the street. This practice is common throughout the Project Area and contributes to the overall crowded street conditions. Parcel Number — 562 251 36 This site suffers from environmental contamination and cannot be built upon for the foreseeable future. Storage activities are the only usage this site is able to maintain until the pollution subsides and the ground stops sinking. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-5 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 556 35410 This site is one of several on Highland Avenue that are vacant or are used for storage instead of typical commercial activity. As the site only has on -street parking it reduces the types of businesses that might occupy the site. The owner was cited for attempting to illegally convert the building to residential units. Parcel Number— 559 105 01 Substandard construction was used to connect this residential building to the industrial building and is a fire hazard to both structures. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-6 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 560 202 01 This site and building are obsolete for the business operating out of it. Substandard building materials such as corrugated metal flex during an earthquake or fire and compromise the structural integrity of buildings. Parcel Number — 563 370 43 This former grocery store has been vacant for over 2 years and detracts from the surrounding businesses who have to survive without an anchor tenant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-7 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 559 125 16 This residential building next to a manufacturing facility represents an incompatible use. This property shows how residential buildings are Tess likely to be maintained as surrounding incompatible uses detract from the rent these properties might realize. Parcel Number — 559 010 04 If companies cannot find a consolidated site for operations they use nearby sites and have to transport goods between the areas. This is an unsafe condition for other vehicles as well as the driver of the forklift. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-8 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Chairman Nick Inzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Members Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez May 20, 2005 Preserving History... Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City Dear Property Owner, Business Tenant, or Interested Party: You are receiving the attached 2005 Redevelopment Plan Amendment notice and map because you own property, own a business or reside in the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area".) A joint public hearing will be held to receive your input regarding the proposed Amendment on: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:00 p.m. (or as soon as possible thereafter) Martin Luther King Community Center 140 E. 12th Street National City, California 91950 As a result of extensive public input, this revised proposal for the use of eminent domain is now ready for public hearing. The proposed Amendment will only affect commercial and industrial corridors within the City's redevelopment project area. If adopted, the proposed Amendment would allow the CDC to purchase, at fair market value, non-residential properties in the redevelopment project area through the eminent domain process. This could only occur after an extensive public input and hearing process. Eminent domain authority is proposed for a period of 10 years, or until 2015 and would only be used as a last resort. The enclosed map presents the Project Area boundaries and the commercial and industrial corridors that are the focus of the 2005 Amendment. Residential Properties are excluded from the 2005 Amendment and could not be acquired using eminent domain. The 2005 Amendment does not make any other changes to the Redevelopment Plan and does not affect your taxes in any way. Should you have any comments concerning the 2005 Amendment, you are invited to share your ideas at the joint public hearing or submit written comments to the City Clerk prior to the time of the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the National City Community Development Commission at (619) 336-4250. Sincerely, Benjamin Martinez Executive Director Enclosures: Notice of Joint Public Hearing Project Area Map (Attachment 1) 140 E. 12 Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 Attachment 3 Chairman Nick Inzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Members Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate adtAkik. Preserving History... Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City Executive Director Benjamin Martinez CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT Public Review Period: May 20, 2005 to June 20, 2005 The City Council of the City of National City ("City Council") and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") will hold a Joint Public Hearing on June 21, 2005, at approximately 6:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter, in the Martin Luther King Center, 140 East 12th Street, National City, California 91950, to consider the adoption of the proposed 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the City of National City Redevelopment Project ("2005 Amendment") pursuant to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code. Any person interested in this matter may appear at the above time and place and be heard. The proposed 2005 Amendment would allow the CDC to purchase properties in specific commercial and industrial corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") through eminent domain. Eminent domain authority would exist for 10 years, or until 2015, and would only be used as a last resort. Properties in residential use are excluded from the proposed 2005 Amendment and could not be acquired using eminent domain. The Attachment accompanying this Notice is a map that presents the existing Project Area boundaries and the commercial and industrial corridors that may be affected by the proposed 2005 Amendment. A metes and bounds legal description for the Project Area may be obtained at no charge at the CDC's offices located at 140 East 121 Street, Suite B, National City, California 91950. The CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") on the proposed 2005 Amendment (that provides detailed information regarding the proposed 2005 Amendment) will be presented at the Joint Public Hearing. The Report will include a Negative Declaration (that reviews the potential environmental impacts that may be generated by the proposed 2005 Amendment) and other documents required by the California Community Redevelopment Law. At the Joint Public Hearing, the City Council and the CDC will consider all evidence and testimony for and against the proposed 2005 Amendment and/or the Negative Declaration. All persons having any objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment may appear before the City Council and the CDC and show cause why the proposed 2005 Amendment or the Negative Declaration should not be adopted. At any time not later than the hour set for the Joint Public Hearing, any person(s) may file a written statement with the City Clerk, of their objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment. Public comment will close at the Joint Public Hearing. The City Council will make written findings in response to written objections filed at the Joint Public Hearing prior to adoption of the 2005 Amendment. A copy of the CDC's Report to the City Council, including the Negative Declaration, on the proposed 2005 Amendment may be reviewed at the office of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City, at 140 East 126 Street, Suite B, National City, and the City Clerk's Office, Civic Center, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City. Members of the public are invited to comment. Written comments should be received by the Community Development Commission on or before 3:00 p.m., June 20, 2005. Any questions regarding this matter should bedirected to Maricela Leon at (619) 336-4250. Ifyou challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to'the public hearing entity conducting the hearing at, or prior to, the public hearing, City Of National City Michael Dalla, City Clerk Published in the National City Star News, Friday, May 20, 2005 140. E. 12' Street, Suite 13; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336A250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 Chairman Nick lnzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Llembers kuis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez 14111410, Preserving History... Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City 20 de Mayo del 2005 Estimado propietario, alquiler de negocios, o persona interesada: Usted esta recibiendo el aviso y mapa adjunto para la Enmienda del Plan de Desarrollo del 2005 porque usted es dueto de un negocio o vive en el Area del proyecto de desarrollo en National City ("Project Area".) Una Audiencia Publica se Ilevara a cabo para recibir su opini6n en cuanto a Ia proposition de la enmienda propuesta el: Martes, 21 de Junio del 2005 6:00 p.m. (o to mas pronto posible a partir de entonces) Martin Luther King Community Center 140 E. 12th Street National City, California 91950 Como resultado del extenso interes en el publico, esta modificada propuesta para el uso de dominio eminente se encuentra lista para una audiencia publica. La enmienda propuesta solamente afectara los corredores comerciales e industriales que se encuentran dentro del area del proyecto de desarrollo de la Ciudad. Si la propuesta de enmienda se adopta, esta le permitira al CDC comprar, a un valor justo del mercado, propiedades que no son residenciales y que se encuentran en el area de proyecto de desarrollo a traves del proceso de eminente de dominio. Esto solamente podria ocurrir despues del extenso proceso de aportacion publica y la audiencia. La autoridad de dominio eminente existira por 10 arms o hasta el ano 2015, y solamente se usara como Ultimo recurso. El mapa adjunto representa los limites existentes del area de Proyecto y los corredores comerciales e industriales que son el enfoque de la enmienda 2005. Las Dropiedades de uso residential se descartaran de Ia proposition de enmienda 2005 y no se Dueden adauirir Dor medio de dominio eminente. La enmienda 2005 no hace ningtin otro cambio al Plan de Desarrollo y en ninguna manera afecta sus impuestos. Si usted tiene algun comentario con respecto a la enmienda 2005, le invitamos a compartir sus ideas en la Audiencia Publica o presentar sus declaraciones por escrito al Secretario de Ia cuidad antes de Ia Audiencia Publica. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta, por favor contacte a la Comision de Desarrollo Comunitario (CDC) de National City al (619) 336-4250. Atentamente, Benjamin Martinez Director Ejecutivo Documentos Adjuntos: Aviso de la Audiencia Publica Mapa del Area de Proyecto (Anexo 1) 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 Chairman Nick Inzunza Vice Chairman Ron Morrison Members Luis Natividad Frank Pats Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez Preserving History..... �1 Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City AVISO DE UNA AUDIENCIA PUBLICA CONJUNTA POR EL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL DE LA CIUDAD DE NATIONAL CITY Y LA COMISION DE DESAROLLO COMUNITARIO DE LA CIUDAD DE NATIONAL CITY (CDC) PARA LA ADOPCION DE LA PROPOSICION DE ENMIENDA 2005 PARA EL PLAN DE DESAROLLO EN NATIONAL CITY, Y AVISO DE DISPONIBILIDAD DEL REPORTE DEL CONSEJO MUNICIPAL EN LA PROPOSICION DE ENMIENDA 2005 Periodo de revision para el publico: 20 de Mayo del 2005 hasta el 20 Junio del 2005 El consejo municipal de la cuidad de National City ("Consejo Municipal") y la Comision de Desarrollo de la cuidad de National City ("CDC") conducira una Audiencia Publica el 21 de Junio del 2005, aproximadamente a las 6:00 p.m. o a partir de entonces, en el Martin Luther King Center, que se encuentra ubicada en el 140 East 12th Street, National City, California 91950, para considerar la adoption de la proposicion de enmienda 2005 para el Plan de Desarrollo del Proyecto de Desarrollo en la cuidad de National City ("Enmienda 2005") segun los requisitos del Cddigo de Salubridad y Seguridad de California. Cualquier persona interesada en esta materia puede it a esta audiencia en la Nora y lugar especificada anteriormente. La proposicion de enmienda 2005 le permitira al CDC comprar propiedades en ciertas areas comerciales e industriales que se encuentran en la area en el Proyecto de Desarrollo en National City ("Project area") por medio de dominio eminente. La autoridad de domino eminente existira por 10 afos o hasta el alo 2015, y solamente se usara como ultimo recurso. L proniedades de use residential se descartaran de la proposicion de enmienda 2005 v no se nueden adouirir nor medio de dominio eminente. El mapa adjunto este Aviso representa los limites existentes del area de Proyecto y los corredores comerciales e industriales que se pueden encontrar afectados por la proposicion de enmienda 2005. Una description legal de reparticion y limitation para el area de Proyecto se puede obtener sin costo alguno en las oficinas del CDC ubicadas en el 140 East 12th Street, Suite B, National City, California 91950. El reporte del CDC al Consejo Municipal ("Report") en cuanto a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 (lo cual provee information detallada en cuanto a la proposicion de enmienda 2005) se presentara en la Audiencia Publica. El reporte incluira una declaracion negativa (que revisa los impactos potenciales del ambiente que puede generar la proposicion de enmienda 2005) y otros documentos que requiere la Ley de Desarrollo Comunitario de California. En la Audiencia Publica, el Consejo municipal y el CDC consideraran toda la evidencia y testimonio a favor y en contra la proposicion de enmienda 2005 y/o la declaracion Negativa. Cualquier persona que tiene alguna objecidn a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 puede presentarse ante el Consejo Municipal y el CDC y mostrar la razon por la cual la proposicion de enmienda 2005 o la declaracion Negativa no se deberia adoptar. Cualquier persona puede presentar una declaracion por escrito con el Secretario de la cuidad de sus objeciones a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 a cualquier hora antes del dia de la Audiencia Publica. La Audiencia Publica terminara con los comentarios del publico. El Consejo Municipal presentara las declaraciones hechas por escrito en la Audiencia Publica antes de la adoption por la proposicion de enmienda 2005. Un copia del reporte del CDC al Consejo Municipal, incluyendo la Declaration Negativa, en cuanto a la proposicion de enmienda 2005 puede ser examinada en la oficina de la Comision de Desarrollo Comunitario (CDC) de la cuidad de National City, ubicada en el 140 East 12d' Street, Suite B, National City, y en la oficina del Secretario de la cuidad, Civic Center, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City. Todos los miembros del publico estan invitados a dar su opinion. Los comentarios hechos por escrito se deberan recibir por la Comision de Desarrollo Comunitario a las o antes de las 3:00 p.m., el 20 de Junio del 2005. Para cualquier pregunta sobre esta materia por favor dirigase con Maricela Leon al (619) 336-4250. Si usted disputa este asunto en una tribunal, puede ser limitado a tratar nada mas aquellos puntos que usted u otra persona disputa en la Audiencia Publica que se le describe en este aviso, o que se disputaron por testimonio escrito enviados a la entidad de la Audiencia Publica que llevara a cabo la audiencia en o antes de la Audiencia Publica. Ciudad de Nacional City Michael Dalla, Secretario de la Cuidad Publicada en el periodico National City Star News, el Viernes 20 de Mayo del 2005 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 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 economjcjnterests. 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 lnzunza, Councilman Parra and Councilwoman Zarate are located in the redevelopment project area. Additionally, Mayor Inzunza 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 Attachment 4 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 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 invpked. This concept allows a disqualified official tobe 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 h1. EISER, I11 City Attorney GHE/gmo cc: City Manager Executive Director, CDC City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY June 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 TO: CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS FROM: BENJAMIN MARTINEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VIA: BYRON ESTES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-66: RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF SAID REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Recommendation: If no written objections have been submitted by the public, Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005-66 of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City approving the Report to the City Council in connection with the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan; and authorizing the transmittal ofsaid _Report to the City Council Fiscal Impact: There will be no fiscal impact to the National City General Budget as a result of these actions. Summary The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan 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 what is now referred to as the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. Properties that are Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 2 June 21, 2005 Page 1 of 3 currently being used for residential purposes would be excluded from eminent domain. The proposed 2005 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015." The proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan would be approved by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council. 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 2005 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 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission must approve the Report and authorize its transmittal to the City Council by adopting a Resolution. Conclusion: During the Joint Public Hearing, Community Development Commission staff will provide a presentation to summarize the proposed 2005 Amendment. With this, Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission Board conduct the Joint Public Hearing and consider the adoption of the attached Resolution approving the Report to the City Council for the Community Development Commission June 21, 2005 Agenda Item No. 2 Page 2 of 3 proposed 2004 Amendment and authorizing the transmittal of the Report to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 — Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney Exhibit 2 — Resolution No. 2005-66 Exhibit 3 — Report to the City Council Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 2 June 21, 2005 Page 3 of 3 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 Inzunza 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 EXHIBIT 1 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-66 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF SAID REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City has undertaken the steps to adopt the 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). The purpose of the proposed 2005 Amendment is to establish eminent domain authority over commercial and industrial zoned properties, and vacant and abandoned properties, regardless of their zoning designation, within the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years, until 2015; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission has prepared the Report to the City Council ("Report") in connection with the proposed 2005 Amendment, which is the report and information required by Sections 33352 and 33457.1 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.) ("CRL"); and, WHEREAS, a copy of the Report and a copy of the 2005 Amendment is on file in the offices of the Community Development Commission Secretary and the City Clerk and have been made available for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Community Development Commission as follows: Section 1. The Report, attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein, is approved and Staff is authorized to transmit the Report to the members of the City Council of the City of National City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2005. Nick Inzunza, Chairman ATTEST: Benjamin Martinez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, HI, City -CDC Attorney EXHIBIT 2 ATTACHMENT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT MODIFICATIONS 2005 AMENDMENT The 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan deletes the following language indicated by the strikethrough text: Pursuant to Section 603 of this Plan, tho CDC may acquiro tho foliomAng pales through tho uco of ominont domain: Existing Arca (as dofinod in Secti n 300 f this Plan) apt and adjacert to National City Boulovard, • All parcolc lecatod immodiatoly woct and adjaeont to Civic Contor Drivo, botwoon Intorctato-5 and National City Boulovard. • All pareolc lecatod immodiatoly couth and adjaGont to Civie-Contor Drivo, botwoon • All pareolc lecatod immodiatoly north and couth and adjaGont to 8th Stool, botwooa • Accoccer'c Rarcol Numborc-566 660 11, 666 660 12, 666 660 13, and-666 660 11 Avenue, preporty. ARE SRECIFIEAL,-Y M THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, The 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan substitutes the following language: Pursuant to Section 603 of this Plan, 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 ten (10) years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015. f 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan Report to the city Council June 21, 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, California 92701-4502 P : 714.541.4585 F : 714.541.1175 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com EXHIBIT 3 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Plan Amendment 2 Contents of this Report 3 Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific 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 6 Study Approach and Methodology 6 Physical Blighting Conditions 9 Figure B - 1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations 18 Economic Conditions that Cause Blight 20 Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment 26 Physical and Economic Burden on Community 27 Five -Year Implementation Plan 29 Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Altematives Other Than Tax Increment 29 The Method of Financing 30 The Method of Relocation 31 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan 32 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission 32 Report of the Project Area Committee 33 General Plan Conformance 33 Environmental Documentation 34 Report of the County Fiscal Officer 34 Neighborhood Impact Report 35 A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies 35 Attachment 1 — Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain 36 Attachment 2 — Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain 37 Attachment 3 — Negative Declaration 38 Appendices Appendix A - Data Source List Appendix A-1 Appendix B - Law Section 33030 and 33031 Appendix B-1 Appendix C - Photo Survey Appendix C-1 Tables Table B-1 - Summary of Blighting Conditions 10 Table B-2 - Monthly Lease Rate Comparisons Spring 2005 21 Table B-3 - 2004 Crime Rates Per 1,000 Persons For National City and Selected Local Jurisdictions 26 Introduction • Introduction The Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is processing an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). This is being done to facilitate commercial and industrial revitalization and to 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 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. Attachment 1 presents a map of the Project Area boundaries with the proposed commercial and industrial corridors that would be subject to eminent domain authority, if the 2005 Amendment is adopted. Currently, the Plan pemiits the CDC to acquire real property (except residential property) by any means authorized by law, including eminent domain for specific geographical areas. Attachment 2 identifies the portions of the Project Area currently subject to eminent domain authority. These properties were identified in 1995 and 2001 on the basis that they could be needed to facilitate commercial revitalization projects through land assembly and parcel consolidation. It is important to note that most properties (over 80%) in the Project Area are currently exempt from eminent domain authority. 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 commercial and industrial properties need to be subject to eminent domain. Projects requiring land assembly in non -eminent domain areas were not developed and the blighting conditions remaining on these properties have not been cured in most instances. This document is the CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") for the proposed 2005 Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the Califomia Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the Report provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the City Council of National City with their consideration of the 2005 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 Dated June 13,1995 and June 19, 2001 respectively. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and subsequent amendments; the Original Reports are incorporated herein by reference. Plan Amendment The proposed 2005 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2005 Amendment. The proposed text modification is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and 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 10 years2 from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33457.1 of the Law dictates the required components of this Report. More specifically, Section 33457.1 states that the report and information required by Section 33352 is the only the report and information warranted by the 2005 Amendment. Much of the information nomially required that pertains to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports. 2 The Law allows commissions to establish eminent domain authority for up to 12 years. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section A Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area The CDC seeks to amend the Plan by extending the CDC's eminent domain authority (subject to all required procedures under Califomia law) to potentially acquire properties identified in Attachment 1, 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The 2005 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 2005 Amendment in order to expand its ability to assemble sites, thereby facilitating commercial, industrial and residential redevelopment projects in the Project Area. The CDC adopted the 1995 Redevelopment Plan authorizing the current limited eminent domain authority. The 1995 Report to the City Council ("1995 Report") cited socioeconomic conditions such as low median household income, high unemployment, high proportion of residential tenants versus home owners and low residential rents as blighting factors. The 1995 Report also discussed the mixture of land uses many of which are incompatible and/or obsolete as well as small parcel sizes and limited public infrastructure as additional blighting conditions. To facilitate the elimination of the above blighting conditions the CDC has initiated public right-of-way improvements, specific plans for development and environmental remediation of toxic sites over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. The CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of these properties continue to be neglected 10 years later. Adopting the 2005 Amendment will expand the scope of the Plan's eminent domain authority and afford the CDC one additional tool to eliminate blight in the ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project Area, through the facilitation of land assemblage activities within the areas identified in Attachment 1. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Sermon B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Exds ling in the Project Area Section 33352(h) 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. However, additional blight documentation is required when eminent domain authority is established for new properties. As the 2005 Amendment expands the CDC's eminent domain authority to additional properties within the existing Project Area, a re -substantiation of blight for these new properties is required. Sections 33030-33031 of the Law (Appendix A) define the specific physical, economic and social conditions of blight that must exist within a redevelopment project area for adoption of the 2005 Amendment. The following section discusses each of the factors contributing to blight, as defined by the Law and is discussed and statistically documented. To that end, the CDC's consultant surveyed the properties presented on Attachment 1 and identified at least one blighting condition for 86% of properties. The survey was conducted on a parcel basis from March through May of 2005. Study Approach and Methodology Several data sources were utilized to quantify existing conditions in the Project Area. A complete listing is included as Appendix B. An important data source for evaluating the existence and prevalence of conditions that characterize blight in the Project Area was the field survey conducted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., consultants to the CDC, from March through May of 2005. The survey documented existing physical and economic conditions of each parcel in the Project Area. Both physical and economic indicators were observed during the field survey, including inadequate lot size, defective/substandard design, impaired investments, substandard building materials, inadequate parking and access, deterioration and dilapidation, faulty additions, incompatible uses, poor handling of hazardous materials and unsafe traffic conditions. Surveyors' Qualifications The lead surveyor, David Parsons, has a masters' degree in City Planning and Public Administration and has worked in local govemment for 3 years. At his previous position, Mr. Parsons worked in the Planning Department as a liaison to the Code Compliance Department and the neighborhood revitalization task force. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL He assisted property owners with their housing rehabilitation projects, including determining zoning compliance. Mr. Parsons has worked with RSG nearly two years, principally assisting in the amendment and adoption of redevelopment project areas as well as other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area amendment projects in the cities of Carlsbad, National City, Pinole, Poway and San Diego. Assistant to the lead surveyor, Walt Lauderdale holds a bachelors of Science degree in urban and regional planning and has worked in the field of community development and land use planning for nearly eleven years. Mr. Lauderdale has worked with RSG for over 3 years and has assisted in plan adoption and amendment activities of redevelopment project areas in addition to other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area adoption or amendment projects in communities such as South Central Los Angeles, Los Angeles Mid - City, the Watts area of Los Angeles and the Crossroads and Grantville areas of San Diego. Based upon initial reconnaissance, RSG prepares and refines a survey instrument for each project area. Each parcel has its own survey sheet and is identified by parcel numbers using county parcel maps. The survey forms include physical blighting conditions as prescribed by section 33031(a) of the Law, and economic blighting conditions listed in section 33031(b) of the Law, which are amenable to a visual survey. The survey forms contain consistent, educated assessments regarding the condition of parcels in the Project Area. The land use survey results in a nominal assessment of whether a condition is "present" or "not present." RSG acknowledges that different degrees of deterioration or deficiencies are present in each parcel. RSG staff at a minimum cites a condition as present if a reasonable person, shown the condition, could see the damage. In most circumstances, this deterioration was visible from the right-of-way (streets or alleys). In the commercial and industrial properties inspectors may have viewed properties from parking lots or driveways. The following list describes the condition(s) that are present when a property/parcel is designated as having physical deficits. Deterioration/Dilapidation Broken/deteriorated roofing material • Describes broken and wom shingles • Tarped roofs that presumably are leaking • Roofing materials that are approaching the end of their useful life Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangsfframing • Describes wood rot deterioration • Likely insect infestation causing damage • Physical damage from age or unknown causes Damaged building materials • Describes voids in building materials • Significant cracking ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Crumbling materials Exposed wiring • Signifies electrical wiring either strung or dangling from buildings. • Describes excessive exterior conduit on outer walls from multiple additions • The presence of extension cords protruding from windows/doors, appearing to supply indoor or outdoor electrical power Broken window/door • Indicates a broken or cracked window • Describes exterior doors including garage doors with voids or severely damaged wood Structural damage of roof, foundation or walls • A visual bow or curve in the roof • Crooked roof • Significant cracking about the foundation (not cracked stucco) Substandard exterior plumbing • Describes piping usually attached to the exterior of a structure that appears to not meet current code requirements Faulty weather protection - lack of paint • Indicates instances where areas of buildings lack paint or color coat or paint is peeling Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access • Driveways that do not allow two vehicles to pass • Curves or turns in driveways that prevent seeing on -coming traffic Substandard exterior building materials • Structures built with tin, corrugated metal, plywood, etc. (materials that do not meet current building codes) Poorly constructed addition • Structures that do not meet current building codes because of design, configuration, materials Lack of light/ventilation • Buildings with inadequate set -backs and or windows • Industrial buildings with inadequate mechanical ventilation systems. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site • Indicates that the number of parking spaces does not meet current code requirements • Designates situations of inadequate parking that were observed during the survey Inadequate loading facilities • Indicates properties that have inferior loading facilities due to size, configuration • No loading facilities Excessive coverage • Designates commercial and industrial properties that lack parking, open space, landscaping, and/or access Outdoor storage/garbage/debris • Specifies properties that have trash strewn about • Indicates properties that have commerce, storage or displays outdoors Commercial and Industrial businesses with persons working outdoors • Circumstances in which persons were observed working outdoors (primarily on automobiles and light -manufacturing) No off -site parking • Indicates that on -street parking is not available along the curb in front of a parcel Physical Blighting Conditions The Law describes physical conditions that cause blight. These physical conditions are assessed in terms of the health and safety of persons and the economic viability of development in an area. To make this assessment, data from field surveys, City code enforcement, fire and police, the County and other sources are evaluated to determine what conditions may be adversely affecting the health and safety of persons in an area, as well as the adverse economic conditions that result from these physical conditions. Generally as economic retums from an area decline there is a corresponding lack of investment in physical upkeep of properties, further perpetuating physical blight. The Law requires that both physical and economic blighting conditions be present for the establishment of eminent domain authority for new properties, in an existing project area. Overall, 86% of all properties in the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting conditions (Table B-1). The physical blighting conditions include deterioration and dilapidation, inadequate lot size, inadequate vehicle access, substandard building materials along with faulty additions and obsolescence. The ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL presence of these conditions reflects a lack of investment by property owners in maintaining their properties in good condition to assure the safety of persons who work in the area. Poor physical conditions place a burden on the community by reducing its ability to meet its goal of fostering vibrant neighborhoods. Table B-1 summarizes the blighting conditions observed during the field survey of the Project Area. There were nearly 1,300 distinguishable properties among 1,560 parcels. Parcels or property uses not individually reflected in the table include; parking lots that were part of developments, condominium designations (commercial and industrial) that were part of a single property use and some vacant parcels. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS Parcles in the Project Area 1560 Total number of properies surveyed 1,300 Physical Blighting Conditions Total Parcels Surveyed with Blighting Conditions Total Percent of Parcels Surveyed wl Blighting Conditions Deterioration and Dilapidation Lack of paint - faulty weather protection Exposed wiring Damaged exterior building materials Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing Broken/deteriorated roofing material 578 766 621 182 159 44% 59% 48% 14% 12% Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access Substandard exterior building materials Poorly constructed addition Inadequate pedestrian access 134 375 208 46 10% 29% 16% 4% Factors InhibitingEconomic Viability Inadequate parking on -site Inadequate loading facilities Excessive coveragefinadequate setbacks Outdoor storage or production Garbage/debris/stagnant water/combustible materials No off -site parking 631 27 149 678 595 42 49% 2% 11% 52% 46% 3% Total Number of Properties Surveyed With at Least One Blighting Condition 1,113 86% Source: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. land use survey ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 10 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Physical Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Economically Viable Use of Buildings or Lots Section 33031(a)(2) of the Law describes physical conditions that cause blight to include "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors." The following discussion substantiates the presence of inadequate lot and building size, lack of parking, substandard design and obsolescence. Lot Size Small parcel sizes particularly in the commercial corridors of Highland Avenue and 8th Street as well as the industrial portions of the Westside area north of 22nd Street hinder their capacity to be rehabilitated and redeveloped. Current market standards for neighborhood commercial development generally require at least a two -acre site and a four -acre site for light -industrial development. There are only 21 properties of four or more acres and 71 properties of two or more acres affected by the 2005 Amendment with 543 commercial or industrial properties being less than on -half acre. Inadequate lot size results in development that either (1) lacks adequate parking, loading and vehicle access; or (2) prohibits redevelopment and reuse of parcels because the density of development that exists today would not be allowed without provisions for adequate parking, loading and vehicle access. New development constructed to modem development standards would be required to provide adequate parking, loading and vehicle access, which many commercial and industrial parcels in the Project Area cannot accommodate. Once these amenities are included, the small lot sizes yield development that is substantially below allowed floor -area -ratios (density) and cause new development to be incapable of supporting the going land values in the Project Area. The only solution to this dilemma is to consolidate parcels into larger areas that allow development yield to be maximized while at the same time providing the parking, loading and vehicle access that the current commercialfindustriai markets mandate. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with a tool to assemble adequately sized properties, in which site development can meet modem market standards. Due to inadequate parcel size, the zoning in the Westside Industrial Area and Highland Commercial Corridor does not limit the lot coverage of new structures. If there were lot coverage limitations many of the smaller parcels would never have been developed. The problem however is that many buildings in these areas have little or no setbacks, which becomes a fire hazard as fire can spread more easily from structure to structure when buildings are connecting or in close proximity to one another. Adequate setbacks also serve as a buffer between uses, such as commercial/industrial uses next to residential structures. Without adequate buffers between uses, noise as well as toxic fumes and dust cross property lines and negatively affect surrounding properties. As the Project Area is ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL already built -out, it is infeasible for small -lot owners to now provide buffers and reduce excessive coverage of existing buildings within existing site constraints. The 2005 Amendment will provide a tool for the CDC to assemble sites large enough to have adequate buffers between uses. 149 properties were considered by RSG surveyors to have excessive coverage. Complicating this problem are industrial buildings which lack adequate floor space for inside manufacturing and storage. As operations overflow outside into already constrained parking areas there is nowhere for the parking needs to be met, except for the already congested street area. Over 70% properties in the 2005 Amendment Area have buildings that are 25 years or age (prior to 1981) or older. The sites these buildings occupy were not designed with to meet modem -day market demands and display inadequate site design as evidenced by the 631 surveyed properties (49%) that have inadequate parking. These businesses use the street to meet their parking and storage needs, which reduces the off -site parking for surrounding uses many of which were also designed with inadequate on -site parking. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with the ability to correct this physical constraint, thereby reducing the impaired investment these properties represent when compared to properties with proper site design and adequate parking. Inadequate loading is another typical characteristic of properties with insufficient lot size. Often small lots must employ sidewalk and/or street loading due to the lack of adequate on -site space. Unloading in the right-of-way; impedes access to businesses, reduces vehicle sight lines for pedestrian and other vehicular traffic as well as restricts traffic flow creating a hazardous traffic condition. Trucks often park on sidewalks to make deliveries putting pedestrians at risk due to tripping or being struck by vehicles, when they have to walk into the street to avoid the delivery that is blocking the sidewalk In addition, sidewalk and street loading suggests that the current site use might not be in accordance with its original design. For example, a residential structure that was converted to a commercial or industrial use typically has a small lot size, the only way to correct the small lot size and provide enough area for safe loading is through parcel consolidation. When -businesses do have on -site loading and parking, these features are often difficult to access due to narrow driveways that allow only one car to enter/exit at a time. Access is further restricted by outdoor storage and production taking place in the parking lots. Buildings were observed to have a loading dock and parking area only to be blocked by outdoor storage and production activities. This practice of outdoor staging areas for production on small industrial lots, further exacerbates the on -street parking problems. The City has tried to compensate for this by using diagonal parking particularly in the Westside Area, but this has created safety problems for vehicles due to reduced sight -lines at intersections and congested work areas extending into the public right-of-way which compromises pedestrian safety. As the vast majority of the parcels in the Project Area are fully developed and there is little opportunity or incentive for businesses to provide additional parking, no significant "new" parking can be anticipated ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 12- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL without the assistance of redevelopment and the approval of the 2005 Amendment to facilitate assemblage of larger lots for improved site design. The lack of parking hinders the economically viable use of these commercial and industrial properties, as tenants who desire adequate parking can pay market rent for properties with adequate parking and loading facilities to operate their businesses at a higher efficiency than those businesses operating on a constrained site. Property owners of inadequately sized properties cannot realize these higher revenue rates as their sites are too small to properly accommodate amenities that are desirable to tenants willing to pay higher rents. Also, as the economic revenue from a property levels off and/or declines, property owners are unlikely to make the needed physical improvements to their properties contributing to the further decline of the Project Area. Outdoor storage and manufacturing is a common problem throughout the Project Area for both commercial and industrial properties and is another indicator of inadequate lot and buildings size. Commercial properties often use outdoor storage for excess materials, trash and other items. Unscreened dumpsters, which are also very prevalent in the Project Area lead to unsanitary conditions affecting the health and safety of those in the general area as trash becomes strewn about, attracting insects and rodents. The presence of outdoor storage is an indicator that the existing building stock provides inadequate building space for existing business activities. Also, outdoor storage contributes to the declining appearance and perception of the Project Area, this perception of decline reduces the revenue properties can generate as investors will not pay the same rate commanded by non -blighted properties for properties perceived to be in decline. Overall, 52% of properties either had outdoor storage and or outdoor production. To further accommodate outdoor repairs and production, many businesses are using temporary canvas tarp (tent) buildings as permanent additions to existing areas for outdoor manufacturing. These tarp buildings present a fire hazard to existing buildings which the tarp is attached to. For example, sparks from welding operations under these tarps can smolder in the tarps and then spread to the building itself or nearby chemical or combustible materials storage as many of the manufacturing and repair businesses use chemicals and other combustible materials in their operations. Outdoor uses therefore, are often a safety hazard due to environmental, fire and vehicle access deficiencies. Structural Obsolescence While inadequate loading, parking and storage are characteristics of small lot size, these deficiencies are also indicative of properties 25 years or older. The deficiencies associated with many older properties are often referred to as obsolescence. Obsolescence is the result of a combination of blight factors, including the age of a buildings, lack of maintenance, and a lack of desirable amenities such as parking and tenant improvements that occur as contemporary market standards evolve. For these reasons, obsolescence results in factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings and lots. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 13 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL The appeal of obsolete buildings diminishes as market conditions and consumer preferences change causing other uses to fill the void. Many auto repair businesses locate in the Project Area to compliment the retail operations of the Mile of Cars area. However, most of these supporting businesses are located on side streets behind the modem buildings of the Mile of Cars, where the rents are significantly less and in obsolete/inadequate buildings without the needed amenities to properly operate these supporting businesses. Commercial and industrial development standards have changed significantly since the 1965 when over 40% of the commercial and industrial properties in the Project Area were developed. Modern industrial developments offer larger floor and lot sizes along with amenities such as landscaping, on -site parking and adequate loading areas for larger delivery vehicles. Commercial and industrial uses without adequate area often negatively affect surrounding properties through competition for on -street parking and on -street deliveries that restrict access to surrounding properties. Inadequate vehicle access is another indicator of obsolescence. The commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area were developed in a style that is deficient by today's development standards. Principally it did not provide driveways that had adequate site lines into oncoming traffic nor were the driveways properly designed to accommodate two-way traffic or traffic queuing particularly in commercial corridors. 134 parcels or 10% of the parcels in the Project Area exhibited inadequate vehicle access condition. Buildings Unsafe/Unhealthy to Live or Work In Section 33031(a)(1) of the Law identifies several blighting conditions that denote a building that is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These include the following: serious code violations, deterioration or dilapidation, and defective design or physical conditions, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. Substandard building materials, faulty additions and incompatible uses are other factors of defective design. Code Enforcement Violations Violations of local or state building codes are a blighting condition identified under Section 33031(a) of the Law, which characterizes buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Buildings and structures that do not meet current uniform building requirements, or other local codes mandated to ensure human health and safety, pose a threat to the workers, patrons, and residents of an area. Code enforcement efforts are, for the most part, limited to complaint generated enforcement. The majority of complaints come from property owners or tenants who observe potential violations in their neighborhoods. However, since code violations are primarily investigated only if a complaint is filed or observed by City staff, many violations go unnoticed and the true number of building and other code violations is likely to be greater than those reported. Even if adequate ROSENOw SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 14 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL funding was available for City staff to pursue all initial code enforcement violations from the first time each violation was observed, there would need to be at least two times this number of personnel to do the proper follow up that each case typically requires. Based on discussions with City staff, most code enforcement cases require at least one, if not two to three additional follow up visits to make sure the violation is not reoccurring. The following is a list of code violations observed by City staff in the commercial and industrial corridors of the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: • Unsafe wiring such as extension cords being used as permanent wiring, this fire hazard was typically observed in residential structures converted to commercial and industrial uses: • Unsafe and excessive signage that is improperly secured or with supports that have rusted, which then becomes a falling hazard; • A -frame signs on sidewalk and signage for a one-time use (real estate leasing) that was not permitted and laying in the public right-of-way, which becomes a tripping hazard; • Inventory (displays) stored on sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian access; • Public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks) being used for manufacturing and repair area, particularly for auto related businesses, which leads to manufacturing debris and pollution being left in the public right-of-way and a hazard to pedestrians; • Due to overcrowding on street parking in commercial and industrial areas, commercial and industrial vehicles are stored on nearby residential streets. Small parcel size also leads to parking of vehicles on grass and other non -paved surfaces, which has contributed to environmental contamination of the Project Area; • Public streets being used for loading and unloading of merchandise, usually blocking or impairing traffic, which is a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians; • Canvass or plastic tarps were often observed being used as long-term roof covering or to creating an unsafe building addition as well as permanent outdoor work areas; • Inadequate securing of trash in dumpster enclosures leads to unsanitary conditions; • Illegal dumping of trash (including vehicles) was observed throughout the Project Area, particularly on vacant property or abandoned commercial and industrial properties; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 15 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Unlicensed businesses operating on the site of another business or conducting operations, which are not allow under the current license. For example a car audio sales business doing installation in the parking lot contributes to overcrowding and promotes vehicles repair activity in the parking lots instead of the safety of a properly designed service facility, • Residential structures converted to non-residential uses without proper permits. Without proper permitting/inspections residential structures cannot be properly evaluated if they are suitable for industrial conversion. For example, multiple residential structures that were being used for commercial/industrial uses were observed to have excessive storage facilities (over 120 square feet of area) in the dedicated setback area, creating a fire hazard; • Outdoor chemical usage in addition, to toxic manufacturing with exhaust and particle venting not to code. This was often observed with outdoor auto repair shops, which in multiple cases are next to residential uses; • Along Highland Avenue several abandoned office/commercial buildings are illegally converted to residential uses, which has lead to substandard living conditions for residents; • Motels have illegally converted from short-term (less than 30-days) stay to Tong -term residential usage and attracting criminal activity as a result; • Abandoned houses in commercial areas attract criminal activity. In addition, several declining businesses have become storefronts for organized criminal activity such as narcotics, prostitution and general gang activity; • Decaying retaining walls along with dilapidated wood and corrugated fences threaten safety of those using the buildings, observed through the Project Area; • OO_ergrown vegetation_ becomes a fire hazard; and • Barbed/razor wire used to secure commercial and residential structures. It is important to note that if all code enforcement violations were corrected in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment, blighting factors such as environmental contamination, flooding, inadequately sized parcels and unsafe traffic conditions would still remain and the 2005 Amendment would still be justified and beneficial for the Project Area. Dilapidation and Deterioration During the field survey, the safety and condition of buildings in the Project Area were assessed using Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. This code section provides conditions that characterize a building as ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 16 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL substandard, unsafe, and unhealthy. Accordingly, a substandard building is one that exhibits any of the following conditions to an extent that it presents safety or property hazards: • General dilapidation or improper maintenance; • Wiring which does not conform to building codes and is in poor condition; • Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster, • Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint or weather stripping; • Broken or rotted, split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings; • Construction materials not up to code which have not been property maintained and are in poor condition; • Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, stagnant water or similar materials or conditions which constitute a safety hazard; • Any building or portion thereof which is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; and • Buildings or portions thereof occupied for commercial and industrial purposes, which were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies. Deterioration and dilapidation is also an indicator of buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, as identified under the Law, section 33031(a)(1). It is a common physical blighting condition found in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Evidence of dilapidation and deterioration in these properties includes buildings with damaged exterior building materials (48% of properties), deteriorated paint or weather proofing (44% properties), deteriorated eaves or wood rot (14% properties), and exposed wiring (64% properties). The older age of many of the buildings, combined with deferred maintenance, are contributory factors to their current state. Review of Table B-1 indicates deterioration existing in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. As stated in the book How Buildings Leam, What Happens After They're Built (Stewart Brand), a lack of maintenance results in buildings becoming unusable, with a threat of structural failure. Brand states that due "to deterioration and obsolescence, a building's capital value (and the rent it can charge) about halves by twenty years after construction. Most buildings you can expect to completely refurbish from eleven to twenty-five years after construction. The rule of thumb about abandonment is simple...if repairs will cost half of the value of the building, don't bother." ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL As demonstrated in the figure below, if regular maintenance is not done, first minor, and then major failures will result over time. As the cost of renovating the building goes up exponentially over the years, structural failure occurs and the building cannot be recovered. Because property owners may fear that they will not realize a retum on an investment in rehabilitation, buildings are often neglected. Poor building conditions indicate limited reinvestment in the building stock through renovation and rehabilitation, and reflect a weak environment for private sector development or redevelopment. Figure B -1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations Structural failures occur r Structure not usable Start of major failures Start of minor failures Normal wear A Time in years Total cost of major repair (C) Total cost of minor repair (B) Total cost of preventive maintenance (A) / --- 1 Major repair Minor repair Preventive maintenance P_REVENTIVE-MAINTENANCE (bottom line) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense. This diagram is adapted from Preventive Maintenance of Buildings (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991),p.3. Quantification of the severity of building dilapidation would require access to building interiors and detailed review of the core structural, electrical, plumbing and roofing systems of each building. This type of extensive evaluation is not feasible as part of the documentation for the 2005 Amendment. However, it is possible to extrapolate from viewing the exterior of buildings that if little investment has been made to maintain and improve the exterior of a building, it is also likely that few improvements have been made to the core support systems and interior of the buildings. The fact that over 70% of buildings are over 25 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY 18 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL years old and over 80% exhibit dilapidation and deficient exterior improvement, suggests significant interior dilapidation exists. Substandard Building Materials and Faulty Additions There were several examples of substandard building materials observed in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Corrugated metal sheeting is a primary example and is not a permitted building material according to the City code. The corrugated metal readily deteriorates from the weather and becomes more structurally unsound as it warps from the elements. Canvas and plastic tarps are even more prevalent and are not permitted to be used as building materials by the City. The results of the field survey indicate at least 375 incidences of substandard building materials and 208 buildings with faulty additions. Predominately, the industrial parcels affected by the 2005 Amendment represent the older style of development, offering limited or no amenities. Modem industrial buildings often use concrete tilt -up walls that can withstand the physical demands associated with industrial uses. The Project Area has multiple examples of wood - frame residential structures converted to industrial use. Residential wood -frame buildings are not designed to withstand industrial use requirements that may include production equipment or storage mounted to the walls as well as the high level of wear and tear associated with these non-residential activities. These activities cause the wood -frame structure to become dilapidated and wear down prematurely from the high -demands of industrial as well as commercial usage. Other inadequacies of older structures built for other uses include insufficient electrical supply, storage, and indoor manufacturing areas. Incompatible Adjacent Uses Incompatible adjacent uses where commercial and/or industrial properties are directly adjacent to residential uses were noted on 299 of the properties within the area affected by the 2005 Amendment and particularly in the Westside area between National City Blvd. and Interstate 5. As previously mentioned with respect to small -lot size, outdoor manufacturing was commonly observed without any noise buffers to surrounding residences. Furthermore, toxic dust created by outdoor industrial repairs and production drifts in an airbome state to surrounding residential properties, presenting a significant detrimental health and safety condition to these residents. Auto related uses on parcels of substandard size often have outdoor repairs and vehicle storage that spill out onto the street. These industrial uses congest streets for surrounding residents and reduce vehicle and pedestrian safety. Lack of Economic Viability These physical conditions of blight have had a serious impact on the economic viability of the Project Area. The lack of economic viability has resulted in all major chain grocery stores leaving the Project Area, where previously there were three (3). In their place, liquor stores have become the primary grocery providers ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 19 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL r to many residents of the Project Area, which offer limited grocery services and contribute to the excessive number of alcohol distribution outlets in the Project Area and City as a whole. In addition, there are only four (4) banks operating in the Project Area, augmented by lenders such as payday loan outlets which charge. interest rates that are substantially higher than commercial banks and lack the wide -range of financing services found at typical financial institutions. Within the last year a vacant Wells Fargo bank building was converted to a used car lot depriving the Project Area of another banking site. As preferred community serving businesses (banks and grocery stores) leave or refrain from locating stores in the Project Area, residents are left with fewer retail options. Community servicing businesses also create a synergy with existing retail and attract new customers to the businesses in the Project Area. In addition, to providing outside customers to augment the revenue of Project Area businesses, these outside customers often provide a positive retum to the City treasury through sales tax revenue. Not only do major chain retailers provide a wide -range of services to the Project Area, but they traditionally serve as anchor tenants to shopping centers. A former Albertson's site of 65,000 square feet has remained vacant for over two years, the lack of this anchor tenant reduces the overall business traffic drawn to the shopping center and reduces the overall revenue existing business might realize in this shopping center. Over time this lack of total revenue may force some businesses to close further contributing to the economic blighting conditions of the Project Area. Economic Conditions that Cause Blight Recent court decisions have ruled that to qualify a new portion of an existing Project Area for eminent domain authority as the 2005 Amendment proposes to do, it must not only exhibit conditions of physical blight, but also must contain and suffer from economic blight. To accurately represent existing economic conditions, the Project Area has been analyzed and information has been gathered from the City, the County, and private sources to document the deteriorating economic conditions of the Project Area. The following describes economic blighting conditions that contribute to lack of proper utilization of Project Area properties. Impaired Investments Industrial Realtors familiar with the industrial properties in the Project Area cited a number of different problems that act in concert to impede the economic success of real estate within the older industrial corridors of the Project Area. For example, when ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 20 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL the area developed, the standards for industrial development allowed for smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and reduced set -backs from other properties. These conditions negatively impact the appearance and detract from the marketability of the area. Most realtors also noted that the age of many industrial buildings renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned are listed on the following page. • Small building size; • Lack of parking on -site and off-street; • Lack of access to industrial sites; • Lack of other amenities or inadequate amenities such as loading and storage; • Low ceiling heights which restrict indoor operations and lead to outdoor manufacturing and/or storage; • Inadequate construction materials such as wood frame buildings being used for industrial production; and • Lack of adequate utilities servicing properties. The overall lack of amenities offered by a majority of industrial properties in the Project Area has created a lower tier market according to realtors. Most realtors graded the National City industrial market as a Class B or C (with Class A being the highest ranking) depending upon the condition of the building. This lower ranking attracts less desirable uses, such as outdoor auto repair and salvage, which further diminishes the image of the Project Area and the rents landowners are able to charge. Realtors surmise that the types of industrial businesses locating in the Project Area are looking for lower rents. Table B-2 shows a gross lease rate of $.85 per square foot monthly lease rate compared to the overall County rate of $1.02 per square foot or 17% lower. These lower lease rates generally result in little net income to reinvest in buildings to improve their condition. TABLE B-2 MONTHLY LEASE RATE COM Areas Industrial Office Retail National City $0.85 $1.20 $1.65 San Diego County Market Average $1.02 $2.03 I $2.00 CB Richard Ellls , Vanous Broker Interviews. Commercial In discussing the proposed Project Area with realtors familiar with the commercial properties in the area, a number of different problems were cited that act in ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 21 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL concert to impede economic success. For example, when the Project Area developed, the standards, as stated before, allowed smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and no off-street parking particularly along Highland Avenue. Also noted is the age of many commercial buildings which renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned were: • Small building size; • Close proximity to uses (industrial) that detract from the physical appearance of the area. • Lack of streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way; • Lack of parking on and off-street; • Lack of proper access to site; and Lack of amenities or inadequate amenities such as landscaping, loading and storage; and Several realtors stated that the cost of land in the area is too high to be supported by the low lease rates that the existing uses bring, making improvement of existing buildings unlikely. Generally, commercial developers are looking for a minimum 2 acre parcels for development of a new neighborhood commercial center, which is available in only 5% of properties. An adequate revenue stream is necessary to enable property owners to perform routine maintenance of their real estate. Without funding for repairs, deferred maintenance issues become health and safety concerns. This is especially true for older buildings. Table B-3 shows retail and office lease rates for the Project Area are in the low range when compared to the County average. Competition is also strong from other surrounding oammercial offerings such as Chula Vista, San Ysidro or the Plaza Bonita shopping center. It appears many businesses along portions of Highland Avenue and National City Blvd. north of 14th Street are just surviving due to vacancies or retail businesses being closed during normal working hours. This problem is likely to worsen if the physical constraints present in these portions of the Project Area are not addressed. The development proforma on the following page depicts the economic infeasibility of developing small lots in the Project Area market due to the lack of revenue generated by these small lots. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with additional ability to address small lot sizes through lot assemblage. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 22 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROFORMA B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Assum Commercial Rental Income 10,938 Sf 5.0% of Gross Income $19.80 /Sf $216,563 (10,828) Gross Annual Rental Income (Less): Vacancy & Collection Gross Effective Income $205,734 Operating Expenses 8.0% of Gross Effective Income ($16,459) Property Management 3.0% of Gross Effective Income (6,172) Reserves 2.0% of Gross Effective Income (4,115) Total Expenses (526,745) Net Operating Income $178,989 Cap Rate 9.0% Total Project Revenue $1,988,766 (Less) Development Costs (2,305,712) Profit/(Feasibility Gap) (S316,947) Per S.F. of Building 10,938 Sf ($28.98) Per S.F. of Land 21,875 Sf ($14.49) Hazardous Materials The Project Area has multiple locations of environmental concem, most of these sites are found in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment (Harbor District). Generally there are three land -uses generating environmental contamination in the 2005 Amendment area; large industrial uses (particularly in the Harbor District) along with auto repair facilities and small-scale industrial manufacturing (primarily in the Westside Area). The Harbor District is approximately 300 acres of industrial and distribution area at the westem edge of the Project Area between Interstate 5 and the San Diego Untried Port District ("Port District") Property along San Diego Bay. In 2003 the CDC undertook a Brownfields Grant Study Project ("Study Project") with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to determine the extent of the pollution in the Harbor District. The Study Project divided the Harbor District into fourteen (14) sites for individual analysis and concluded that each of the sites likely suffered from hazardous materials contamination. Historically the Harbor District was developed between 1885 and 1925 as a railroad staging area for transferring goods to ships on San Diego Bay. Industrial uses in the Harbor District over the last 100 years include: oil recycling and other oil distribution/refining facilities that used underground and aboveground storage tanks (including several gas stations), an ordnance company, aircraft parts manufacturer, a battery manufacturer, tank cleaning businesses, automotive servicing (including wreckers), machine and lumber storage, tool machining and metal fabrication, finishing and plating companies and gravel operations. At the time some of these businesses operated protective environmental regulations that are in place today did not exist. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL According to the Study Project many of these uses have resulted in the following types of pollution: soil and groundwater contamination with oils, lubricants, solvents, lead, asbestos, PCBs, corrosives, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and volatile organic compounds("VOC's"). Many of these uses generated hazardous wastes that in several cases was illegally disposed of onsite. At least 10 monitoring wells have been installed in the Harbor District to investigate subsurface conditions, with elevated petroleum hydrocarbons having been detected in soil as well as the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and VOCs confirmed in groundwater monitoring wells. While the CDC currently has eminent domain authority in the Harbor District, it is set to expire in July of 2007 and the 2005 Amendment would extend the CDC's eminent domain authority until 2015 to assist, if necessary in the clean up of these properties. Outside of the Harbor District are several other know sites of contamination which include; the Education Village, Police Station, Library site, and Public Works Yard, which were polluted by previous or surrounding industrial uses. It is important to note that the sites above are the most recently disturbed sites where significant excavation took place. It is suspected as more sites are excavated in the industrial and commercial conidors more polluted sites will be identified. Also, an area referred to as Duck Pond at the intersection of 30th Street and National City Boulevard was a former County of San Diego ("County") dumpsite, that suffers from methane gas discharge and ground sinking. It is likely there are more polluted sites in the Westside area, but as discussed above the CDC has only done environmental evaluation on sites where public buildings have been constructed. This is due to the CDC's very limited eminent domain authority outside of the Harbor District. Adoption of the 2005 Amendment will assist the CDC in facilitating development in these areas currently with limited eminent domain authority and provide a tool to expedite the cleanup of polluted sites as they are identified. The National City Fire Department ("Fire Department") in conjunction with the County issues permits for businesses handling hazardous materials ("Haz-Mat"). Currently, there are approximately 123 Haz-Mat permits in the City, with most of these being issued in the commercial and industrial corridors of the 2005 -Amendment area. Fire Department stiff believes the -number of actual hazardous materials users or businesses with Haz-Mat permits that do not list all of the hazardous materials used on site, is significantly higher than the 123 permits issued. During the 2004 calendar year, the Fire Department responded to 42 Haz-mat calls. Outdoor manufacturing is a primary cause of hazardous materials being released in the outside environment, particularly with automobile related businesses. Many auto body shops were observed to be doing grinding of parts and spraying of toxic materials outside. This practice sends these hazardous materials airbome, often to surrounding residents. When these contaminants settle to the ground they either soak into the soil or run into the storm drains as contaminated urban runoff. This runoff eventually finds its way into San Diego Bay. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 24 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Further, contributing to these conditions are some of the storage practices for chemicals and debris observed during the field survey. 46% of properties were found to have signs of garbage, debris, stagnant water and/or combustible materials on site. Outdoor storage while being unsightly is also dangerous as holding containers are subjected to weather elements and decompose more rapidly. Numerous substandard building additions were observed to be used for hazardous materials storage. Many of these sheds are made of plywood or canvass tarps that in and of themselves present a fire hazard, but when these substandard structures are combined with hazardous materials storage and usage, it become a significant environmental and fire hazard to the surrounding structures many of which are residential. Crime A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and welfare is a condition of economic blight. In order to assess the impact of crime within the Project Area, information regarding the incidence of violent and other serious property crime reported by the National City Police Department was analyzed. All police agencies in the County report their crime statistics to the Automated Regional Justice Information System ("ARJIS"), which is a regionally standardized system that enables comparison of the number of crimes reported by jurisdictions across the County. ARJIS reports to the same categories as the nationally recognized Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Crime Index. The Index includes four violent offenses (willful homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and three types of property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft). The offenses included in the FBI Index were selected due to their serious nature and/or volume, as well as the probability that these crimes will be reported to the police. Crime rates in Table B-3 were computed by occurrence per 1,000 population using current San Diego Association of Govemment population estimates. The regional crime rate based on ARJIS incorporates both local jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in the County. The 2004 County crime rate based upon ARJIS is 36.3 crimes per 1,000 population. The 2004 crime rate for the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego are 38.4 and 40.4 respectively. The 2004 crime rate in National City is 57.1 per 1,000 or 57% higher than the County average and 49% and 41 % higher than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego respectively. The table on the following page uses data from the 2004 calendar year for all jurisdictions with the overall crime totals for the City being higher in every category. Due to the reporting format, crime data for National City is city-wide, which is larger than the proposed 2005 Amendment area. It is important to note that the existing Project Area represents over 60% of the City's non-military/Port District land3 and the city-wide data represents a good comparison to evaluate crime in the Project Area. Military and Port District police patrol their properties and maintain their own crime data for these areas. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 25 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TABLE B-3 2004 CRIME RATES PER 1,000 PERSONS FOR NATIONAL CITY AND SELECTED LOCAL JURISDICTIONS City Murder Rape Robbery Aggv. Assault Total Burglary Total Larceny/ Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Total Crime National City 0.1 0.3 2.4 4.6 6.8 27.1 15.8 57.1 City of Chula Vista 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.2 5.7 19.2 9.6 38.4 City of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.3 3.6 5.6 19.4 10.0 40.4 County of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.2 3.1 5.8 18.0 7.9 36.3 Sources: ARJIS and SANDAG Note: Comparison crime rates are for calendar year 2004. These types of crime can negatively impact existing Project Area businesses, discouraging business investment and patronage. Crime represents an additional cost in conducting, retaining and attracting businesses to the commercial corridors of the Project Area. Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment Section 33321 of the Law states that a project area need not be restricted to buildings and properties that are detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. Areas cannot be included for the sole purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue but must have substantial justification that they are necessary for effective redevelopment. This Report documents that in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment there are parcels that do not exhibit blighting conditions but that they are interspersed with parcels that are blighted and necessitate inclusion in the 2005 Amendment area. The number of and severity of blighted parcels in the Project Area negatively affects the non -blighted parcels because of their appearance and proximity. In addition, there are certain types of blighting conditions that cannot be directly linked to a particular parcel such as substandard on -street parking, which is a cumulative factor. Given the overall condition of the Project Area and the economic status of both industrial and commercial property owners, it is clear that many of the parcels that do not exhibit significant blighting conditions now may do so over the life of the Project Area if nearby blighted parcels are not addressed. For example, if large- scale hotels on the Westside Area north of 9th Street were vacated due to worsening surrounding economic conditions, the resulting economic effect of such a large business closure would be severe to the Project Area because these hotels provide jobs to many in the surrounding community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 26 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL To spur economic development efforts, non -blighted parcels should be included in the 2005 Amendment area because the small parcel sizes further confounds revitalizing the area. Should the CDC attempt to assist new businesses in locating to the Project Area, parcel consolidation may be necessary. However, if all of the parcels in a section are not included in the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment it would severely impede the process and compromise the CDC's success. If only parcels that exhibited blighting conditions were included, the 2005 Amendment would be piecemeal. The CDC has already excluded many commercial and industrial properties at the southwest comer of 24th Street and National City Boulevard, commercial properties along portions of 30th Street and Plaza Boulevard and southem portions of National City Boulevard. The intention of the CDC through the 2005 Amendment is to facilitate rehabilitation programs that will cure health and safety issues and improving the appearance of the Project Area. Physical and Economic Burden on Community When evaluated in whole, the numerous physical and economic conditions described in this section of the Report are a serious physical and economic burden on the community. This burden cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise and/or existing govemmental authority, without the 2005 Amendment. A summary of the issues includes: • The documented presence of environmental contamination in the industrial corridors of the Project Area, causes safety hazards to area occupants and the cost of removal of these substances increases rehabilitation costs. These conditions are an economic burden on the community as property owners choose to maintain obsolete buildings on polluted sites, instead of pursuing new development which would likely require an expensive cleanup of pollutants. The 2005 Amendment will extend the CDC's eminent domain authority to provide another tool for the remediation of environmental pollutants through land acquisition where appropriate. • Many 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. These obsolete buildings attract lower commercial and industrial lease rates, which provide less revenue for property owners to make regular repairs and upgrades (such as electrical amperage and facade improvement). Without periodic maintenance, buildings become deteriorated or even dilapidated and higher maintenance costs are associated with older buildings. Buildings that are not upgraded as market needs change become less desirable to tenants for two reasons: 1) the buildings does not meet current market standards; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 27 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and 2) the costs associated with providing the necessary upgrades. This circle of disinvestment places a physical burden on the surrounding community as more properties forgo maintenance to maximize economic revenue. • The higher crime rates in the City/Project Area require more calls for service which increases municipal costs and creates an additional burden on community services as public resources are diverted to criminal apprehension. Crime also negatively impacts the lives of those working in or visiting the City/Project Area. • Incompatible adjacent uses typically require relocation or expensive upgrades to buildings, many of which are obsolete. The 2005 Amendment is the only viable method for the CDC to facilitate the relocation of incompatible uses to more appropriate sites. However, some properties owners may be reluctant to enter into relocation negotiations with the CDC and the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment can serve as an adjunct to initiate these discussion for the benefit of the community. • Response -based code enforcement is unable to address all of the health and safety code violations that exist in the commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area. The added municipal cost of code enforcement activity is also a burden on the community as municipal resources are diverted from other programs to address code violations. • Inadequate lot size compounds blighting conditions in the Project Area, as these parcels are not adequate area to accommodate the necessary parking and loading amenities, while maintaining safe access to the site. Redevelopment of the small sized parcels that predominate the Project Area is not economically viable for private development, which results in a lack of investment in new development that continues to negatively impacting the surrounding community. The establishment of eminent domain authoritywould provide another tool to assist the CDC in correction of these and other blighting conditions for the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. The private marketplace has not been successful in achieving the needed lot consolidations for new development due to limited number of property owners willing to enter into negotiations. The 2005 Amendment expands the pool of inadequately sized properties the CDC may acquire, thereby assembling more developable properties to reverse the escalating burden on the community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section C Five -Year Implementation Plan On June 14, 2005, the CDC adopted its current Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Project Area. The Implementation Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 33490 of the Law and contains speck 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 2005 Amendment. The Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the Law 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 29 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL n Section E The Method of Financing The method of financing redevelopment activities was provided in the Original Reports when the Project Area was adopted. The 2005 Amendment will not alter the Project Area boundaries, affect the base year value or change the proposed method of financing. Therefore the 2005 Amendment does not warrant that the method of financing be reviewed. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 30 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section F The Method of Relocation Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the Law require the CDC 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 The Law also requires a relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in said Project Area. In addition, the Law requires relocation assistance for commercial and industrial businesses displaced by redevelopment activities. The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of Relocation"), which 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 (Govemment 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 section 33411.1 of the Law. 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. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 31 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section G 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 2005 Amendment, additional analysis is not required. Section H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the Law 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 from the Planning Commission for the 2005 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21. 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 32 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 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 2005 Amendment specifically excludes properties that are used for residential purposes, and no projects or programs have been identified that will displace 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. Section J General Plan Conformance The 2005 Amendment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 2005 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 Govemment Code is not required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 33 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY 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 EIR 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 2005 Amendment, a Negative Declaration (Initial Study) was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed 2005 Amendment to establish eminent domain authority for new properties and extend eminent domain for some properties would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A copy of the Negative Declaration follows as Attachment 3. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 2005 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 section 33328 of the Law. Project Area fiscal information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2005 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY 34 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section M 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 2005 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 2005 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 not required or appropriate. Therefore, a summary of this report is not included. With regard to consultations, the taxing agencies received all notices regarding the 2005 amendment and they were invited to contact the CDC Executive Director regarding the 2005 Amendment. However, as of the date of this Report, no taxing agency has yet contacted the CDC. The 2005 Amendment does not affect the financing in any way nor does it change land uses or public improvement projects. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 35 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1- Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority as proposed by the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 36 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 1111/1111 111 !!IIII11 111 i tItIII/11. , 111111111111: 111.1111111 • Attachment 1 Westside Areas CITY OF SAN DIEGO 1141 Viee - =IIIIII111111III111111=61 1 IIII111111111111. II= 11/111111f11111q; 111112-111t11I• iIiII 111111111111: III1 . 1111111111111111 MA® num 1111111 .n� C- IN Ell �g.uuefR•••■ MORON LL1 11111 .. AEI 11111ANNUM ni:111. /1ir 1111111 i. National City Redevelopment Project Area Palm Ave J tt .. 8th Street Corridor :uuitlult 7rill 11 Plaza Blvd it 11111 1-`I nnn MINA Highland Ave CHULA VISTA Q Project Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 0 0.126 025 EjMunicipal Boundary 1---a 1-4 0.6 075 w«.. 1 Attachment 2 - Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority prior to the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 37- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 2 ri • CITY OF SAN DIEGO ,...M!11111111it.. 'sign optimum Finial mu oz.. i111121111ffiningt noun :Irmo= El— 1 1 Ii IU (=. .1111111 21111111N 111111111111. 11111111111M 1111112 1111111111 111111111C1 111111111M uIlIITuIIIIl 12 0: Ilia ilill 111111 TT.= Uiii at 1E1111111 111111Eli 11111 111111 hill hill mo El= !II! :111 c= -Rr0 .045 1I :10 11C 11111 .0.11 iui El= II mcnonst i. mutual 1 i..:10411.7::4:141111 ..... • /in Sits 4, 'WEige init%iiinme %V. rzik ir T Irr 1111111 I :111 11E. 2.1L. 511 Ell NIS 1 1 131 111 11111111101E! 11111111ilin 211 !In crrna 4.44/41,, •11,;„ • 402 ...... ....... Palm Ave 8th Street Corridor 1111 ..21: uIIII low: Ain 1111mop :Inc IF Ira! no 111 MOB Mi. 101111: =Mom. .111 imu 111 .• aki U =WE 21111111: 11111111r :11111111 4x1h. =.111111 111111111 :111111111 ..... mei -NtiL10111 •••1111, I nk Plaza Blvd E E I EtMID EE, 1:11111 Handl; Mum: votino == 115 Highland Ave 8.511. MN WIN 1•55 1.1. VAR gins imr •• • • •• kin nin min P 52= -- C =p.m. in :ram gg • • in ritilp • E low vi..4.4 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA VISTA kuuts• c. E. 1 IBM Thin 1111.11 1111 111E1111 HI!.! EN E1111%,„. 111111E1r 1.1 .... • • 111111411.11.!„,_ do. ‘1•111111111:IFIIIII.:1 111111 r..- r141 ••• 11111; :111 iiih :11 h!iUI�II 71 11 National City Redevelopment Project - Existing Eminent Domain Authority Project Area Boundary MI Existing Eminent Domain Authority 0 125 0.25 5-1 0_5 0.75 Alias C:3 Municipal Boundary Attachment 3 - Negative Declaration See attached Negative Declaration following this page. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 38 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study 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 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12ih Street, Suite B National City, Ca19195( Telephone (619) 336-4250 Fax (619) 336-4286 Project Contact: Oliver Mujica Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Location: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805 as shown in Figure 1. Project Description: The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission' authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single-family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 in the following areas: • Properties located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • Properties located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • Properties located immediately north and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • Properties west of Interstate 5, excepting the San Diego Unified Port District property. • Specific properties located immediately southwest of the intersection of Plaza Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2014. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in thi: 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 llllljllull 111111111111111M • Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN DIEGO I _1111. /A — -11111IV ..-Hisonma.• Ude IlUlIlIlUlIl El =Pink. err ea" aneeTrill Westside Areas National City Redevelopment Project Area INN Ana' i•Jilettlaz. "Zragiglifin Trak IIflflhIuuII tuIiiiiiiIiiI 1111111111111111111111,0 1111111M1111111111 Palm Ave 8th Street Corridor !n fi tMOM 1111111111M remiteli Plaza Blvd Highland Ave Project Area Boundary 11111 Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 o 0 125 0.25 Municipal Boundary CHULA VISTA 0 5 0.75 Mies her 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 ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils DETERMINA TION: On the basis of this evaluation: Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings 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 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? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? b) c) III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality substantially to an existing violation? implementation of the standard or contribute or projected air quality 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? TV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 O 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ ■ ■ ■ July 2004 Page 5 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 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? 0 ❑ ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 ❑ 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑❑ 0 ❑ b) iv) Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? ❑ 0 ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ 0 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or the site? ❑ 0 0 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 ❑ 0 I I. 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ u ■ 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? 0 0 0 ■ g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 ■ 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? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 0 ❑ 0 ■ 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? ❑ ❑ 0 • 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? 0 ❑ ❑ • 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? 0 ❑ 0 • b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ❑ 0 0 • c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 1 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ 0 • 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? ❑ 0 ❑ 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)? ❑ ❑ 0 1 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 ❑ 0 1 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 0 ■ ii) Police protection? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ iii) Schools? ❑ 0 0 ■ iv) Parks? 0 ❑ 0 ■ v) Other public facilities? ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 O ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ July 2004 Page 10 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ 0 TII. 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? 0 ❑ ❑ c) Would the project reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on the site or nearby property? ❑ ❑ ❑ XVIII. MANDATORY FINTDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ July 2004 Page I I 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 1. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Amendment indirectly could encourage development in the redevelopment project area . The National City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city; therefore, future development in the project area due indirectly to the adoption of the Amendment would not impact any scenic vista. The Amendment would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Amendment would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the redevelopment project. A section of National City Boulevard in the Mile of Cars section of National City is a state scenic highway. The city would require all development along this portion of National City Boulevard to comply with the appropriate state and city guidelines to protect a state scenic highway. Development that indirectly occurs in any other section of the project area would not damage or impact any trees, rocks, or historic buildings since none of these features exist. The Amendment would not have any significant scenic resource impacts. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the redevelopment project area and the surroundings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project area. Subsequent development in the project area due indirectly to the use of eminent domain as allowed by the Amendment could impact the existing visual character of a specific site and its surroundings. The Community Development Commission and/or City of National City would conduct subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the time projects are submitted for approval to determine if a project would have an impact on the visual character or quality of a specific site and its surroundings. If the city determines a project could impact the visual character of a site and/or its surroundings. changes or modifications would be required. The city adopted the National City Design Guidelines to assure that development is in harmony with the character and quality of the environment that the city finds desirable to foster. The purpose of the National City Design Guidelines Manual is to provide a "guide" to what the city considers appropriate, quality design, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Guidelines articulate the city's goals and basic design philosophy for quality development within the city limits and provide the framework for the design review process. The Guidelines are not specifications nor do they preclude alternatives or restrict imagination. Rather, Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 13 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 ar, applicable in accordance with the requirements for site plan review under Chapter 18.128 of the Code. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would require changes to projects to ensure that they do not degrade the visual character of a specific site or its surroundings. All projects would be required to meet the applicable guidelines in the National City Design Guidelines based on the project proposed. The Amendment would not degrade the visual character of the project area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The Amendment would not create any new sources of substantial light or glare and affect day or nighttime views in the redevelopment project area because development is not proposed directly in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create new sources of light or glare. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of development, light and/or glare could impact surrounding land uses. Nighttime lighting including safety and security lights, interior building lights, automobile headlights, etc. could impact surrounding development. Glare from windows and metal surfaces could also impact adjacent development. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all projects for potential light and glare impacts and require changes and modifications when necessary to reduce light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown or 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 farm ]and, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use since none exist. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality, plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not directly propose any public or private development projects that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan(s). City of National City Design Guidelines, February 1991, Amended by Resolution No. 96-19, February 6, 1996, page 1-1. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 14 National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could encourage new development. Depending upon the type and density of development, project air emissions could impact and obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all development projects for potential impacts to air quality plans and require project changes or modifications to ensure compliance. The Amendment would not directly impact the implementation of any air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The Amendment would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing projected air quality violation. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of new development the project air emissions could violate an air quality standard or standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all future projects for potential violations to existing air quality standards such as exceeding air emission thresholds during either project construction or the life of the project. If a project is expected to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation specific measures would be required to be incorporated into the project to reduce air emissions in compliance with air quality standards in force at that time. The Amendment would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation, including ozone. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 only and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is non -attainment. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development that is constructed. the Amendment could cumulatively add criteria pollutants that are non -attainment in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, including ozone. The air emissions generated by future development due indirectly to the Amendment could contribute emissions to the air basin that are cumulative and further non -attainment of ozone. The Community Development Commission and/or city would review all projects for potential impacts to criteria pollutants and require the use of all applicable pollution control measures as applicable to control emissions to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly impact criteria pollutants for which the San Diego Air Pollution Control District is non -attainment, including ozone. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 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 dose 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 California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications to any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would impact plant or wildlife species. The property in the project area is most developed and urbanized. Due to the lack of suitable habitat there are not any candidate plant or wildlife species that would be impacted if development occurs indirectly due to the Amendment. There are no habitat conservation plans associated with any property in the project area. The Amendment would not have any biological resource impacts directly or indirectly because there are no biological resources in the project area that can be impacted. b) Have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Have substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1/44000, 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 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. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely impact a historical resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical buildings. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. Hit 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 §I5064.5. The Amendment would not impact archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Amendment would not destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any paleontological resources in the city, including the project area. The Amendment would not impact paleontological resources. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 17 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 July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 18 Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 for commercial and industrial property and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause or be impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Residents, employees, and buildings would not be exposed to any greater degree of ground shaking with the adoption of the Amendment than currently exists. All projects, independently of the use of eminent domain, must provide applicable earthquake construction measures and hardware as required by the Uniform Building Code to reduce ground -shaking impacts. The Amendment would not change the exposure of people and buildings to seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause ground -failure, such as liquefaction. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the location a project could be impacted by liquefaction or other seismic — related ground failures. However, whether or not development is impacted by liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure is not dependent upon the use of eminent domain. The use of eminent domain to would not change the exposure of a project to liquefaction or any other type of ground failure. Geotechnical reports would be prepared for individual projects to determine if they would be exposed to seismic -related ground failures. If a site is subject to liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure, measures would be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to mitigate the impact. The Amendment would not have any seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause any landslides or expose people or property to landslides because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or be exposed to landslides. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. There are no large hillside areas within or adjacent to the project areas that could impact development. Therefore, landslides would not impact development and the Amendment would not have any landslide impacts. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development of projects could result in soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs and proper measures to reduce soil erosion are not implemented and Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 soi' erosion protection measures such as soil binders are not used. The incorporation of all applicable soil erosion. „.1 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 soi' because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place development on expansive soil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development within the project area. Although the National City General Plan does not identify any expansive soil, there could be some isolated areas where expansive soil exists. A geotechnical report would be submitted to the city along with grading and building plans for each project to address whether or not the project would be impacted by expansive soil. if expansive soil exists the geotechnical report would identify the measures that could be implemented to correct the condition to allow safe development. The Amendment would not impact or be impacted by expansive soil. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Amendment would not require the use of septic tanks because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would use septic tanks. The City of National City requires all development to connect to the public sewer system and does not allow the use of septic tanks. The Amendment would not change the requirement by the city for development to connect to the public sewer system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The development of projects could include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, depending upon the project. The city would review all future projects for potential hazards and the projects that generate or use hazardous materials would be required by the city would require each project to meet all applicable laws and regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the transport and use of hazardous materials would minimize hazards to the public and the environment to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not have any hazardous impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. They're no sites in the redevelopment project area that are listed as a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Amendment would not have any direct or indirect impacts with regards to listed hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The redevelopment project area is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project area is the San Diego International Airport, which is approximately seven miles northwest of National City. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. 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. Crease a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 21 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 installer 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 22 �J The Sweetwater Authority provides water service to National City and obtains most of its water supply from the Colorado River. It does, however, obtain some of its water supply from local wells. Development that reduces the amount of permeable soil available for rainfall to recharge the local groundwater could impact the Sweetwater Authority's water supply. However, the Amendment itself would not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of any property or result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially alter existing drainage patterns. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could require the existing drainage pattern of some sites to be modified that could alter existing drainage patterns. The city would review the grading plans of projects for potential erosion and siltation impacts due to modifications or changes to the existing drainage patterns. If existing drainage patterns are altered that could result in substantial erosion or siltation impacts on or off the site the city would require changes and the incorporation of measures to reduce erosion impacts. The Amendment would not impact drainage patterns or cause substantial erosion or siltation impacts. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. Please see the response to c) above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Amendment would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects the could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Indirectly. the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could generate quantities of runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As stated in response a) above, all applicable projects would be required to install and maintain proper measures to reduce the amount of sediments and other potential sources of surface water pollution. The development of property that is currently vacant or underdeveloped could generate quantities of surface water runoff and impact the local or regional storm drain system. The generation of surface water beyond the capacity of the storm drain system could significantly impact the storm drain system. The city would review all projects to determine if the existing system has capacity to handle the surface water flows or if upgrades are required. The Amendment itself would not impact the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems. 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'h 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 20]4 and does not propose public or private development projects that would place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are areas located in a 100-year flood zone, thus it is possible that future development could be placed in a 100- year flood hazard. The city would review all development proposals for potential flood hazards and require proper protection from flooding for those structures constructed in a flood hazard area. The Amendment would not directly have any flood hazard impacts. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project area is not located in a dam inundation area and there are no levees that could break and flood properties in the project areas. The Amendment would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding due to the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? No Impact. There are no large bodies of water either located within or adjacent to the project area that could impact a project due to a seiche. While there are a few areas in National City with hillsides, there are no areas that are known to have mudflows and could impact development. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could be inundated by a seiche or mudflow. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment would not expose people or property to inundation or impacts by a seiche because there are no large bodies of water that could impact development. The areas in National City where hillsides do exist are not large enough in area to have mudflows that could impact development. The Amendment would not impact any development due to inundation by a seiche or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Amendment would not physically divide an established community because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could physically divide an established community. (' Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 24 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development must be consistent with and comply with the National City General Plan, which does not allow development to divide an established community. The proposed Amendments would not directly or indirectly divide an established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over development in the project area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with a land use plans, policies or regulations. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could conflict with the land use adopted by the general plan, a specific plan or the city's development code. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the adopted plans and codes and changes or revisions would be require if necessary to comply with the applicable plans and codes. The Amendment itself would not directly impact or conflict with any adopted land use plans or codes. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with that adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The city does not have any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. However, there are areas in close proximity to the project area with habitat and wildlife resources that are protected and development could impact the resources. The city would review projects for potential conflicts with these known wildlife resource areas and require measures to protect the resources when necessary. Since no development is directly proposed with the Amendment, no impacts due to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans would occur. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value 10 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 of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could expose persons to or generate noise in excess of standards established by the National City General Plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could expose residents or employees to noise levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance or projects could generate noise levels that exceed the city's allowable noise levels. The city would review all development proposals for noise impacts and require changes or modifications accordingly to ensure compliance with the city's noise standards. The Amendment would not have any noise impacts by exposing people to levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance. b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects and would not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or noise levels. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could expose people to ground vibrations and impact them. The city would review all development" plans for potential ground borne vibrations and require project changes or modifications accordingly to reduce vibration impacts. The Amendment would not have any direct ground borne vibration impacts. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could increase existing noise levels above existing levels and result in a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise. The city would review development proposals potential for noise level increases that could substantially increase existing noise levels and impact residents or employees. 1f 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. a Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 26 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels above existing levels. Temporary or periodic noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment could occur during project construction and impact surrounding land uses. The city would review development proposals at the time they are submitted for approval for potential temporary or short-term noise level increases that could impact surrounding land uses and require changes to reduce noise impacts. The Amendment would not directly result in substantial temporary noise level increases. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project areas associated with the Amendment are not located in an adopted airport land use plan. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to the project areas and is located approximately seven miles northwest of National City. The project would not expose people to excessive noise Levels at an airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project would not induce a substantial population growth directly because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could induce substantial population growth. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could induce a substantial population growth depending upon the type of development, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The city would review development proposals for population growth impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. If projects would induce substantial population increases the city would determine at that time if an increase would be substantial and the impact the growth could have on the environment. The Amendment would not have a substantial population growth impact since no development is proposed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not displace a substantial number of houses requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could displace existing housing. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. The Amendment excludes using eminent domain for residential purposes. Therefore, the Amendment could not use eminent domain authority to acquire residential property resulting in the demolition of existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please see the response to b) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 27 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact fire protection services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for new fire stations and other facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on fire protection services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the fire departments ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans, conducting fire inspections in buildings, etc. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development and includes fire protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as fire protection to serve new development The fee can be used to construct new fire protection facilities, expand existing fire facilities, purchase fire trucks.,,, fire equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area due indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on the fire department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to fire protection services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. ii) Police protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact police services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for police protection services and facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on police services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the police department's ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development, including police protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as police protection. The fee can be used to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 28 construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts to the police department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to police services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. iii) Schools? No Impact. The project would not impact schools because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact schools. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The proposed Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial land uses and not residential. Although commercial and industrial development does generate students, the generation rate is much lower than residential. The number of students that would be generated by commercial or industrial development would be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of schools serving the project area. The two school districts, National City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that serve National City collect school impact fees from development as allowed by state law. The school impact fee is used by both school districts to provide classroom space for students. New commercial and industrial development would be required to pay school impact fees as applicable, which would be used to provide additional classroom space for students. The proposed Amendment would not impact area schools since development is not directly proposed at this time. iv) Parks? No Impact. The project would not impact city parks because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact parks. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities or increase the use of existing park facilities in National City. The city strives to maintain or expand the current (1996) ratio of park and open space land to population, which is 43/4 acres per 1000 residents (including Local parks, public -owned wetlands, golf courses. and school recreational facilities). The Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial development and not residential. The Amendment would not indirectly result in the development of residential uses, which typically increases the population and generates the need for park and recreational facilities. While commercial and industrial development may incrementally increase the need for parks, that need would be minimal and is not expected to impact existing facilities. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services and parks. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as park facilities to serve new development. The fee can be used to purchase parkland and provide park facilities. The fee cannot be use for labor. payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to al] 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 (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could increase traffic. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic with a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on area roads, or congestion at intersections. Additional development could impact the street system in the project area as well as the street system outside the project area. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development including the circulation system. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as street improvement to serve new development. The fee can be used to widen streets, construct needed intersection improvements, purchase and install traffic signals, restripe roadways, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts by development to circulation facilities throughout the project area as well as the city. The Amendment would not have any impacts to the circulation systems since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management commission for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion commission for designated roads or highways because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could exceed individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the county. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic, which could exceed the level of service standard for roads in National City. Depending upon the type and location of projects the traffic could significantly impact the circulation system so that service levels are unacceptable. The city would review all development projects for potential traffic and circulation impacts to roadways. When necessary to meet acceptable service levels, a project may be required to construct street improvements or provide other measures to ensure acceptable levels of service. The proposed Amendment would not exceed the level of service of any roads or highways because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to National City and is located approximately seven miles northwest of the city. The Amendment would not impact air traffic patterns at the San Diego International Airport or any other airport in the area. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 30 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially increase hazards due to design features. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could require new design features for traffic to flow properly, which could increase hazards and impact traffic and circulation. The city would review all future development proposals for potential impacts associated with street design, including sharp curves and roadway intersections that could impact traffic flow and safety. When necessary, the city would require project changes or modifications to provide safe circulation features, including curves and intersections. Because development is not proposed by the Amendment, no circulation impacts would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project would not provide any inadequate emergency access because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not proposed public or private development projects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city along with the police and fire departments would review all development proposals for adequate emergency access. Projects would be required to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Amendment would not have any emergency access impacts because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. e) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The project would not result in any inadequate parking capacity because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in inadequate parking capacity. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city would review development proposals to ensure that adequate parking capacity is provided in compliance with the city's parking code. Since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment the project would not have any parking capacity impacts. ,l) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city has adopted policies requiring projects to provide alternative forms of transportation, including bus turnouts and bicycle racks when applicable. The city would review development proposals to ensure that bus turnouts and/or bicycle racks are provided as required. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 31 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 are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would have a need for potable water. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate a need for potable water for drinking, landscape irrigation, and fire flow. Depending upon the type and intensity of development the existing water supplies may not be adequate to provide a sufficient water supply for a project. The city along with the Sweetwater Authority would review all development proposals to determine if there is a sufficient supply of water or if additional water supplies would be required. As applicable, all projects would be required to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. The Amendment would not have any water supply impacts since development is not proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Amendment would not exceed wastewater treatment capacity of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would be treated by the Point Lorna treatment plant. The wastewater would not impact the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and its ability to provide wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallons of wastewater per day to the South Metro Interceptor Sewer. Flows in National City as of August 2003 were 5.67 million gallons per day, which allows capacity for additional wastewater flows by future development without requiring the San Diego Wastewater Department to increase or expand the capacity of any trunk lines or the Point Loma treatment plant. f) 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, stale, 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 of probable future projects.) No l Impact. The project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 34 only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could have adverse environmental effects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to humans and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 35 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B California Environmental Quality Act National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 2004/2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan - Negative Declaration A. INTRODUCTION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain ("2004 Amendment"). The Community Development Commission prepared the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority over all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20), regardless of their zoning designation, the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017. Properties that are currently being used for residential purposes would continue to be excluded from eminent domain. The Community Development Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur by amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received on the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment during the public review period. The community raised many issues and concerns during the public review and public hearing process for the proposed 2004 Amendment. Due to the community's concerns and public testimony, the Community Development Commission has subsequently reduced the geographic areas that could be subject to the authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area to those areas that are now referred to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors. The commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area that would now subject to the use of eminent domain are shown on the attached map. Additionally, the Community Development Commission reduced thenumberof years to extenditseminent domainauthorityfrom twelve (12) years to ten (10) years until 2015. The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, which reflects the stated changes. B. CEQA PROVISIONS As stated above, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed 2005 Amendment does not require the recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) which states: "Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: ...(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects." Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and Community Development Commission due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain for the originally proposed 2004 Amendment. The Negative Declaration also adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the currently proposed 2005 Amendment due to the fact that no new avoidable significant effects would occur. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06-09-2005 16:17 From-SP2, INC. 9495600928 T-694 P.002/004 F-588 California Environmental Quality Act Addendum — Negative Declaration Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 A. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 126 Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Contact: Oliver Mujica Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 Project Location: Project Description: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single- family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2015. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in is Amendment. Prepared By: �C �� Date: Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Fminent Domain (1R/f111/9r1(15 TN71 1R•9n 1 inn 9•) 1 f2inn9 06-09-2005 15:17 from-SP2, INC. 5496600520 T-694 P.003/004 F-586 B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (the "CDC") prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received to the Negative Declaration during the public review period. The Negative Declaration evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur with amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain for commercial and industrial properties west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission has since reduced the commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain to specific areas due to concerns raised lby the community during the public hearing process. Thus, the Community Development Commission has restricted the use of eminent domain to those commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area as shown on the attached map. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain as proposed last year. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the authority to use eminent domain for the reduced number of commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area. The reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties that are subject to the use of eminent domain does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration complies with the California Environmental Quality Act in its analysis of the reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain as shown in the attached map. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain O6/09/2015 T1111 16.20 1.1011 NO. 6.5221 On04 Appendix A CRL Section 33030 and 33031 The CRL sets forth specific parameters that define blight. According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area contains both of the following: 1. An area that is predominantly urbanized and is an area in which the combination of physical and economic blighting conditions is so prevalent and substantial that it causes "a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or govemmental action, or both, without redevelopment" (CRL Section 33030(b)(1)). 2. An area that is characterized by either physical blight and economic blight or the "existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership" (CRL Sections 33030(b)(2) and 33031(a)(4)). Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. The characteristics of both physical and economic blight, as defined above, are present throughout the Project Area. The characteristics of physical blight include deteriorated and dilapidated structures, lots/buildings suffering from defective design, substandard design, and lots of inadequate size, and incompatible uses. The characteristics of economic blight include low lease rates, depreciated property values, impaired investments, low per capita retail sales tax, and crime, all of which are indicative of declining market conditions. These blighting conditions are detrimental to surrounding uses and the community. CRL Section 33031(a) describes the following physical conditions that constitute blight: 1. Lots/buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; examples of these conditions include: a. Dilapidated and deteriorated buildings. b. Lots/buildings suffering from defective design or physical construction. c. Lots/buildings suffering from faulty or inadequate utilities. d. Serious building code violations. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP. INC. JUNE 21. 2005 APPENDIX A-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots; examples of these conditions include: a. Lots/buildings suffering from substandard design. b. Lots/buildings of inadequate size, given present standards and market conditions. c. Lack of available parking. 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape, inadequate size for proper usefulness and development, and that are in multiple ownership. ECONOMIC BLIGHT CRL Section 33031(b) describes the following economic conditions that constitute blight: 1. Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments. This condition includes the presence of hazardous waste. 2. Stagnant or declining market conditions; examples of this include: a. Abnormally high business vacancies. b. Abnormally low lease rates. c. High turnover rates. d. Abandoned buildings. e. Excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban uses and served by utilities. 3. A lack of necessary commercial facilities such as those normally found in neighborhoods including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 4. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 5. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix B Data Source List 1. Land use survey performed by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (March through May 2005). 2. San Diego County Assessor's parcel maps and assessed value data provided by Metroscan data service (2003-04 and 2004-05). 3. California Health and Safety Code including Sections 17920.3, 33030 and 33031. 4. Automated Regional Justice Information System from the San Diego Association of Governments, 2004 calendar year. 5. Data from the City of National City a. Code enforcement violations b. Hazardous Materials — Fire Department c. Traffic — Police Department d. City of National City Fire Department — 2004 Annual Report e. 1999-2000 Survey of Underage Drinking and Perceptions of Alcohol in National City. 6. How Buildings Learn, What Happens After They're Built. Stewart Brand, Penguin Books, (1994). 7. Local realtors and shopping center managers provided information, vacancy rates and lease rates (Spring 2005). 8. Environmental Protection Agency web site article, Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. 9. Environmental Hazardous Site — Environmental Protection Agency — Brownfields Grant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX 8-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix C Photo Survey The following is a photographic depiction of some of the conditions observed from properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: Parcel Number — 562 330 24 On four separate occasions at least 12 semi -trailers related to the same business were observed using the street as long-term storage for trailers and materials. This is an example of inadequate lot size as the operator does not have sufficient on -site storage for materials and trailers. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 559 117 05 The loading area for this industrial building is inadequate to accommodate larger delivery vehicles such as the one pictured. This creates access issues for the other vehicles seeking to enter and exit the area. Parcel Number — 559 072 07 Residential building between two industrial uses is incompatible for both residential occupants and industrial uses as there are no buffers between the two. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 063 07 This obsolete motel has been the site of various criminal activity and as revenue has declined the owner has been cited for illegally converting short-term rooms to long-term apartments. Parcel — 560141 05 Outdoor welding under canvas tarp is a fire hazard as well as detracts from surrounding uses. Industrial sites with inadequate building sizes resort to substandard outdoor manufacturing as there are no other on -site altematives. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21. 2005 APPENDIX C-3 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel— 555111 08 Across the street from this residence are multiple industrial buildings with inadequate parking as shown in the picture below. This lack off -site parking forces residents to illegally park their vehicles on already crowded streets. Parcel— 555 112 09 This property cannot accommodate the number of cars seeking repairs as well as parking for employees. Business such as this adversely effect on street parking for residents and reduce vehicle site lines at intersections. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C4 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 202 09 The business where this vehicle is waiting to be repaired is stored with five other vehicles on the street. This practice is common throughout the Project Area and contributes to the overall crowded street conditions. Parcel Number — 562 251 36 This site suffers from environmental contamination and cannot be built upon for the foreseeable future. Storage activities are the only usage this site is able to maintain until the pollution subsides and the ground stops sinking. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-5 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 556 354 10 This site is one of several on Highland Avenue that are vacant or are used for storage instead of typical commercial activity. As the site only has on -street parking it reduces the types of businesses that might occupy the site. The owner was cited for attempting to illegally convert the building to residential units. Parcel Number — 559 105 01 Substandard construction was used to connect this residential building to the industrial building and is a fire hazard to both structures. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-6 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 560 202 01 This site and building are obsolete for the business operating out of it. Substandard building materials such as corrugated metal flex during an earthquake or fire and compromise the structural integrity of buildings. Parcel Number — 563 370 43 This former grocery store has been vacant for over 2 years and detracts from the surrounding businesses who have to survive without an anchor tenant. ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-7 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 559 125 16 This residential building next to a manufacturing facility represents an incompatible use. This property shows how residential buildings are less likely to be maintained as surrounding incompatible uses detract from the rent these properties might realize. Parcel Number — 559 010 04 If companies cannot find a consolidated site for operations they use nearby sites and have to transport goods between the areas. This is an unsafe condition for other vehicles as well as the driver of the forklift ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-8 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY June 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 TO: CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS FROM: BENJAMIN MARTINEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VIA: BYRON ESTES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT ff- SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-67: RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Recommendation: If no written objections have been submitted by the public, Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005-67 of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City approving the 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan. Fiscal Impact: There will be no fiscal impact to the National City General Budget as a result of these actions. Background: On September 21, 2004, during a Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission, the proposed Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan was first introduced. At that time, the proposal was to extend the eminent domain authority over the entire Project Area for an additional twelve (12) years until 2017. A series on Joint Public Hearings, meetings and workshops were conducted in order to provide an opportunity for Community Development Commission staff presentations and public testimony. Upon the conclusion of the discussion on February 22, 2005, the consideration on the proposed 2004 Amendment was continued to March 22, 2005, in order to allow Community Development Commission staff the opportunity to adjust the eminent domain boundaries, and reduce the number of years that the eminent Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 3 June 21, 2005 Page 1 of 5 domain authority would be extended. Prior to the meeting of March 22, 2004, the City Attorney identified a recent court decision relating to Redevelopment Amendments involving eminent domain authority. Thus, as a precautionary measure, the matter was closed in order to allow Community Development Commission staff to work in collaboration with the Redevelopment consultants to prepare a Blight Analysis to accompany the newly proposed 2005 Amendment. Environmental Impact: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study (environmental review checklist) and Negative Declaration was prepared for the previously 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. Upon the completion of the revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment which resulted in what is now being referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission evaluated the Negative Declaration in which a determination was made that the removal of the residential areas from the scope of the proposed 2005 Amendment and limiting the eminent domain authority to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the Project Area does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. Thus, based on the smaller Project Area, the authority to use eminent domain within the smaller geographic areas of the Project Area would not have any significant environmental impacts. There are no environmental impacts associated with the smaller Project Area that are not addressed in the Negative Declaration for the original 2004 Amendment. A copy of the Negative Declaration and Initial Study, as well as the recent environment determination, is included in Section K of the attached Community Development Commission's Report to the City Council. Prior to approving the proposed 2005 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. Summar The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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 what is now referred to as the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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 Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 3 June 21, 2005 Page 2 of 5 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 2005 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 2005 Amendment: The proposed 2005 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015." Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 3 June 21, 2005 Page 3 of 5 The proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan would be approved by the adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council. 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 2005 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 2005 Amendment, the Community Development Commission must approve the Report and authorize its transmittal to the City Council by adopting a Resolution. 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 2005 Amendment. Accordingly, on May 3, 2005, both the Community Development Commission and the City Council adopted their respective Resolutions authorizing Community Development Commission staff to establish June 21, 2005 as the date for a Joint Public Hearing to consider the proposed 2005 Amendment. Notices were transmitted via first class mail to all property and business owners, and residential owners and tenants within the entire 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 (3) consecutive weeks prior to the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission. Accordingly, the Joint Public Hearing Notice was published in the National City Star News on June 3rd 10th and 17th, 2005. The Law provides that the Community Development Commission and City Council may only consider action on the proposed 2005 Amendment after any written objections to the proposed 2005 Amendment are answered in writing. To date, written objections have not been submitted. Should any written objections be submitted during the Joint Public Hearing, Community Development Commission staff and the redevelopment consultants will prepare the appropriate written responses. If no written objections are submitted, then Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission and City Council consider the recommended actions. Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 3 June 21, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Conclusion: During the Joint Public Hearing, Community Development Commission staff will provide a presentation to summarize the proposed 2005 Amendment. With this, Community Development Commission staff recommends that the Community Development Commission Board conduct the Joint Public Hearing and consider the adoption of the attached Resolution approving the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan and recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2005 Amendment. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1 — Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney Exhibit 2 — Resolution No. 2005-67 Exhibit 3 — Report to the City Council Community Development Commission Agenda Item No. 3 June 21, 2005 Page 5 of 5 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 lnzunza, Councilman Parra and Councilwoman Zarate are located in the redevelopment project area. Additionally, Mayor Inzunza 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 EXHIBIT 1 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 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 Tess 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-67 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City is a redevelopment agency (a public body, corporate and politic) duly created, established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers, all under and pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 of Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California); and, WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan") was originally adopted on November 18, 1969, June 24, 1975, April 13, 1976, and December 13, 1977, and subsequently amended on December 1, 1981, May 22, 1984, April 16, 1985, June 18, 1991, June 18, 1995, and June 12, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission has undertaken an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to establish 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area, said amendment would not modify the boundaries of the National City Redevelopment Project Area or any other provision of the Redevelopment Plan; and, WHEREAS, specifically excluded from eminent domain authority are all properties that are used for residential purposes; and, WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the Community Development Commission and City Council held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed 2005 Amendment, and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Community Development Commission of the City of National City as follows: Section 1. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and this Community Development Commission so finds and determines. Section 2. The Community Development Commission hereby approves the text amendments to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"), as presented in Attachment "A" attached hereto, and recommends that the City Council of the City of National City adopt the proposed 2005 Amendment. // // // EXHIBIT 2 // // // // PASSED And ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2005. Nick Inzunza, Chairman ATTEST: Benjamin Martinez, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III, City -CDC Attorney ATTACHMENT A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT MODIFICATIONS 2005 AMENDMENT The 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan deletes the following language indicated by the strikethrough text: Pursuant to Section 603 of this Plan, • All paroolc IoGatod immodiatoly oast and adjaGont to National City Boulovard, • All parcolc locatod immodiatoly woct and adjacont to National City Roulovard, botwoon Divicion Stroot and Stato Routo-b1. • All parsolc locatod immodiatoly north and couth and adjacont to 8th Stroot, botwoon „„ Iecatod immodiat Avenue. Addod Aroa (ac dofinod ' ' All proporty in tho Addod Aroa, oxcopting tho San Diogo Unifiod Port Dictrict proporty. ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, The 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan substitutes the following language: Pursuant to Section 603 of this Plan, 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 ten (10) years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015. 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan Report to the cfty Counc.I June 21, 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 EXHIBIT 3 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Plan Amendment 2 Contents of this Report 3 Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific 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 6 Study Approach and Methodology 6 Physical Blighting Conditions 9 Figure B - 1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations 18 Economic Conditions that Cause Blight 20 Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment 26 Physical and Economic Burden on Community 27 Five -Year Implementation Plan 29 Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Altematives Other Than Tax Increment 29 The Method of Financing 30 The Method of Relocation 31 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan 32 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission 32 Report of the Project Area Committee 33 General Plan Conformance 33 Environmental Documentation 34 Report of the County Fiscal Officer 34 Neighborhood Impact Report 35 A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies 35 Attachment 1 — Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain 36 Attachment 2 — Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain 37 Attachment 3 — Negative Declaration 38 Appendices Appendix A - Data Source List Appendix A-1 Appendix B - Law Section 33030 and 33031 Appendix B-1 Appendix C - Photo Survey Appendix C-1 Tables Table B-1 - Summary of Blighting Conditions 10 Table B-2 - Monthly Lease Rate Comparisons Spring 2005 21 Table B-3 - 2004 Crime Rates Per 1,000 Persons For National City and Selected Local Jurisdictions 26 Introduction • Introduction The Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is processing an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). This is being done to facilitate commercial and industrial revitalization and to 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 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. Attachment 1 presents a map of the Project Area boundaries with the proposed commercial and industrial corridors that would be subject to eminent domain authority, if the 2005 Amendment is adopted. 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. Attachment 2 identifies the portions of the Project Area currently subject to eminent domain authority. These properties were identified in 1995 and 2001 on the basis that they could be needed to facilitate commercial revitalization projects through land assembly and parcel consolidation. It is important to note that most properties (over 80%) in the Project Area are currently exempt from eminent domain authority. 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 commercial and industrial properties need to be subject to eminent domain. Projects requiring land assembly in non -eminent domain areas were not developed and the blighting conditions remaining on these properties have not been cured in most instances. This document is the CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") for the proposed 2005 Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the Califomia Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the Report provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the City Council of National City with their consideration of the 2005 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 ' Dated June 13,1995 and June 19, 2001 respectively. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and subsequent amendments; the Original Reports are incorporated herein by reference. Plan Amendment The proposed 2005 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2005 Amendment. The proposed text modification is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and 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 10 years2 from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33457.1 of the Law dictates the required components of this Report. More specifically, Section 33457.1 states that the report and information required by Section 33352 is the only the report and information warranted by the 2005 Amendment. Much of the information normally required that pertains to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports. 2 The Law allows commissions to establish eminent domain authority for up to 12 years. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Altematives 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 SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section A Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area The CDC seeks to amend the Plan by extending the CDC's eminent domain authority (subject to all required procedures under California law) to potentially acquire properties identified in Attachment 1, 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The 2005 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 2005 Amendment in order to expand its ability to assemble sites, thereby facilitating commercial, industrial and residential redevelopment projects in the Project Area. The CDC adopted the 1995 Redevelopment Plan authorizing the current limited eminent domain authority. The 1995 Report to the City Council ("1995 Report") cited socioeconomic conditions such as low median household income, high unemployment, high proportion of residential tenants versus home owners and low residential rents as blighting factors. The 1995 Report also discussed the mixture of land uses many of which are incompatible and/or obsolete as well as small parcel sizes and limited public infrastructure as additional blighting conditions. To facilitate the elimination of the above blighting conditions the CDC has initiated public right-of-way improvements, specific plans for development and environmental remediation of toxic sites over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. The CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of these properties continue to be neglected 10 years later. Adopting the 2005 Amendment will expand the scope of the Plan's eminent domain authority and afford the CDC one additional tool to eliminate blight in the ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project Area, through the facilitation of land assemblage activities within the areas identified in Attachment 1. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 5 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section B 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. However, additional blight documentation is required when eminent domain authority is established for new properties. As the 2005 Amendment expands the CDC's eminent domain authority to additional properties within the existing Project Area, a re -substantiation of blight for these new properties is required. Sections 33030-33031 of the Law (Appendix A) define the specific physical, economic and social conditions of blight that must exist within a redevelopment project area for adoption of the 2005 Amendment. The following section discusses each of the factors contributing to blight, as defined by the Law and is discussed and statistically documented. To that end, the CDC's consultant surveyed the properties presented on Attachment 1 and identified at least one blighting condition for 86% of properties. The survey was conducted on a parcel basis from March through May of 2005. Study Approach and Methodology Several data sources were utilized to quantify existing conditions in the Project Area. A complete listing is included as Appendix B. An important data source for evaluating the existence and prevalence of conditions that characterize blight in the Project Area was the field survey conducted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., consultants to the CDC, from March through May of 2005. The survey documented existing physical and economic conditions of each parcel in the Project Area. Both physical and economic indicators were observed during the field survey, including inadequate lot size, defective/substandard design, impaired investments, substandard building materials, inadequate parking and access, deterioration and dilapidation, faulty additions, incompatible uses, poor handling of hazardous materials and unsafe traffic conditions. Surveyors' Qualifications The lead surveyor, David Parsons, has a masters' degree in City Planning and Public Administration and has worked in local government for 3 years. At his previous position, Mr. Parsons worked in the Planning Department as a liaison to the Code Compliance Department and the neighborhood revitalization task force. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL He assisted property owners with their housing rehabilitation projects, including determining zoning compliance. Mr. Parsons has worked with RSG nearly two years, principally assisting in the amendment and adoption of redevelopment project areas as well as other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area amendment projects in the cities of Carlsbad, National City, Pinole, Poway and San Diego. Assistant to the lead surveyor, Walt Lauderdale holds a bachelors of Science degree in urban and regional planning and has worked in the field of community development and land use planning for nearly eleven years. Mr. Lauderdale has worked with RSG for over 3 years and has assisted in plan adoption and amendment activities of redevelopment project areas in addition to other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area adoption or amendment projects in communities such as South Central Los Angeles, Los Angeles Mid - City, the Watts area of Los Angeles and the Crossroads and Grantville areas of San Diego. Based upon initial reconnaissance, RSG prepares and refines a survey instrument for each project area. Each parcel has its own survey sheet and is identified by parcel numbers using county parcel maps. The survey forms include physical blighting conditions as prescribed by section 33031(a) of the Law, and economic blighting conditions listed in section 33031(b) of the Law, which are amenable to a visual survey. The survey forms contain consistent, educated assessments regarding the condition of parcels in the Project Area. The land use survey results in a nominal assessment of whether a condition is "present" or "not present." RSG acknowledges that different degrees of deterioration or deficiencies are present in each parcel. RSG staff at a minimum cites a condition as present if a reasonable person, shown the condition, could see the damage. In most circumstances, this deterioration was visible from the right-of-way (streets or alleys). In the commercial and industrial properties inspectors may have viewed properties from parking lots or driveways. The following list describes the condition(s) that are present when a property/parcel is designated as having physical deficits. Deterioration/Dilapidation Broken/deteriorated roofing material • Describes broken and wom shingles • Tarped roofs that presumably are leaking • Roofing materials that are approaching the end of their useful life Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing • Describes wood rot deterioration • Likely insect infestation causing damage • Physical damage from age or unknown causes Damaged building materials • Describes voids in building materials • Significant cracking ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Crumbling materials Exposed wiring • Signifies electrical wiring either strung or dangling from buildings. • Describes excessive exterior conduit on outer walls from multiple additions • The presence of extension cords protruding from windows/doors, appearing to supply indoor or outdoor electrical power Broken window/door • Indicates a broken or cracked window • Describes exterior doors including garage doors with voids or severely damaged wood Structural damage of roof, foundation or walls • A visual bow or curve in the roof • Crooked roof • Significant cracking about the foundation (not cracked stucco) Substandard exterior plumbing • Describes piping usually attached to the exterior of a structure that appears to not meet current code requirements Faulty weather protection - lack of paint • Indicates instances where areas of buildings lack paint or color coat or paint is peeling Defective Desion Inadequate vehicle access • Driveways that do not allow two vehicles to pass • Curves or tums in driveways that prevent seeing on -coming traffic Substandard exterior building materials • Structures built with tin, corrugated metal, plywood, etc. (materials that do not meet current building codes) Poorly constructed addition • Structures that do not meet current building codes because of design, configuration, materials Lack of light/ventilation • Buildings with inadequate set -backs and or windows • Industrial buildings with inadequate mechanical ventilation systems. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 8 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site • Indicates that the number of parking spaces does not meet current code requirements • Designates situations of inadequate parking that were observed during the survey Inadequate loading facilities • Indicates properties that have inferior loading facilities due to size, configuration • No loading facilities Excessive coverage • Designates commercial and industrial properties that lack parking, open space, landscaping, and/or access Outdoor storage/garbage/debris • Specifies properties that have trash strewn about • Indicates properties that have commerce, storage or displays outdoors Commercial and Industrial businesses with persons working outdoors • Circumstances in which persons were observed working outdoors (primarily on automobiles and light -manufacturing) No off -site parking • Indicates that on -street parking is not available along the curb in front of a parcel Physical Blighting Conditions The Law describes physical conditions that cause blight These physical conditions are assessed in terms of the health and safety of persons and the economic viability of development in an area. To make this assessment, data from field surveys, City code enforcement, fire and police, the County and other sources are evaluated to determine what conditions may be adversely affecting the health and safety of persons in an area, as well as the adverse economic conditions that result from these physical conditions. Generally as economic returns from an area decline there is a corresponding lack of investment in physical upkeep of properties, further perpetuating physical blight. The Law requires that both physical and economic blighting conditions be present for the establishment of eminent domain authority for new properties, in an existing project area. Overall, 86% of all properties in the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting conditions (Table B-1). The physical blighting conditions include deterioration and dilapidation, inadequate lot size, inadequate vehicle access, substandard building materials along with faulty additions and obsolescence. The ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 9- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL presence of these conditions reflects a lack of investment by property owners in maintaining their properties in good condition to assure the safety of persons who work in the area. Poor physical conditions place a burden on the community by reducing its ability to meet its goal of fostering vibrant neighborhoods. Table B-1 summarizes the blighting conditions observed during the field survey of the Project Area. There were nearly 1,300 distinguishable properties among 1,560 parcels. Parcels or property uses not individually reflected in the table include; parking lots that were part of developments, condominium designations (commercial and industrial) that were part of a single property use and some vacant parcels. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS Parcles in the Project Area 1560 Total number of properies surveyed 1,300 Physical Blighting Conditions Total Parcels Surveyed with Blighting Conditions Total Percent of Parcels Surveyed w/ Blighting Conditions Deterioration and Dilapidation Lack of paint - faulty weather protection Exposed wiring Damaged exterior - building materials Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing Broken/deteriorated roofing material 578 766 621 182 159 44% 59% 48% 14% 12% Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access Substandard exterior building materials Poorly constructed addition Inadequate pedestrian access 134 375 208 46 10% 29% 16% 4% Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site Inadequate loading facilities Excessive coverage/inadequate setbacks Outdoor storage or production Garbage/debris/stagnant water/combustible materials No off -site parking 631 27 149 678 595 42 49% 2% 11% 52% 46% 3% Total Number of PropertiesSurveyed With at Least One Blighting Condition 1,113 86% ource: Rosenow SpevacekGroup, Inc. land use survey ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY -10 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Physical Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Economically Viable Use of Buildings or Lots Section 33031(a)(2) of the Law describes physical conditions that cause blight to include "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors." The following discussion substantiates the presence of inadequate lot and building size, lack of parking, substandard design and obsolescence. Lot Size Small parcel sizes particularly in the commercial corridors of Highland Avenue and 8th Street as well as the industrial portions of the Westside area north of 22nd Street hinder their capacity to be rehabilitated and redeveloped. Current market standards for neighborhood commercial development generally require at least a two -acre site and a four -acre site for light -industrial development. There are only 21 properties of four or more acres and 71 properties of two or more acres affected by the 2005 Amendment with 543 commercial or industrial properties being Tess than on -half acre. Inadequate lot size results in development that either (1) lacks adequate parking, loading and vehicle access; or (2) prohibits redevelopment and reuse of parcels because the density of development that exists today would not be allowed without provisions for adequate parking, loading and vehicle access. New development constructed to modem development standards would be required to provide adequate parking, loading and vehide access, which many commercial and industrial parcels in the Project Area cannot accommodate. Once these amenities are included, the small lot sizes yield development that is substantially below allowed floor -area -ratios (density) and cause new development to be incapable of supporting the going land values in the Project Area. The only solution to this dilemma is to consolidate parcels into larger areas that allow development yield to be maximized while at the same time providing the parking, loading and vehicle access that the current commercial/industrial markets mandate. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with a tool to assemble adequately sized properties, in which site development can meet modem market standards. Due to inadequate parcel size, the zoning in the Westside Industrial Area and Highland Commercial Corridor does not limit the lot coverage of new structures. If there were lot coverage limitations many of the smaller parcels would never have been developed. The problem however is that many buildings in these areas have little or no setbacks, which becomes a fire hazard as fire can spread more easily from structure to structure when buildings are connecting or in close proximity to one another. Adequate setbacks also serve as a buffer between uses, such as commercial/industrial uses next to residential structures. Without adequate buffers between uses, noise as well as toxic fumes and dust cross property lines and negatively affect surrounding properties. As the Project Area is ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL already built -out, it is infeasible for small -lot owners to now provide buffers and reduce excessive coverage of existing buildings within existing site constraints. The 2005 Amendment will provide a tool for the CDC to assemble sites large enough to have adequate buffers between uses. 149 properties were considered by RSG surveyors to have excessive coverage. Complicating this problem are industrial buildings which lack adequate floor space for inside manufacturing and storage. As operations overflow outside into already constrained parking areas there is nowhere for the parking needs to be met, except for the already congested street area. Over 70% properties in the 2005 Amendment Area have buildings that are 25 years or age (prior to 1981) or older. The sites these buildings occupy were not designed with to meet modem -day market demands and display inadequate site design as evidenced by the 631 surveyed properties (49%) that have inadequate parking. These businesses use the street to meet their parking and storage needs, which reduces the off -site parking for surrounding uses many of which were also designed with inadequate on -site parking. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with the ability to correct this physical constraint, thereby reducing the impaired investment these properties represent when compared to properties with proper site design and adequate parking. Inadequate loading is another typical characteristic of properties with insufficient lot size. Often small lots must employ sidewalk and/or street loading due to the lack of adequate on -site space. Unloading in the right-of-way; impedes access to businesses, reduces vehicle sight lines for pedestrian and other vehicular traffic as well as restricts traffic flow creating a hazardous traffic condition. Trucks often park on sidewalks to make deliveries putting pedestrians at risk due to tripping or being struck by vehicles, when they have to walk into the street to avoid the delivery that is blocking the sidewalk In addition, sidewalk and street loading suggests that the current site use might not be in accordance with its original design. For example, a residential structure that was converted to a commercial or industrial use typically has a small lot size, the only way to correct the small lot size and provide enough area for safe loading is through parcel consolidation. When businesses do have on -site loading and parking, these features are often difficult to access due to narrow driveways that allow only one car to enter/exit at a time. Access is further restricted by outdoor storage and production taking place in the parking lots. Buildings were observed to have a loading dock and parking area only to be blocked by outdoor storage and production activities. This practice of outdoor staging areas for production on small industrial lots, further exacerbates the on -street parking problems. The City has tried to compensate for this by using diagonal parking particularly in the Westside Area, but this has created safety problems for vehicles due to reduced sight -lines at intersections and congested work areas extending into the public right-of-way which compromises pedestrian safety. As the vast majority of the parcels in the Project Area are fully developed and there is little opportunity or incentive for businesses to provide additional parking, no significant "new" parking can be anticipated 42OSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY -12 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL without the assistance of redevelopment and the approval of the 2005 Amendment to facilitate assemblage of larger lots for improved site design. The lack of parking hinders the economically viable use of these commercial and industrial properties, as tenants who desire adequate parking can pay market rent for properties with adequate parking and loading facilities to operate their businesses at a higher efficiency than those businesses operating on a constrained site. Property owners of inadequately sized properties cannot realize these higher revenue rates as their sites are too small to properly accommodate amenities that are desirable to tenants willing to pay higher rents. Also, as the economic revenue from a property levels off and/or declines, property owners are unlikely to make the needed physical improvements to their properties contributing to the further decline of the Project Area. Outdoor storage and manufacturing is a common problem throughout the Project Area for both commercial and industrial properties and is another indicator of inadequate lot and buildings size. Commercial properties often use outdoor storage for excess materials, trash and other items. Unscreened dumpsters, which are also very prevalent in the Project Area lead to unsanitary conditions affecting the health and safety of those in the general area as trash becomes strewn about, attracting insects and rodents. The presence of outdoor storage is an indicator that the existing building stock provides inadequate building space for existing business activities. Also, outdoor storage contributes to the declining appearance and perception of the Project Area, this perception of decline reduces the revenue properties can generate as investors will not pay the same rate commanded by non -blighted properties for properties perceived to be in decline. Overall, 52% of properties either had outdoor storage and or outdoor production. To further accommodate outdoor repairs and production, many businesses are using temporary canvas tarp (tent) buildings as permanent additions to existing areas for outdoor manufacturing. These tarp buildings present a fire hazard to existing buildings which the tarp is attached to. For example, sparks from welding operations under these tarps can smolder in the tarps and then spread to the building itself or nearby chemical or combustible materials storage as many of the manufacturing and repair businesses use chemicals and other combustible materials in their operations. Outdoor uses therefore, are often a safety hazard due to environmental, fire and vehicle access deficiencies. Structural Obsolescence While inadequate loading, parking and storage are characteristics of small lot size, these deficiencies are also indicative of properties 25 years or older. The deficiencies associated with many older properties are often referred to as obsolescence. Obsolescence is the result of a combination of blight factors, including the age of a buildings, lack of maintenance, and a lack of desirable amenities such as parking and tenant improvements that occur as contemporary market standards evolve. For these reasons, obsolescence results in factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings and lots. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 13 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL The appeal of obsolete buildings diminishes as market conditions and consumer preferences change causing other uses to fill the void. Many auto repair businesses locate in the Project Area to compliment the retail operations of the Mile of Cars area. However, most of these supporting businesses are located on side streets behind the modem buildings of the Mile of Cars, where the rents are significantly less and in obsolete/inadequate buildings without the needed amenities to properly operate these supporting businesses. Commercial and industrial development standards have changed significantly since the 1965 when over 40% of the commercial and industrial properties in the Project Area were developed. Modern industrial developments offer larger floor and lot sizes along with amenities such as landscaping, on -site parking and adequate loading areas for larger delivery vehicles. Commercial and industrial uses without adequate area often negatively affect surrounding properties through competition for on -street parking and on -street deliveries that restrict access to surrounding properties. Inadequate vehicle access is another indicator of obsolescence. The commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area were developed in a style that is deficient by today's development standards. Principally it did not provide driveways that had adequate site lines into oncoming traffic nor were the driveways properly designed to accommodate two-way traffic or traffic queuing particularly in commercial corridors. 134 parcels or 10% of the parcels in the Project Area exhibited inadequate vehicle access condition. Buildings Unsafe/Unhealthy to Live or Work In Section 33031(a)(1) of the Law identifies several blighting conditions that denote a building that is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These include the following: serious code violations, deterioration or dilapidation, and defective design or physical conditions, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. Substandard building materials, faulty additions and incompatible uses are other factors of defective design. Code Enforcement Violations Violations of local or state building codes are a blighting condition identified under Section 33031(a) of the Law, which characterizes buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Buildings and structures that do not meet current uniform building requirements, or other local codes mandated to ensure human health and safety, pose a threat to the workers, patrons, and residents of an area. Code enforcement efforts are, for the most part, limited to complaint generated enforcement. The majority of complaints come from property owners or tenants who observe potential violations in their neighborhoods. However, since code violations are primarily investigated only if a complaint is filed or observed by City staff, many violations go unnoticed and the true number of building and other code violations is likely to be greater than those reported. Even if adequate ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 14 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL funding was available for City staff to pursue all initial code enforcement violations from the first time each violation was observed, there would need to be at least two times this number of personnel to do the proper follow up that each case typically requires. Based on discussions with City staff, most code enforcement cases require at least one, if not two to three additional follow up visits to make sure the violation is not reoccurring. The following is a list of code violations observed by City staff in the commercial and industrial corridors of the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: • Unsafe wiring such as extension cords being used as permanent wiring, this fire hazard was typically observed in residential structures converted to commercial and industrial uses: • Unsafe and excessive signage that is improperly secured or with supports that have rusted, which then becomes a falling hazard; • A -frame signs on sidewalk and signage for a one-time use (real estate leasing) that was not permitted and laying in the public right-of-way, which becomes a tripping hazard; • Inventory (displays) stored on sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian access; • Public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks) being used for manufacturing and repair area, particularly for auto related businesses, which leads to manufacturing debris and pollution being left in the public right-of-way and a hazard to pedestrians; • Due to overcrowding on street parking in commercial and industrial areas, commercial and industrial vehicles are stored on nearby residential streets. Small parcel size also leads to parking of vehicles on grass and other non -paved surfaces, which has contributed to environmental contamination of the Project Area; • Public streets being used for loading and unloading of merchandise, usually blocking or impairing traffic, which is a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians; • Canvass or plastic tarps were often observed being used as long-term roof covering or to creating an unsafe building addition as well as permanent outdoor work areas; • Inadequate securing of trash in dumpster enclosures leads to unsanitary conditions; • Illegal dumping of trash (including vehicles) was observed throughout the Project Area, particularly on vacant property or abandoned commercial and industrial properties; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 15 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Unlicensed businesses operating on the site of another business or conducting operations, which are not allow under the current license. For example a car audio sales business doing installation in the parking lot contributes to overcrowding and promotes vehicles repair activity in the parking lots instead of the safety of a properly designed service facility, • Residential structures converted to non-residential uses without proper permits. Without proper permitting/inspections residential structures cannot be properly evaluated if they are suitable for industrial conversion. For example, multiple residential structures that were being used for commercial/industrial uses were observed to have excessive storage facilities (over 120 square feet of area) in the dedicated setback area, creating a fire hazard; • Outdoor chemical usage in addition, to toxic manufacturing with exhaust and particle venting not to code. This was often observed with outdoor auto repair shops, which in multiple cases are next to residential uses; • Along Highland Avenue several abandoned office/commercial buildings are illegally converted to residential uses, which has lead to substandard living conditions for residents; • Motels have illegally converted from short-term (less than 30-days) stay to long-term residential usage and attracting criminal activity as a result; • Abandoned houses in commercial areas attract criminal activity. In addition, several declining businesses have become storefronts for organized criminal activity such as narcotics, prostitution and general gang activity; • Decaying retaining walls along with dilapidated wood and corrugated fences threaten safety of those using the buildings, observed through the Project Area; • Overgrown vegetation becomes a fire hazard; and • Barbed/razor wire used to secure commercial and residential structures. It is important to note that if all code enforcement violations were corrected in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment, blighting factors such as environmental contamination, flooding, inadequately sized parcels and unsafe traffic conditions would still remain and the 2005 Amendment would still be justified and beneficial for the Project Area. Dilapidation and Deterioration During the field survey, the safety and condition of buildings in the Project Area were assessed using Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. This code section provides conditions that characterize a building as ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21,2005 NATIONAL CITY - 16 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL substandard, unsafe, and unhealthy. Accordingly, a substandard building is one that exhibits any of the following conditions to an extent that it presents safety or property hazards: • General dilapidation or improper maintenance; • Wiring which does not conform to building codes and is in poor condition; • Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster, • Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint or weather stripping; • Broken or rotted, split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings; Construction materials not up to code which have not been property maintained and are in poor condition; • Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, stagnant water or similar materials or conditions which constitute a safety hazard; • Any building or portion thereof which is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; and • Buildings or portions thereof occupied for commercial and industrial purposes, which were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies. Deterioration and dilapidation is also an indicator of buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, as identified under the Law, section 33031(a)(1). It is a common physical blighting condition found in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Evidence of dilapidation and deterioration in these properties includes buildings with damaged exterior building materials (48% of properties), deteriorated paint or weather proofing (44% properties), deteriorated eaves or wood rot (14% properties), and exposed wiring (64% properties). The older age of many of the buildings, combined with deferred maintenance, are contributory factors to their current state. Review of Table B-1 indicates deterioration existing in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment As stated in the book How Buildings Leam, What Happens After They're Built (Stewart Brand), a lack of maintenance results in buildings becoming unusable, with a threat of structural failure. Brand states that due "to deterioration and obsolescence, a building's capital value (and the rent it can charge) about halves by twenty years after construction. Most buildings you can expect to completely refurbish from eleven to twenty-five years after construction. The rule of thumb about abandonment is simple...if repairs will cost half of the value of the building, don't bother." ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL As demonstrated in the figure below, if regular maintenance is not done, first minor, and then major failures will result over time. As the cost of renovating the building goes up exponentially over the years, structural failure occurs and the building cannot be recovered. Because property owners may fear that they will not realize a retum on an investment in rehabilitation, buildings are often neglected. Poor building conditions indicate limited reinvestment in the building stock through renovation and rehabilitation, and reflect a weak environment for private sector development or redevelopment Figure B -1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations Structural failures occur r Structure not usable Start of major failures Start of minor failures Normal wear B Time in years Total cost of major repair (C) Total cost of minor repair (B) Total cost of preventive maintenance (A) OIL I Major repair Minor repair Preventive maintenance PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (bottom line) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense. This diagram is adapted from Preventive Maintenance of Buildings (New York Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991), p.3. Quantification of the severity of building dilapidation would require access to building interiors and detailed review of the core structural, electrical, plumbing and roofing systems of each building. This type of extensive evaluation is not feasible as part of the documentation for the 2005 Amendment However, it is possible to extrapolate from viewing the exterior of buildings that if little investment has been made to maintain and improve the exterior of a building, it is also likely that few improvements have been made to the core support systems and interior of the buildings. The fact that over 70% of buildings are over 25 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 18- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL years old and over 80% exhibit dilapidation and deficient exterior improvement, suggests significant interior dilapidation exists. Substandard Building Materials and Faulty Additions There were several examples of substandard building materials observed in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Corrugated metal sheeting is a primary example and is not a permitted building material according to the City code. The corrugated metal readily deteriorates from the weather and becomes more structurally unsound as it warps from the elements. Canvas and plastic tarps are even more prevalent and are not permitted to be used as building materials by the City. The results of the field survey indicate at least 375 incidences of substandard building materials and 208 buildings with faulty additions. Predominately, the industrial parcels affected by the 2005 Amendment represent the older style of development, offering limited or no amenities. Modem industrial buildings often use concrete tilt -up walls that can withstand the physical demands associated with industrial uses. The Project Area has multiple examples of wood - frame residential structures converted to industrial use. Residential wood -frame buildings are not designed to withstand industrial use requirements that may include production equipment or storage mounted to the walls as well as the high level of wear and tear associated with these non-residential activities. These activities cause the wood -frame structure to become dilapidated and wear down prematurely from the high -demands of industrial as well as commercial usage. Other inadequacies of older structures built for other uses include insufficient electrical supply, storage, and indoor manufacturing areas. Incompatible Adjacent Uses Incompatible adjacent uses where commercial and/or industrial properties are directly adjacent to residential uses were noted on 299 of the properties within the area affected by the 2005 Amendment and particularly in the Westside area between National City Blvd. and Interstate 5. As previously mentioned with respect to small -lot size, outdoor manufacturing was commonly observed without any noise buffers to surrounding residences. Furthermore, toxic dust created by outdoor industrial repairs and production drifts in an airbome state to surrounding residential properties, presenting a significant detrimental health and safety condition to these residents. Auto related uses on parcels of substandard size often have outdoor repairs and vehicle storage that spill out onto the street. These industrial uses congest streets for surrounding residents and reduce vehicle and pedestrian safety. Lack of Economic Viability These physical conditions of blight have had a serious impact on the economic viability of the Project Area. The lack of economic viability has resulted in all major chain grocery stores leaving the Project Area, where previously there were three (3). In their place, liquor stores have become the primary grocery providers ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 19- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL to many residents of the Project Area, which offer limited grocery services and contribute to the excessive number of alcohol distribution outlets in the Project Area and City as a whole. In addition, there are only four (4) banks operating in the Project Area, augmented by lenders such as payday loan outlets which charge interest rates that are substantially higher than commercial banks and lack the wide -range of financing services found at typical financial institutions. Within the last year a vacant Wells Fargo bank building was converted to a used car lot depriving the Project Area of another banking site. As preferred community serving businesses (banks and grocery stores) leave or refrain from locating stores in the Project Area, residents are left with fewer retail options. Community servicing businesses also create a synergy with existing retail and attract new customers to the businesses in the Project Area. In addition, to providing outside customers to augment the revenue of Project Area businesses, these outside customers often provide a positive retum to the City treasury through sales tax revenue. Not only do major chain retailers provide a wide -range of services to the Project Area, but they traditionally serve as anchor tenants to shopping centers. A former Albertson's site of 65,000 square feet has remained vacant for over two years, the lack of this anchor tenant reduces the overall business traffic drawn to the shopping center and reduces the overall revenue existing business might realize in this shopping center. Over time this lack of total revenue may force some businesses to close further contributing to the economic blighting conditions of the Project Area. Economic Conditions that Cause Blight Recent court decisions have ruled that to qualify a new portion of an existing Project Area for eminent domain authority as the 2005 Amendment proposes to do, it must not only exhibit conditions of physical blight, but also must contain and suffer from economic blight. To accurately represent existing economic conditions, the Project Area has been analyzed and information has been gathered from the City, the County, and private sources to document the deteriorating economic conditions of the Project Area. The following describes economic blighting conditions that contribute to lack of proper utilization of Project Area properties. Impaired Investments Industrial Realtors familiar with the industrial properties in the Project Area cited a number of different problems that act in concert to impede the economic success of real estate within the older industrial corridors of the Project Area. For example, when ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 20 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL the area developed, the standards for industrial development allowed for smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and reduced set -backs from other properties. These conditions negatively impact the appearance and detract from the marketability of the area. Most realtors also noted that the age of many industrial buildings renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned are listed on the following page. • Small building size; • Lack of parking on -site and off-street; • Lack of access to industrial sites; • Lack of other amenities or inadequate amenities such storage; • Low ceiling heights which restrict indoor operations and manufacturing and/or storage; • Inadequate construction materials such as wood frame used for industrial production; and • Lack of adequate utilities servicing properties. as loading and lead to outdoor buildings being The overall lack of amenities offered by a majority of industrial properties in the Project Area has created a lower tier market according to realtors. Most realtors graded the National City industrial market as a Class B or C (with Class A being the highest ranking) depending upon the condition of the building. This lower ranking attracts less desirable uses, such as outdoor auto repair and salvage, which further diminishes the image of the Project Area and the rents landowners are able to charge. Realtors surmise that the types of industrial businesses locating in the Project Area are looking for lower rents. Table B-2 shows a gross lease rate of $.85 per square foot monthly lease rate compared to the overall County rate of $1.02 per square foot or 17% lower. These lower lease rates generally result in little net income to reinvest in buildings to improve their condition. TABLE B-2 MONTHLY LEASE RATE COMPARISON SPRING 2005 Areas Industrial Office Retail National City $0.85 $1.20 $1.65 San Diego County Market Average $1.02 I $2.03 $2.00 Source: CB Richard Ellis 8 Various Broker Interviews. Commercial In discussing the proposed Project Area with realtors familiar with the commercial properties in the area, a number of different problems were cited that act in ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 21 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL concert to impede economic success. For example, when the Project Area developed, the standards, as stated before, allowed smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and no off-street parking particularly along Highland Avenue. Also noted is the age of many commercial buildings which renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned were: • Small building size; • Close proximity to uses (industrial) that detract from the physical appearance of the area. • Lack of streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way; • Lack of parking on and off-street; • Lack of proper access to site; and Lack of amenities or inadequate amenities such as landscaping, loading and storage; and Several reattors stated that the cost of land in the area is too high to be supported by the low lease rates that the existing uses bring, making improvement of existing buildings unlikely. Generally, commercial developers are looking for a minimum 2 acre parcels for development of a new neighborhood commercial center, which is available in only 5% of properties. An adequate revenue stream is necessary to enable property owners to perform routine maintenance of their real estate. Without funding for repairs, deferred maintenance issues become health and safety concems. This is especially true for older buildings. Table B-3 shows retail and office lease rates for the Project Area are in the low range when compared to the County average. Competition is also strong from other surrounding commercial offerings such as Chula Vista, San Ysidro or the Plaza Bonita shopping center. It appears many businesses along portions of Highland Avenue and National City Blvd. north of 14th Street are just surviving due to vacancies or retail businesses being closed during normal working hours. This problem is likely to worsen if the physical constraints present in these portions of the Project Area are not addressed. The development proforma on the following page depicts the economic infeasibility of developing small lots in the Project Area market due to the lack of revenue generated by these small lots. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with additional ability to address small lot sizes through lot assemblage. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 22 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROFORMA B-1 TIONAL CITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Assumes a lot 125 feet x 175 feet in size Commercial Rental Income 10,938 Sf 5.0% of Gross Income $19.80 /Sf $216,563 (10,828) Gross Annual Rental Income (Less): Vacancy & Collection Gross Effective Income $205,734 Operating Expenses 8.0% of Gross Effective Income ($16,459) Property Management 3.0% of Gross Effective Income (6,172) Reserves 2.0% of Gross Effective Income (4,115) Total Expenses ($26,745) Net Operating Income $178,989 Cap Rate 9.0% Total Project Revenue $1,988,766 (Less) Development Costs (2,305,712) Profit/(Feasibility Gap) ($316,947) Per S.F. of Building 10,938 Sf ($28.98) Per S.F. of Land 21,875 Sf ($14.49) Hazardous Materials The Project Area has multiple locations of environmental concem, most of these sites are found in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment (Harbor District). Generally there are three land -uses generating environmental contamination in the 2005 Amendment area; large industrial uses (particularly in the Harbor District) along with auto repair facilities and small-scale industrial manufacturing (primarily in the Westside Area). The Harbor District is approximately 300 acres of industrial and distribution area at the westem edge of the Project Area between Interstate 5 and the San Diego Untried Port District ('Port District") Property along San Diego Bay. In 2003 the CDC undertook a Brownfields Grant Study Project ("Study Project") with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to determine the extent of the pollution in the Harbor District. The Study Project divided the Harbor District into fourteen (14) sites for individual analysis and concluded that each of the sites likely suffered from hazardous materials contamination. Historically the Harbor District was developed between 1885 and 1925 as a railroad staging area for transferring goods to ships on San Diego Bay. Industrial uses in the Harbor District over the last 100 years include: oil recycling and other oil distribution/refining facilities that used underground and aboveground storage tanks (including several gas stations), an ordnance company, aircraft parts manufacturer, a battery manufacturer, tank cleaning businesses, automotive servicing (including wreckers), machine and lumber storage, tool machining and metal fabrication, finishing and plating companies and gravel operations. At the time some of these businesses operated protective environmental regulations that are in place today did not exist. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL According to the Study Project many of these uses have resulted in the following types of pollution: soil and groundwater contamination with oils, lubricants, solvents, lead, asbestos, PCBs, corrosives, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and volatile organic compounds("VOC's"). Many of these uses generated hazardous wastes that in several cases was illegally disposed of onsite. At least 10 monitoring wells have been installed in the Harbor District to investigate subsurface conditions, with elevated petroleum hydrocarbons having been detected in soil as well as the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and VOCs confirmed in groundwater monitoring wells. While the CDC currently has eminent domain authority in the Harbor District, it is set to expire in July of 2007 and the 2005 Amendment would extend the CDC's eminent domain authority until 2015 to assist, if necessary in the clean up of these properties. Outside of the Harbor District are several other know sites of contamination which include; the Education Village, Police Station, Library site, and Public Works Yard, which were polluted by previous or surrounding industrial uses. It is important to note that the sites above are the most recently disturbed sites where significant excavation took place. It is suspected as more sites are excavated in the industrial and commercial corridors more polluted sites will be identified. Also, an area referred to as Duck Pond at the intersection of 30th Street and National City Boulevard was a former County of San Diego ("County") dumpsite, that suffers from methane gas discharge and ground sinking. It is likely there are more polluted sites in the Westside area, but as discussed above the CDC has only done environmental evaluation on sites where public buildings have been constructed. This is due to the CDC's very limited eminent domain authority outside of the Harbor District. Adoption of the 2005 Amendment will assist the CDC in facilitating development in these areas currently with limited eminent domain authority and provide a tool to expedite the cleanup of polluted sites as they are identified. The National City Fire Department ("Fire Department") in conjunction with the County issues permits for businesses handling hazardous materials ("Haz-Mat"). Currently, there are approximately 123 Haz-Mat permits in the City, with most of these being issued in the commercial and industrial corridors of the 2005 Amendment area. Fire Department staff believes the number of actual hazardous materials users or businesses with Haz-Mat permits that do not list all of the hazardous materials used on site, is significantly higher than the 123 permits issued. During the 2004 calendar year, the Fire Department responded to 42 Haz-mat calls. Outdoor manufacturing is a primary cause of hazardous materials being released in the outside environment, particularly with automobile related businesses. Many auto body shops were observed to be doing grinding of parts and spraying of toxic materials outside. This practice sends these hazardous materials airbome, often to surrounding residents. When these contaminants settle to the ground they either soak into the soil or run into the storm drains as contaminated urban runoff. This runoff eventually finds its way into San Diego Bay. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 24 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Further, contributing to these conditions are some of the storage practices for chemicals and debris observed during the field survey. 46% of properties were found to have signs of garbage, debris, stagnant water and/or combustible materials on site. Outdoor storage while being unsightly is also dangerous as holding containers are subjected to weather elements and decompose more rapidly. Numerous substandard building additions were observed to be used for hazardous materials storage. Many of these sheds are made of plywood or canvass tarps that in and of themselves present a fire hazard, but when these substandard structures are combined with hazardous materials storage and usage, it become a significant environmental and fire hazard to the surrounding structures many of which are residential. Crime A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and welfare is a condition of economic blight. In order to assess the impact of crime within the Project Area, information regarding the incidence of violent and other serious property crime reported by the National City Police Department was analyzed. All police agencies in the County report their crime statistics to the Automated Regional Justice Information System ("ARJIS"), which is a regionally standardized system that enables comparison of the number of crimes reported by jurisdictions across the County. ARJIS reports to the same categories as the nationally recognized Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Crime Index. The Index includes four violent offenses (willful homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and three types of property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft). The offenses included in the FBI Index were selected due to their serious nature and/or volume, as well as the probability that these crimes will be reported to the police. Crime rates in Table B-3 were computed by occurrence per 1,000 population using current San Diego Association of Govemment population estimates. The regional crime rate based on ARJIS incorporates both local jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in the County. The 2004 County crime rate based upon ARJIS is 36.3 crimes per 1,000 population. The 2004 crime rate for the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego are 38.4 and 40.4 respectively. The 2004 crime rate in National City is 57.1 per 1,000 or 57% higher than the County average and 49% and 41 % higher than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego respectively. The table on the following page uses data from the 2004 calendar year for all jurisdictions with the overall crime totals for the City being higher in every category. Due to the reporting format, crime data for National City is city-wide, which is larger than the proposed 2005 Amendment area. It is important to note that the existing Project Area represents over 60% of the City's non-military/Port District land3 and the city-wide data represents a good comparison to evaluate crime in the Project Area. 3 Military and Pori District police patrol their properties and maintain their own crime data for these areas. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 25 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TABLE B-3 2004 CRIME RATES PER 1,000 PERSONS FOR NATIONAL CITY AND SELECTED LOCAL JURISDICTIONS City Murder Rape Robbery Aggv. Assault Total Burglary Total Larceny! Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Total Crime National City 0.1 0.3 2.4 4.6 6.8 27.1 15.8 57.1 City of Chula Vista 0.1 0.2 1.4 2.2 5.7 19.2 9.6 38.4 City of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.3 3.6 5.6 19.4 10.0 40.4 County of San Diego 0.0 0.3 1.2 3.1 5.8 18.0 7.9 36.3 Sources: ARJIS and SANDAG Note: Comparison crime rates are for calendar year 2004. These types of crime can negatively impact existing Project Area businesses, discouraging business investment and patronage. Crime represents an additional cost in conducting, retaining and attracting businesses to the commercial corridors of the Project Area. Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment Section 33321 of the Law states that a project area need not be restricted to buildings and properties that are detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. Areas cannot be included for the sole purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue but must have substantial justification that they are necessary for effective redevelopment. This Report documents that in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment there are parcels that do not exhibit blighting conditions but that they are interspersed with parcels that are blighted and necessitate inclusion in the 2005 Amendment area. The number of and severity of blighted parcels in the Project Area negatively affects the non -blighted parcels because of their appearance and proximity. In addition, there are certain types of blighting conditions that cannot be directly linked to a particular parcel such as substandard on -street parking, which is a cumulative factor. Given the overall condition of the Project Area and the economic status of both industrial and commercial property owners, it is clear that many of the parcels that do not exhibit significant blighting conditions now may do so over the life of the Project Area if nearby blighted parcels are not addressed. For example, if large- scale hotels on the Westside Area north of 9th Street were vacated due to worsening surrounding economic conditions, the resulting economic effect of such a large business closure would be severe to the Project Area because these hotels provide jobs to many in the surrounding community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21,2005 NATIONAL CITY - 26 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL To spur economic development efforts, non -blighted parcels should be included in the 2005 Amendment area because the small parcel sizes further confounds revitalizing the area. Should the CDC attempt to assist new businesses in locating to the Project Area, parcel consolidation may be necessary. However, if all of the parcels in a section are not included in the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment it would severely impede the process and compromise the CDC's success. If only parcels that exhibited blighting conditions were included, the 2005 Amendment would be piecemeal. The CDC has already excluded many commercial and industrial properties at the southwest comer of 24th Street and National City Boulevard, commercial properties along portions of 30th Street and Plaza Boulevard and southem portions of National City Boulevard. The intention of the CDC through the 2005 Amendment is to facilitate rehabilitation programs that will cure health and safety issues and improving the appearance of the Project Area. Physical and Economic Burden on Community When evaluated in whole, the numerous physical and economic conditions described in this section of the Report are a serious physical and economic burden on the community. This burden cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise and/or existing governmental authority, without the 2005 Amendment. A summary of the issues includes: • The documented presence of environmental contamination in the industrial corridors of the Project Area, causes safety hazards to area occupants and the cost of removal of these substances increases rehabilitation costs. These conditions are an economic burden on the community as property owners choose to maintain obsolete buildings on polluted sites, instead of pursuing new development which would likely require an expensive cleanup of pollutants. The 2005 Amendment will extend the CDC's eminent domain authority to provide another tool for the remediation of environmental pollutants through land acquisition where appropriate. • Many 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. These obsolete buildings attract lower commercial and industrial lease rates, which provide less revenue for property owners to make regular repairs and upgrades (such as electrical amperage and facade improvement). Without periodic maintenance, buildings become deteriorated or even dilapidated and higher maintenance costs are associated with older buildings. Buildings that are not upgraded as market needs change become less desirable to tenants for two reasons: 1) the buildings does not meet current market standards; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 27 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and 2) the costs associated with providing the necessary upgrades. This circle of disinvestment places a physical burden on the surrounding community as more properties forgo maintenance to maximize economic revenue. • The higher crime rates in the City/Project Area require more calls for service which increases municipal costs and creates an additional burden on community services as public resources are diverted to criminal apprehension. Crime also negatively impacts the lives of those working in or visiting the City/Project Area. • Incompatible adjacent uses typically require relocation or expensive upgrades to buildings, many of which are obsolete. The 2005 Amendment is the only viable method for the CDC to facilitate the relocation of incompatible uses to more appropriate sites. However, some properties owners may be reluctant to enter into relocation negotiations with the CDC and the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment can serve as an adjunct to initiate these discussion for the benefit of the community. • Response -based code enforcement is unable to address all of the health and safety code violations that exist in the commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area. The added municipal cost of code enforcement activity is also a burden on the community as municipal resources are diverted from other programs to address code violations. • Inadequate lot size compounds blighting conditions in the Project Area, as these parcels are not adequate area to accommodate the necessary parking and loading amenities, while maintaining safe access to the site. Redevelopment of the small sized parcels that predominate the Project Area is not economically viable for private development, which results in a lack of investment in new development that continues to negatively impacting the surrounding community. The establishment of eminent domain authority would provide another tool to -assist the CDC in correction of these and other blighting conditions for the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. The private marketplace has not been successful in achieving the needed lot consolidations for new development due to limited number of property owners willing to enter into negotiations. The 2005 Amendment expands the pool of inadequately sized properties the CDC may acquire, thereby assembling more developable properties to reverse the escalating burden on the community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section C Five -Year Implementation Plan On June 14, 2005, the CDC adopted its current Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Project Area. The Implementation Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 33490 of the Law 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 2005 Amendment. The Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the Law 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 altematives 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 29 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAN em* Section E The Method of Financing The method of financing redevelopment activities was provided in the Original Reports when the Project Area was adopted. The 2005 Amendment will not alter the Project Area boundaries, affect the base year value or change the proposed method of financing. Therefore the 2005 Amendment does not warrant that the method of financing be reviewed. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 30 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section F The Method of Relocation Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the Law require the CDC 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 The Law also requires a relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in said Project Area. In addition, the Law requires relocation assistance for commercial and industrial businesses displaced by redevelopment activities. The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of Relocation"), which 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 (Govemment Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines ("State Guidelines") as established in the Califomia 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 section 33411.1 of the Law. 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. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 31 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section G 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 2005 Amendment, additional analysis is not required. Section H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the Law 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 from the Planning Commission for the 2005 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 32 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section 1 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 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 2005 Amendment specifically excludes properties that are used for residential purposes, and no projects or programs have been identified that will displace 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. Section J General Plan Conformance The 2005 Amendment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 2005 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 Govemment Code is not required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 33 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section K 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 EIR 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 2005 Amendment, a Negative Declaration (Initial Study) was prepared pursuant to Califomia Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed 2005 Amendment to establish eminent domain authority for new properties and extend eminent domain for some properties would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A copy of the Negative Declaration follows as Attachment 3. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 2005 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 section 33328 of the Law. Project Area fiscal information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2005 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 34 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section M 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 2005 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 2005 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 not required or appropriate. Therefore, a summary of this report is not included. With regard to consultations, the taxing agencies received all notices regarding the 2005 amendment and they were invited to contact the CDC Executive Director regarding the 2005 Amendment. However, as of the date of this Report, no taxing agency has yet contacted the CDC. The 2005 Amendment does not affect the financing in any way nor does it change land uses or public improvement projects. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 35 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1- Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority as proposed by the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 36 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1 ■ CITY OF SAN DIEGO •—'91.CIIII! zli111.11111. 111112 11111 !IIIIIII. 1111111111111 11111111111■ ;Hume 1.11111111 11111111112 1111 111111 !II!! 11 Eil ®MEN ■==�®®®®� ' 8th Street Corridor --' 111rr111011M1111•■ I1■ !1® •111•• 1� /U •R•I* ® III IIrrr® MUM 1 1111111 112121111111 11 11 .010 :lIIII1111111 iio11111111- 1111 Palm Ave uI 141 II NI • • itE 1111 0EM 1111111 111111. 1111111 111111 1111111 1111111 11111111r 1I11nnhIC 11111111111 i Il: _r- 11111 1111 !la ar_ MI lilll =1. u11 C"1: mn. ■III: 1n 1 ii a11: 11111 '' �u1u ®® Ell ;TIN 111 lien 1 M= U e National City Redevelopment Project Area 011 II1llllllillil1111 , 1NII111111.' 1111111111=• nn1111111 111: 1111 11111 N= enlll: 19:l rani �hn11P= =nli 71111 tamarisk :111111111 CI :11111111 111111II Plaza Blvd 111121111! IIIIlM111 NM BBL ATI ti III II .1 .1111111.. Lim; r7 1 = 10 Highland Ave 1111= 11I1E_ El 1- .NII 111. -- :C -- 121. 01111 111111 101 -- 111 !III IIC hill -OMNI - ram: ENE" :1I11.111 0111 tri 11 /,,1I1 114.11.4 • C '11111s 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA VISTA ■ QProject Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 EDMunicipal Boundary 0 0.125 015 0.5 0.75 11.111.6 -11 ii11�1 111111/1 111111 .111 Ill 11 11111 •l li 111111111 111, -111111 111 111 11i I11 111 ��ueluw 111111.1: lnm..1. 1lllll1111111 1111.1111111 := ~.' =r.1ll, Attachment 2 - Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority prior to the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 37 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 2 LIE • •• mg; fl mix I. MI 8 lllllllllllll .... /04 a a irk mg it mi .. fag. Em ii ii 111-iiiiii5 IP 1 • 7., --imam .1.0....m.: ' mlit bum us= us • iiiilinsirde —11111U MOM =F! 111111 IMF 3111111 '1 AIME .11111.1 1111111 CITY OF SAN DIEGO 111111111M 1111111111N 11111111111M 111111E 11111111V 111111111= 11111111111= 11111111111 11111111111 1111111111; 11111 111111 Illt i-:111! 1111 EgM MERIEgifi 41 11111111111D 1 MEM -I I all :111 El :17,7 min ' NIP 111111 111. 11111 Er - hill IFF W11: IN MIRE =11.: OtE Mr: Etta 11. CIO II= 111 ffl HIE 1.112, :1111 111.11111P 14.111111 ffi fflE amain11= E 11111111111P1 ui is NUM lllll 1111111111 0111P111111111111111 1111 sucipuLT. 11111111111111111111111111, lllll 11111iitm.: El• a1U • i! TUE 11111111111U 1111111111111 11. :11111111111118E :: .40‘, giftiAaa„, rejna\c‘ 111111 Palm Ave I 8th Street Corridor 111 =MIMI tria O. 511 ••• 21.! d= .7_ NE 15 25 11511 alt =11111111 51111111: !II sum 71111111, 11,1,1uaislI1= =s11.1 Ulltuasi Nog irrri.-111 1 104.1pile 4/11. !moil am" 4IP :mum Ul Plaza Blvd EN; Slurp! WIIIM111.2 1111111IM Highland Ave 51•11 va1R 52M mI5 MBE MOE MM1 OM -- 12.111PURIENIE WEI monr =Ert row MESE MIR 111511 MIN EMI MO MM. MIN • 1 1 • I =71' = CS al: CC CC :. ii =_= CC CC. CC CZ = ria —re MI Ili ORO IMO M an= Om mm mur mm ET. Zi55 :51 _t_ :',,r, 7 iipal EVILI 11.1111 Mg " a . _ 1111 'MI SI RE AMIN IP _...---------1--- ",-. tir 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA VISTA 1111011 111. 1111111111 1111111K 11111 11111 1E1 EU 11 ..'"111111 National City Redevelopment Project - Existing Eminent Domain Authorit EMI Project Area Boundary ME Existing Eminent Domain Authority ED Municipal Boundary 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 Mos 1 • Attachment 3 - Negative Declaration See attached Negative Declaration following this page. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY 38 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Community Development Commission of National City MO E. 12" Street, Suite B National City, Ca1 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. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Location: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805 as shown in Figure 1. Project Description: The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission'. authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (at defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single-family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 in the following areas: • Properties located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • Properties located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • Properties located immediately north and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • Properties west of Interstate 5, excepting the San Diego Unified Port District property. • Specific properties located immediately southwest of the intersection of Plaza Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2014. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in this Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 1 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 • Attachment 1 Westside Areas CITY OF ,� '' ...... „i SAN DIEGO Viz p` ✓Qy , vise "'•...:'... 'J.1■AMI.1t•g 'eC9611111111L OnlII1.1111�In ■1II11111gIII1'I■1n17.+, Ir ■ . Imn,.unnli! unmml nnmm�imL 4n► 11111s •1111111M 1.Iulllll • 1' „��i11111111r1 �, +111 ___ i1111::n111111111: 1u111.1: 1111 11 nllntgll:: y� �'� ■ unnmunuum�nnuq, m mSmin 11111111111■ ennne National City Redevelopment Project Area 8th Street Corridor 2111111111 C1,111111 Plaza Blvd LII �1 t`I—ltnll1111 l: ._ _11p.1_ !_n� 11.,CA171 7 ealllllllll 1■Ili MI % �IIIIIrr I®Di Project Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 co Municipal Boundary ° °tom 0.25 — II'11l :1,1111 IIIlrilllll CHULA VISTA 0.I 0.76 Albs er public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, participation agreement): The „ommunity 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 Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings O 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. ❑ l 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 l) 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 al potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIV 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? tops 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: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ O 0 0 ■ O ❑ 0 ■ ❑ 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ O 0 0 ■ ❑ ❑ 0 ■ O ❑ 0 ■ 0 ❑ 0 Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ July 2004 Page 5 Environmental Factors as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 0 0 ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ 0 ❑ 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 0 ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ July 2004 Page 6 froN 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 0 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 ❑ 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? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ 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? ❑ 0 ❑ ■ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 ❑ 0 ■ 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? 0 0 0 ■ 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? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ev.I.S evacuation plan? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 ❑ 0 ■ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 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 ❑ ■ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? ❑ 0 ❑ ■ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ agencies? 0 0 0 ■ b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? ❑ 0 ❑ ■ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 ■ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 ■ 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? 0 0 ❑ ■ 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)? 0 0 0 ■ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 ❑ ❑ ■ ii) Police protection? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ iv) Parks? 0 ❑ 0 ■ v) Other public facilities? 0 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)? ❑ 0 ❑ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management Commission for designated roads or highways? 0 0 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ 0 0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 ❑ 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 ❑ ❑ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ July 2004 Page 10 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? ❑ N d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 0• 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? 00 0 • f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ 0 ❑ • g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0 • IJII. 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? El 0 III b) Conflict with existing energy standards? 0 0 au c) Would the project reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on the site or nearby property? 0 is XVIII. ]11ANDATORY 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? � 0 0 R b) Does the project have impacts that are individually riN limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with [] ❑ 0 IN 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 1. Explanation of Checklist Responses AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Amendment indirectly could encourage development in the redevelopment project area . The National City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city; therefore, future development in the project area due indirectly to the adoption of the Amendment would not impact any scenic vista. The Amendment would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Amendment would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the redevelopment project. A section of National City Boulevard in the Mile of Cars section of National City is a state scenic highway. The city would require all development along this portion of National City Boulevard to comply with the appropriate state and city guidelines to protect a state scenic highway. Development that indirectly occurs in any other section of the project area would not damage or impact any trees, rocks, or historic buildings since none of these features exist. The Amendment would not have any significant scenic resource impacts. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the redevelopment project area and the surroundings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project area. Subsequent development in the project area due indirectly to the use of eminent domain as allowed by the Amendment could impact the existing visual character of a specific site and its surroundings. The Community Development Commission and/or City of National City would conduct subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the time projects are submitted for approval to determine if a project would have an impact on the visual character or quality of a specific site and its surroundings. If the city determines a project could impact the visual character of a site and/or its surroundings, changes or modifications would be required. The city adopted the National City Design Guidelines to assure that development is in harmony with the character and quality of the environment that the city finds desirable to foster. The purpose of the National City Design Guidelines Manual is to provide a "guide" to what the city considers appropriate, quality design, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Guidelines articulate the city's goals and basic design philosophy for quality development within the city limits and provide the framework for the.design review process. The Guidelines are not specifications nor do they preclude alternatives or restrict imagination. Rather, Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 13 they are the city's preferences and provide examples of what the city considers acceptable! The Guideline supplement the development standards and regulations contained in the National City Land Use Code and art applicable in accordance with the requirements for site plan review under Chapter 18.128 of the Code. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would require changes to projects to ensure that they do not degrade the visual character of a specific site or its surroundings. All projects would be required to meet the applicable guidelines in the National City Design Guidelines based on the project proposed. The Amendment would not degrade the visual character of the project area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The Amendment would not create any new sources of substantial light or glare and affect day or nighttime views in the redevelopment project area because development is not proposed directly in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create new sources of light or glare. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of development, light and/or glare could impact surrounding land uses. Nighttime lighting including safety and security lights, interior building lights, automobile headlights, etc. could impact surrounding development. Glare from windows and metal surfaces could also impact adjacent development. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all projects for potential light and glare impacts and require changes and modifications when necessary to reduce light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown of the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Commission, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on prime farmlands because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could impact farmland or agricultural land. There are no agricultural operations or prime farmland in the project area. Therefore, future development would not impact agricultural resources or operations and would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use since none exist. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not directly propose any public or private development projects that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan(s). City of National City Design Guidelines, February 1991, Amended by Resolution No. 96-19, February 6, 1996, page I-1. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 14 014 National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could encourage new development. Depending upon the type and density of development, project air emissions could impact and obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all development projects for potential impacts to air quality plans and require project changes or modifications to ensure compliance. The Amendment would not directly impact the implementation of any air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The Amendment would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing projected air quality violation. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of new development the project air emissions could violate an air quality standard or standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all future projects for potential violations to existing air quality standards such as exceeding air emission thresholds during either project construction or the life of the project. If a project is expected to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation specific measures would be required to be incorporated into the project to reduce air emissions in compliance with air quality standards in force at that time. The Amendment would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation, including ozone. 01-1114 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 theAnk project area. Depending upon the type and density of development the air emissions generated by a project coulr expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential impacts to sensitive receptors at the time projects are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce the impacts. The Amendment would not directly impact sensitive receptors by exposing them to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Amendment would not create objectionable odors that could affect people because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create objectionable odors. The Amendment could indirectly result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development odors could be generated and affect people in close proximity to the site. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would evaluate all projects for odor impacts to people that either live or work in close proximity at the time they are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could generate odors that affect a substantial number of people the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce or eliminate odor impacts accordingly. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications to any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would impact plant or wildlife species. The property in the project area is most developed and urbanized. Due to the lack of suitable habitat there are not any candidate plant or wildlife species that would be impacted if development occurs indirectly due to the Amendment. There are no habitat conservation plans associated with any property in the project area. The Amendment would not have any biological resource impacts directly or indirectly because there are no biological resources in the project area that can be impacted. b) Have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Have substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 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. }) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely impact a historical resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical buildings. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a historical resource could be impacted, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require measures to ensure the protection of the resource in compliance with the law. If resources suspected of being historically significant were uncovered during construction the city would evaluate the resources and protect it in compliance with CEQA Guideline § 15064.5, as applicable. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause adversely impact an archaeological resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any archaeological resources within the project area that would be impacted by future development. If archaeological resources, or artifacts of historical importance are uncovered during construction all construction activity shall cease and the city shall be notified immediately. The city would take the lead to determine whether or not the resources are significant and need to be protected in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5. The Amendment would not impact archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Amendment would not destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any paleontological resources in the city, including the project area. The Amendment would not impact paleontological resources. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 17 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause strong seismic ground shaking because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the 2 City of National City Genera] 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 Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 for commercial and industrial property and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause or be impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Residents, employees, and buildings would not be exposed to any greater degree of ground shaking with the adoption of the Amendment than currently exists. All projects, independently of the use of eminent domain, must provide applicable earthquake construction measures and hardware as required by the Uniform Building Code to reduce ground -shaking impacts. The Amendment would not change the exposure of people and buildings to seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause ground -failure, such as liquefaction. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the location a project could be impacted by liquefaction or other seismic — related ground failures. However, whether or not development is impacted by liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure is not dependent upon the use of eminent domain. The use of eminent domain to would not change the exposure of a project to liquefaction or any other type of ground failure. Geotechnical reports would be prepared for individual projects to determine if they would be exposed to seismic -related ground failures. If a site is subject to liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure, measures would be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to mitigate the impact. The Amendment would not have any seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause any landslides or expose people or property to landslides because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or be exposed to landslides. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. There are no large hillside areas within or adjacent to the project areas that could impact development. Therefore, landslides would not impact development and the Amendment would not have any landslide impacts. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development of projects could result in soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs and proper measures to reduce soil erosion are not implemented and Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 isk 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 rainfal, 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 Aiik 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 unti. 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place development on expansive soil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development within the project area. Although the National City General Plan does not identify any expansive soil, there could be some isolated areas where expansive soil exists. A geotechnical report would be submitted to the city along with grading and building plans for each project to address whether or not the project would be impacted by expansive soil. If expansive soil exists the geotechnical report would identify the measures that could be implemented to correct the condition to allow safe development. The Amendment would not impact or be impacted by expansive soil. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Amendment would not require the use of septic tanks because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would use septic tanks. The City of National City requires all development to connect to the public sewer system and does not allow the use of septic tanks. The Amendment would not change the requirement by the city for development to connect to the public sewer system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The development of projects could include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, depending upon the project. The city would review all future projects for potential hazards and the projects that generate or use hazardous materials would be required by the city would require each project to meet all applicable laws and regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the transport and use of hazardous materials would minimize hazards to the public and the environment to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not have any hazardous impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. They're no sites in the redevelopment project area that are listed as a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Amendment would not have any direct or indirect impacts with regards to listed hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The redevelopment project area is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project area is the San Diego International Airport, which is approximately seven miles northwest of National City. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. All development would be required to provide emergency access that allows for safe and effective access routes for fire and police equipment and personnel as well as people leaving the site in the event of an emergency. The city would review all projects for safe emergency access to ensure that emergency access is provided. The Amendment would not have any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan impacts. g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 21 use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create ail 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 installer' 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 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 the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. Please see the response to c) above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Amendment would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects the could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could generate quantities of runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As stated in response a) above, all applicable projects would be required to install and maintain proper measures to reduce the amount of sediments and other potential sources of surface water pollution. The development of property that is currently vacant or underdeveloped could generate quantities of surface water runoff and impact the local or regional storm drain system. The generation of surface water beyond the capacity of the storm drain system could significantly impact the storm drain system. The city would review all projects to determine if the existing system has capacity to handle the surface water flows or if upgrades are required. The Amendment itself would not impact the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems. 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 Floo ceTh 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 mudfl ow. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment would not expose people or property to inundation or impacts by a seiche because there are no large bodies of water that could impact development. The areas in National City where hillsides do exist are not large enough in area to have mudflows that could impact development. The Amendment would not impact any development due to inundation by a seiche or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Amendment would not physically divide an established community because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could physically divide an established community. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 24 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development must be consistent with and comply with the National City General Plan, which does not allow development to divide an established community. The proposed Amendments would not directly or indirectly divide an established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over development in the project area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with a land use plans, policies or regulations. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could conflict with the land use adopted by the general plan, a specific plan or the city's development code. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the adopted plans and codes and changes or revisions would be require if necessary to comply with the applicable plans and codes. The Amendment itself would not directly impact or conflict with any adopted land use plans or codes. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with that adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The city does not have any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. However, there are areas in close proximity to the project area with habitat and wildlife resources that are protected and development could impact the resources. The city would review projects for potential conflicts with these known wildlife resource areas and require measures to protect the resources when necessary. Since no development is directly proposed with the Amendment, no impacts due to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans would occur. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value to the region and the residents of the state. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are no known mineral resources within the project area that are of value to the region or the state. Therefore, future development would not impact any mineral resources. The Amendment would not impact minerals of value to the region or the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 25 XI. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could expose persons to or generate noise in excess of standards established by the National City General Plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could expose residents or employees to noise levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance or projects could generate noise levels that exceed the city's allowable noise levels. The city would review all development proposals for noise impacts and require changes or modifications accordingly to ensure compliance with the city's noise standards. The Amendment would not have any noise impacts by exposing people to levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance. b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects and would not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or noise levels. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could expose people to ground vibrations and impact them. The city would review all development plans for potential ground borne vibrations and require project changes or modifications accordingly to reduce vibration impacts. The Amendment would not have any direct ground home 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 26 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels above existing levels. Temporary or periodic noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment could occur during project construction and impact surrounding land uses. The city would review development proposals at the time they are submitted for approval for potential temporary or short-term noise level increases that could impact surrounding land uses and require changes to reduce noise impacts. The Amendment would not directly result in substantial temporary noise level increases. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project areas associated with the Amendment are not located in an adopted airport land use plan. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to the project areas and is located approximately seven miles northwest of National City. The project would not expose people to excessive noise levels at an airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project would not induce a substantial population growth directly because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could induce substantial population growth. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could induce a substantial population growth depending upon the type of development, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The city would review development proposals for population growth impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. If projects would induce substantial population increases the city would determine at that time if an increase would be substantial and the impact the growth could have on the environment. The Amendment would not have a substantial population growth impact since no development is proposed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not displace a substantial number of houses requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could displace existing housing. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. The Amendment excludes using eminent domain for residential purposes. Therefore, the Amendment could not use eminent domain authority to acquire residential property resulting in the demolition of existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please see the response to b) above. eiN Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 27 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: offs 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 developmentOONN 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 28 1 fl construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts to the police department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to police services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. iii) Schools? No Impact. The project would not impact schools because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact schools. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The proposed Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial land uses and not residential. Although commercial and industrial development does generate students, the generation rate is much lower than residential. The number of students that would be generated by commercial or industrial development would be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of schools serving the project area. The two school districts, National City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that serve National City collect school impact fees from development as allowed by state law. The school impact fee is used by both school districts to provide classroom space for students. New commercial and industrial development would be required to pay school impact fees as applicable, which would be used to provide additional classroom space for students. The proposed Amendment would not impact area schools since development is not directly proposed at this time. iv) Parks? No Impact. The project would not impact city parks because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact parks. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities or increase the use of existing park facilities in National City. The city strives to maintain or expand the current (1996) ratio of park and open space land to population, which is 43/a 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 (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could increase traffic. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic with a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on area roads, or congestion at intersections. Additional development could impact the street system in the project area as well as the street system outside the project area. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development including the circulation system. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as street improvement to serve new development. The fee can be used to widen streets, construct needed intersection improvements, purchase and install traffic signals, restripe roadways, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts by development to circulation facilities throughout the project area as well as the city. The Amendment would not have any impacts to the circulation systems since development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management commission for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion commission for designated roads or highways because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could exceed individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the county. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic, which could exceed the level of service standard for roads in National City. Depending upon the type and location of projects the traffic could significantly impact the circulation system so that service levels are unacceptable. The city would review all development projects for potential traffic and circulation impacts to roadways. When necessary to meet acceptable service levels, a project may be required to construct street improvements or provide other measures to ensure acceptable levels of service. The proposed Amendment would not exceed the level of service of any roads or highways because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to National City and is located approximately seven miles northwest of the city. The Amendment would not impact air traffic patterns at the San Diego International Airport or any other airport in the area. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 30 e) c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially increase hazards due to design features. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could require new design features for traffic to flow properly, which could increase hazards and impact traffic and circulation. The city would review all future development proposals for potential impacts associated with street design, including sharp curves and roadway intersections that could impact traffic flow and safety. When necessary, the city would require project changes or modifications to provide safe circulation features, including curves and intersections. Because development is not proposed by the Amendment, no circulation impacts would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project would not provide any inadequate emergency access because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not proposed public or private development projects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city along with the police and fire departments would review all development proposals for adequate emergency access. Projects would be required to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Amendment would not have any emergency access impacts because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 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 govem 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 A storm drain facilities. f Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration July 2004 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Page 32 } g) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would have a need for potable water. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate a need for potable water for drinking, landscape irrigation, and fire flow. Depending upon the type and intensity of development the existing water supplies may not be adequate to provide a sufficient water supply for a project. The city along with the Sweetwater Authority would review all development proposals to determine if there is a sufficient supply of water or if additional water supplies would be required. As applicable, all projects would be required to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. The Amendment would not have any water supply impacts since development is not proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Amendment would not exceed wastewater treatment capacity of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would be treated by the Point Loma treatment plant. The wastewater would not impact the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and its ability to provide wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallons of wastewater per day to the South Metro Interceptor Sewer. Flows in National City as of August 2003 were 5.67 million gallons per day, which allows capacity for additional wastewater flows by future development without requiring the San Diego Wastewater Department to increase or expand the capacity of any trunk lines or the Point Loma treatment plant. f) 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. 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/0%s Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could reduce solar access. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could reduce solar access or impact opportunities for passive heating and cooling depending upon the intensity and design of the project. The city would review all projects for potential solar access impacts and require changes accordingly to reduce solar access impacts and enhance passive solar heating and cooling opportunities. The Amendment would not directly have any solar access impacts. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. The project would not impact fish or wildlife populations because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below a self-sustaining level. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No, Impact. The project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could have adverse environmental effects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to humans and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 35 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B California Environmental Quality Act National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 2004/2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan - Negative Declaration fraio A. INTRODUCTION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain ("2004 Amendment"). The Community Development Commission prepared the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority over all properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20), regardless of their zoning designation, the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017. Properties that are currently being used for residential purposes would continue to be excluded from eminent domain. The Community Development Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur by amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received on the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment during the public review period. The community raised many issues and concerns during the public review and public hearing process for the proposed 2004 Amendment. Due to the community's concerns and public testimony, the Community Development Commission has subsequently reduced the geographic areas that could be subject to the authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area to those areas that are now referred to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors. The commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area that would now subject to the use of eminent domain are shown on the attached map. Additionally, the Community Development Commission reduced the number of years to extend its eminent domain authority from twelve (12) years to ten (10) years until 2015. The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, which reflects the stated changes. B. CEQA PROVISIONS As stated above, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed 2005 Amendment does not require the recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) which states: "Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: ...(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects." Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and Community Development Commission due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain for the originally proposed 2004 Amendment. The Negative Declaration also adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the currently proposed 2005 Amendment due to the fact that no new avoidable significant effects would occur. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06-09-2005 16:17 From-SP2, INC. 9496600920 7-694 P.002/004 F-588 California Environmental Quality Act Addendum — Negative Declaration A. PROJECT INFORMATION Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Community Development Commission 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 National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 Project Location: Project Description: Prepared By: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single- family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2015. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in is Amendment. Date: Community Development Commission of National City— Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06/09/2005 THU 16:20 1 JOB NO. 5522) gl 002 06-09-2005 16:17 From-SP2, INC. 9496600920 T-694 P.003/004 F-588 B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (the "CDC") prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received to the Negative Declaration during the public review period. The Negative Declaration evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur with amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain for commercial and industrial properties west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission has since reduced the commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain to specific areas due to concerns raised by the community duringthe public hearing process. Thus, the Community Development Commission has restricted the use of eminent domain to those commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area as shown on the attached map. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain as proposed last year. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the authority to use eminent domain for the reduced number of commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area. The reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties that are subject to the use of eminent domain does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration complies with the California Environmental Quality Act in its analysis of the reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain as shown in the attached map. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain nainni9nnc -run ia•9n r .inu Nn SS99 1 fh nnl Appendix A CRL Section 33030 and 33031 The CRL sets forth specific parameters that define blight. According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area contains both of the following: 1. An area that is predominantly urbanized and is an area in which the combination of physical and economic blighting conditions is so prevalent and substantial that it causes "a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or govemmental action, or both, without redevelopment" (CRL Section 33030(b)(1)). 2. An area that is characterized by either physical blight and economic blight or the "existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership" (CRL Sections 33030(b)(2) and 33031(a)(4)). Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. The characteristics of both physical and economic blight, as defined above, are present throughout the Project Area. The characteristics of physical blight include deteriorated and dilapidated structures, lots/buildings suffering from defective design, substandard design, and lots of inadequate size, and incompatible uses. The characteristics of economic blight include low lease rates, depreciated property values, impaired investments, low per capita retail sales tax, and crime, all of which are indicative of declining market conditions. These blighting conditions are detrimental to surrounding uses and the community. CRL Section 33031(a) describes the following physical conditions that constitute blight: 1. Lots/buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; examples of these conditions include: a. Dilapidated and deteriorated buildings. b. Lots/buildings suffering from defective design or physical construction. c. Lots/buildings suffering from faulty or inadequate utilities. d. Serious building code violations. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots; examples of these conditions include: a. Lots/buildings suffering from substandard design. b. Lots/buildings of inadequate size, given present standards and market conditions. c. Lack of available parking. 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape, inadequate size for proper usefulness and development, and that are in multiple ownership. ECONOMIC BLIGHT CRL Section 33031(b) describes the following economic conditions that constitute blight: 1. Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments. This condition includes the presence of hazardous waste. 2. Stagnant or declining market conditions; examples of this include: a. Abnormally high business vacancies. b. Abnormally low lease rates. c. High turnover rates. d. Abandoned buildings. e. Excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban uses and served by utilities. 3. A lack of necessary commercial facilities such as those normally found in neighborhoods including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 4. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 5. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix B Data Source List 1. Land use survey performed by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (March through May 2005). 2. San Diego County Assessor's parcel maps and assessed value data provided by Metroscan data service (2003-04 and 2004-05). 3. California Health and Safety Code including Sections 17920.3, 33030 and 33031. 4. Automated Regional Justice Information System from the San Diego Association of Governments, 2004 calendar year. 5. Data from the City of National City a. Code enforcement violations b. Hazardous Materials — Fire Department c. Traffic — Police Department d. City of National City Fire Department — 2004 Annual Report e. 1999-2000 Survey of Underage Drinking and Perceptions of Alcohol in National City. 6. How Buildings Learn, What Happens After They're Built. Stewart Brand, Penguin Books, (1994). 7. Local realtors and shopping center managers provided information, vacancy rates and lease rates (Spring 2005). 8. Environmental Protection Agency web site article, Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. 9. Environmental Hazardous Site — Environmental Protection Agency — Brownfields Grant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix C Photo Survey The following is a photographic depiction of some of the conditions observed from properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: Parcel Number— 562 330 24 On four separate occasions at least 12 semi -trailers related to the same business were observed using the street as Tong -term storage for trailers and materials. This is an example of inadequate lot size as the operator does not have sufficient on -site storage for materials and trailers. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number— 559 117 05 The loading area for this industrial building is inadequate to accommodate larger delivery vehicles such as the one pictured. This creates access issues for the other vehicles seeking to enter and exit the area. Parcel Number — 559 072 07 Residential building between two industrial uses is incompatible for both residential occupants and industrial uses as there are no buffers between the two. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 063 07 This obsolete motel has been the site of various criminal activity and as revenue has declined the owner has been cited for illegally converting short-term rooms to long-term apartments. Parcel— 560141 05 Outdoor welding under canvas tarp is a fire hazard as well as detracts from surrounding uses. Industrial sites with inadequate building sizes resort to substandard outdoor manufacturing as there are no other on -site altematives. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-3 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel— 555111 08 Across the street from this residence are multiple industrial buildings with inadequate parking as shown in the picture below. This lack off -site parking forces residents to illegally park their vehicles on already crowded streets. Parcel— 555 112 09 This property cannot accommodate the number of cars seeking repairs as well as parking for employees. Business such as this adversely effect on street parking for residents and reduce vehicle site lines at intersections. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX G4 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 202 09 The business where this vehicle is waiting to be repaired is stored with five other vehicles on the street. This practice is common throughout the Project Area and contributes to the overall crowded street conditions. Parcel Number — 562 251 36 This site suffers from environmental contamination and cannot be built upon for the foreseeable future. Storage activities are the only usage this site is able to maintain until the pollution subsides and the ground stops sinking. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21. 2005 APPENDIX C-5 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 556 35410 This site is one of several on Highland Avenue that are vacant or are used for storage instead of typical commercial activity. As the site only has on -street parking it reduces the types of businesses that might occupy the site. The owner was cited for attempting to illegally convert the building to residential units. Parcel Number — 559 105 01 Substandard construction was used to connect this residential building to the industrial building and is a fire hazard to both structures. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-6 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 560 202 01 This site and building are obsolete for the business operating out of it. Substandard building materials such as corrugated metal flex during an earthquake or fire and compromise the structural integrity of buildings. Parcel Number — 563 370 43 This former grocery store has been vacant for over 2 years and detracts from the surrounding businesses who have to survive without an anchor tenant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-7 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 559 125 16 This residential building next to a manufacturing facility represents an incompatible use. This property shows how residential buildings are less likely to be maintained as surrounding incompatible uses detract from the rent these properties might realize. Parcel Number — 559 010 04 If companies cannot find a consolidated site for operations they use nearby sites and have to transport goods between the areas. This is an unsafe condition for other vehicles as well as the driver of the forklift ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-8 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT IEETING DATE: June 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez Executive Director EXPLANATION: DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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, re- gardless of their zoning designation, within the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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 2005 Amendment. The required 30-day public review period was conducted from July 30, 2004 through August 30, 2004. 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 2005 Amendment. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. J 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 2005 Amendment. J ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below 1. Resolution No. 2005- 2. Report to the City Council Resolution No. 3. Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney 8 RESOLUTION 2005 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") did duly pass and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, in 2004, the CDC proposed to amend the Plan to expand the CDC's authority to acquire property as a last resort through eminent domain to vacant and abandoned properties (as defined in Section 7.06.020 of the National City Municipal Code), and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the CDC has formulated an amendment to the Plan ("2005 Amendment") which would permit the CDC to use eminent domain to acquire all commercial and industrial zoned properties, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings, regardless of their zoning designation, within the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared on the originally proposed 2004 Amendment in the form attached herewith as Attachment "A"; and WHEREAS, a notice of the availability of the Negative Declaration for public review and comment was published on July 30, 2004, in the San Diego Daily Transcript, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of National City; and WHEREAS, the required 30-day public review period for the Negative Declaration was conducted from July 30, 2004 through August 30, 2004; and WHEREAS, the changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and CDC due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. The determination on the Negative Declaration was prepared on the proposed 2005 Amendment in the form attached herewith as Attachment "B"; and Attachment 1 Resolution No. 2005 — June 21, 2005 Page 2 WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the CDC and the City Council held a duly advertised Joint Public Hearing on the proposed 2005 Amendment and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of National City hereby finds and determines, as follows: Section 1. That there is not substantial evidence that the proposed 2005 Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council based upon the whole record of the Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study contained therein, any comments received and evidence and testimony received at the Joint Public Hearing on the Negative Declaration. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2005 Amendment, and hereby approves the Negative Declaration. Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized to file, in cooperation with the Secretary of the Community Development Commission, a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego following adoption by the City Council of the Ordinance adopting the proposed 2005 Amendment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of June 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney 2005.Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan Report to the city council June 21, 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, California 92701-4502 P : 714.541.4585 F: 714.541.1175 E-Mail: info@webrsg.com Attachment 2 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Plan Amendment 2 Contents of this Report 3 Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific 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 6 Study Approach and Methodology 6 Physical Blighting Conditions 9 Figure B - 1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations 18 Economic Conditions that Cause Blight 20 Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment 26 Physical and Economic Burden on Community 27 Five -Year Implementation Plan 29 Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Altematives Other Than Tax Increment 29 The Method of Financing 30 The Method of Relocation 31 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan 32 Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission 32 Report of the Project Area Committee 33 General Plan Conformance 33 Environmental Documentation 34 Report of the County Fiscal Officer 34 Neighborhood Impact Report 35 A Summary of the Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies 35 Attachment 1 — Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain 36 Attachment 2 — Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain 37 Attachment 3 — Negative Declaration 38 Appendices Appendix A - Data Source List Appendix A-1 Appendix B - Law Section 33030 and 33031 Appendix B-1 Appendix C - Photo Survey Appendix C-1 Tables Table B-1 - Summary of Blighting Conditions 10 Table B-2 - Monthly Lease Rate Comparisons Spring 2005 21 Table B-3 - 2004 Crime Rates Per 1,000 Persons For National City and Selected Local Jurisdictions 26 Introduction Introduction The Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") is processing an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). This is being done to facilitate commercial and industrial revitalization and to 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 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. Attachment 1 presents a map of the Project Area boundaries with the proposed commercial and industrial corridors that would be subject to eminent domain authority, if the 2005 Amendment is adopted. 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. Attachment 2 identifies the portions of the Project Area currently subject to eminent domain authority. These properties were identified in 1995 and 2001 on the basis that they could be needed to facilitate commercial revitalization projects through land assembly and parcel consolidation. It is important to note that most properties (over 80%) in the Project Area are currently exempt from eminent domain authority. 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 commercial and industrial properties need to be subject to eminent domain. Projects requiring land assembly in non -eminent domain areas were not developed and the blighting conditions remaining on these properties have not been cured in most instances. This document is the CDC's Report to the City Council ("Report") for the proposed 2005 Amendment, and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the Califomia Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the Report provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the City Council of National City with their consideration of the 2005 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 ' Dated June 13, 1995 and June 19, 2001 respectively. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 1 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and subsequent amendments; the Original Reports are incorporated herein by reference. Plan Amendment The proposed 2005 Amendment would modify the text of the Plan only as it pertains to eminent domain authority; no other changes are proposed by the 2005 Amendment. The proposed text modification is as follows: The CDC may acquire, through eminent domain, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and 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 10 years2 from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33457.1 of the Law dictates the required components of this Report. More specifically, Section 33457.1 states that the report and information required by Section 33352 is the only the report and information warranted by the 2005 Amendment. Much of the information normally required that pertains to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports. 2 The Law allows commissions to establish eminent domain authority for up to 12 years. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 Altematives 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 SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section A Reasons for the Amendment and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area The CDC seeks to amend the Plan by extending the CDC's eminent domain authority (subject to all required procedures under Califomia law) to potentially acquire properties identified in Attachment 1, 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The 2005 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 2005 Amendment in order to expand its ability to assemble sites, thereby facilitating commercial, industrial and residential redevelopment projects in the Project Area. The CDC adopted the 1995 Redevelopment Plan authorizing the current limited eminent domain authority. The 1995 Report to the City Council ("1995 Report") cited socioeconomic conditions such as low median household income, high unemployment, high proportion of residential tenants versus home owners and low residential rents as blighting factors. The 1995 Report also discussed the mixture of land uses many of which are incompatible and/or obsolete as well as small parcel sizes and limited public infrastructure as additional blighting conditions. To facilitate the elimination of the above blighting conditions the CDC has initiated public right-of-way improvements, speck plans for development and environmental remediation of toxic sites over the last 10 years. Unfortunately, these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. The CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of these properties continue to be neglected 10 years later. Adopting the 2005 Amendment will expand the scope of the Plan's eminent domain authority and afford the CDC one additional tool to eliminate blight in the ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Project Area, through the facilitation of land assemblage activities within the areas identified in Attachment 1. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 5 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ion B 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. However, additional blight documentation is required when eminent domain authority is established for new properties. As the 2005 Amendment expands the CDC's eminent domain authority to additional properties within the existing Project Area, a re -substantiation of blight for these new properties is required. Sections 33030-33031 of the Law (Appendix A) define the specific physical, economic and social conditions of blight that must exist within a redevelopment project area for adoption of the 2005 Amendment. The following section discusses each of the factors contributing to blight, as defined by the Law and is discussed and statistically documented. To that end, the CDC's consultant surveyed the properties presented on Attachment 1 and identified at least one blighting condition for 86% of properties. The survey was conducted on a parcel basis from March through May of 2005. Study Approach and Methodology Several data sources were utilized to quantify existing conditions in the Project Area. A complete listing is included as Appendix B. An important data source for evaluating the existence and prevalence of conditions that characterize blight in the Project Area was the field survey conducted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., consultants to the CDC, from March through May of 2005. The survey documented existing physical and economic conditions of each parcel in the Project Area. Both physical and economic indicators were observed during the field survey, including inadequate lot size, defective/substandard design, impaired investments, substandard building materials, inadequate parking and access, deterioration and dilapidation, faulty additions, incompatible uses, poor handling of hazardous materials and unsafe traffic conditions. Surveyors' Qualifications The lead surveyor, David Parsons, has a masters' degree in City Planning and Public Administration and has worked in local govemment for 3 years. At his previous position, Mr. Parsons worked in the Planning Department as a liaison to the Code Compliance Department and the neighborhood revitalization task force. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 6 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL He assisted property owners with their housing rehabilitation projects, including determining zoning compliance. Mr. Parsons has worked with RSG nearly two years, principally assisting in the amendment and adoption of redevelopment project areas as well as other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area amendment projects in the cities of Carlsbad, National City, Pinole, Poway and San Diego. Assistant to the lead surveyor, Walt Lauderdale holds a bachelors of Science degree in urban and regional planning and has worked in the field of community development and land use planning for nearly eleven years. Mr. Lauderdale has worked with RSG for over 3 years and has assisted in plan adoption and amendment activities of redevelopment project areas in addition to other related redevelopment activities. He has worked on project area adoption or amendment projects in communities such as South Central Los Angeles, Los Angeles Mid - City, the Watts area of Los Angeles and the Crossroads and Grantville areas of San Diego. Based upon initial reconnaissance, RSG prepares and refines a survey instrument for each project area. Each parcel has its own survey sheet and is identified by parcel numbers using county parcel maps. The survey forms include physical blighting conditions as prescribed by section 33031(a) of the Law, and economic blighting conditions listed in section 33031(b) of the Law, which are amenable to a visual survey. The survey forms contain consistent, educated assessments regarding the condition of parcels in the Project Area. The land use survey results in a nominal assessment of whether a condition is "present" or "not present" RSG acknowledges that different degrees of deterioration or deficiencies are present in each parcel. RSG staff at a minimum cites a condition as present if a reasonable person, shown the condition, could see the damage. In most circumstances, this deterioration was visible from the right-of-way (streets or alleys). In the commercial and industrial properties inspectors may have viewed properties from parking lots or driveways. The following list describes the condition(s) that are present when a property/parcel is designated as having physical deficits. Deterioration/Dilapidation Broken/deteriorated roofing material • Describes broken and wom shingles • Tarped roofs that presumably are leaking • Roofing materials that are approaching the end of their useful life Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing • Describes wood rot deterioration • Likely insect infestation causing damage • Physical damage from age or unknown causes Damaged building materials • Describes voids in building materials • Significant cracking ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Crumbling materials Exposed wiring • Signifies electrical wiring either strung or dangling from buildings. • Describes excessive exterior conduit on outer walls from multiple additions • The presence of extension cords protruding from windows/doors, appearing to supply indoor or outdoor electrical power Broken window/door • Indicates a broken or cracked window • Describes exterior doors including garage doors with voids or severely damaged wood Structural damage of roof, foundation or walls • A visual bow or curve in the roof • Crooked roof • Significant cracking about the foundation (not cracked stucco) Substandard exterior plumbing • Describes piping usually attached to the exterior of a structure that appears to not meet current code requirements Faulty weather protection - lack of paint • Indicates instances where areas of buildings lack paint or color coat or paint is peeling Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access • Driveways that do not allow two vehicles to pass • Curves or tums in driveways that prevent seeing on -coming traffic Substandard exterior building materials • Structures built with tin, corrugated metal, plywood, etc. (materials that do not meet current building codes) Poorly constructed addition • Structures that do not meet current building codes because of design, configuration, materials Lack of light/ventilation • Buildings with inadequate set -backs and or windows • Industrial buildings with inadequate mechanical ventilation systems. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 8 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site • Indicates that the number of parking spaces does not meet current code requirements • Designates situations of inadequate parking that were observed during the survey Inadequate loading facilities • Indicates properties that have inferior loading facilities due to size, configuration • No loading facilities Excessive coverage • Designates commercial and industrial properties that lack parking, open space, landscaping, and/or access Outdoor storage/garbage/debris • Specifies properties that have trash strewn about • Indicates properties that have commerce, storage or displays outdoors Commercial and Industrial businesses with persons working outdoors • Circumstances in which persons were observed working outdoors (primarily on automobiles and light -manufacturing) No off -site parking • Indicates that on -street parking is not available along the curb in front of a parcel Physical Blighting Conditions The Law describes physical conditions that cause blight. These physical conditions are assessed in terms of the health and safety of persons and the economic viability of development in an area. To make this assessment, data from field surveys, City code enforcement, fire and police, the County and other sources are evaluated to determine what conditions may be adversely affecting the health and safety of persons in an area, as well as the adverse economic conditions that result from these physical conditions. Generally as economic returns from an area decline there is a corresponding lack of investment in physical upkeep of properties, further perpetuating physical blight. The Law requires that both physical and economic blighting conditions be present for the establishment of eminent domain authority for new properties, in an existing project area. Overall, 86% of all properties in the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting conditions (Table B-1). The physical blighting conditions include deterioration and dilapidation, inadequate lot size, inadequate vehicle access, substandard building materials along with faulty additions and obsolescence. The ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 9 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL presence of these conditions reflects a lack of investment by property owners in maintaining their properties in good condition to assure the safety of persons who work in the area. Poor physical conditions place a burden on the community by reducing its ability to meet its goal of fostering vibrant neighborhoods. Table B-1 summarizes the blighting conditions observed during the field survey of the Project Area. There were nearly 1,300 distinguishable properties among 1,560 parcels. Parcels or property uses not individually reflected in the table include; parking lots that were part of developments, condominium designations (commercial and industrial) that were part of a single property use and some vacant parcels. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF BLIGHTING CONDITIONS Parcles in the Project Area 1560 Total number of properies surveyed 1,300 Physical Blighting Conditions Total Parcels Surveyed with Blighting Conditions Total Percent of Parcels Surveyed wl Blighting Conditions Deterioration and Dilapidation Lack of paint - faulty weather protection Exposed wiring Damaged exterior building materials Deteriorated wood eaves/overhangs/framing Broken/deteriorated roofing material 578 766 621 182 159 44% 59% 48% 14% 12% Defective Design Inadequate vehicle access Substandard exterior building materials Poorly constructed addition Inadequate pedestrian access 134 375 208 46 10% 29% 16% 4% Factors Inhibiting Economic Viability Inadequate parking on -site Inadequate loading facilities Excessive coverage/inadequate setbacks Outdoor storage or production Garbage/debris/stagnant water/combustible materials No off -site parking 631 27 149 678 595 42 49% 2% 11% 52% 46% 3% Total Number of Properties Surveyed With at Least One Blighting Condition 1,113 86% Source: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. land use survey ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 10- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Physical Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Economically Viable Use of Buildings or Lots Section 33031(a)(2) of the Law describes physical conditions that cause blight to include "Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors." The following discussion substantiates the presence of inadequate lot and building size, lack of parking, substandard design and obsolescence. Lot Size Small parcel sizes particularly in the commercial corridors of Highland Avenue and 8th Street as well as the industrial portions of the Westside area north of 22nd Street hinder their capacity to be rehabilitated and redeveloped. Current market standards for neighborhood commercial development generally require at least a two -acre site and a four -acre site for light -industrial development. There are only 21 properties of four or more acres and 71 properties of two or more acres affected by the 2005 Amendment with 543 commercial or industrial properties being less than on -half acre. Inadequate lot size results in development that either (1) lacks adequate parking, loading and vehicle access; or (2) prohibits redevelopment and reuse of parcels because the density of development that exists today would not be allowed without provisions for adequate parking, loading and vehicle access. New development constructed to modem development standards would be required to provide adequate parking, loading and vehicle access, which many commercial and industrial parcels in the Project Area cannot accommodate. Once these amenities are included, the small lot sizes yield development that is substantially below allowed floor -area -ratios (density) and cause new development to be incapable of supporting the going land values in the Project Area. The only solution to this dilemma is to consolidate parcels into larger areas that allow development yield to be maximized while at the same time providing the parking, loading and vehicle access that the current commercial/industrial markets mandate. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with a tool to assemble adequately sized properties, in which site development can meet modem market standards. Due to inadequate parcel size, the zoning in the Westside Industrial Area and Highland Commercial Corridor does not limit the lot coverage of new structures. If there were lot coverage limitations many of the smaller parcels would never have been developed. The problem however is that many buildings in these areas have little or no setbacks, which becomes a fire hazard as fire can spread more easily from structure to structure when buildings are connecting or in close proximity to one another. Adequate setbacks also serve as a buffer between uses, such as commercial/industrial uses next to residential structures. Without adequate buffers between uses, noise as well as toxic fumes and dust cross property lines and negatively affect surrounding properties. As the Project Area is ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 11 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL already built -out, it is infeasible for small -lot owners to now provide buffers and reduce excessive coverage of existing buildings within existing site constraints. The 2005 Amendment will provide a tool for the CDC to assemble sites large enough to have adequate buffers between uses. 149 properties were considered by RSG surveyors to have excessive coverage. Complicating this problem are industrial buildings which lack adequate floor space for inside manufacturing and storage. As operations overflow outside into already constrained parking areas there is nowhere for the parking needs to be met, except for the already congested street area. Over 70% properties in the 2005 Amendment Area have buildings that are 25 years or age (prior to 1981) or older. The sites these buildings occupy were not designed with to meet modem -day market demands and display inadequate site design as evidenced by the 631 surveyed properties (49%) that have inadequate parking. These businesses use the street to meet their parking and storage needs, which reduces the off -site parking for surrounding uses many of which were also designed with inadequate on -site parking. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with the ability to correct this physical constraint, thereby reducing the impaired investment these properties represent when compared to properties with proper site design and adequate parking. Inadequate loading is another typical characteristic of properties with insufficient lot size. Often small lots must employ sidewalk and/or street loading due to the lack of adequate on -site space. Unloading in the right-of-way; impedes access to businesses, reduces vehicle sight lines for pedestrian and other vehicular traffic as well as restricts traffic flow creating a hazardous traffic condition. Trucks often park on sidewalks to make deliveries putting pedestrians at risk due to tripping or being struck by vehicles, when they have to walk into the street to avoid the delivery that is blocking the sidewalk In addition, sidewalk and street loading suggests that the current site use might not be in accordance with its original design. For example, a residential structure that was converted to a commercial or industrial use typically has a small lot size, the only way to correct the small lot size and provide enough area for safe loading is through parcel consolidation. When businesses do have on -site loading and parking, these features are often difficult to access due to narrow driveways that allow only one car to enter/exit at a time. Access is further restricted by outdoor storage and production taking place in the parking lots. Buildings were observed to have a loading dock and parking area only to be blocked by outdoor storage and production activities. This practice of outdoor staging areas for production on small industrial lots, further exacerbates the on -street parking problems. The City has tried to compensate for this by using diagonal parking particularly in the Westside Area, but this has created safety problems for vehicles due to reduced sight -lines at intersections and congested work areas extending into the public right-of-way which compromises pedestrian safety. As the vast majority of the parcels in the Project Area are fully developed and there is little opportunity or incentive for businesses to provide additional parking, no significant "new" parking can be anticipated ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2605 NATIONAL CITY - 12 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL without the assistance of redevelopment and the approval of the 2005 Amendment to facilitate assemblage of larger lots for improved site design. The lack of parking hinders the economically viable use of these commercial and industrial properties, as tenants who desire adequate parking can pay market rent for properties with adequate parking and loading facilities to operate their businesses at a higher efficiency than those businesses operating on a constrained site. Property owners of inadequately sized properties cannot realize these higher revenue rates as their sites are too small to properly accommodate amenities that are desirable to tenants willing to pay higher rents. Also, as the economic revenue from a property levels off and/or declines, property owners are unlikely to make the needed physical improvements to their properties contributing to the further decline of the Project Area. Outdoor storage and manufacturing is a common problem throughout the Project Area for both commercial and industrial properties and is another indicator of inadequate lot and buildings size. Commercial properties often use outdoor storage for excess materials, trash and other items. Unscreened dumpsters, which are also very prevalent in the Project Area lead to unsanitary conditions affecting the health and safety of those in the general area as trash becomes strewn about, attracting insects and rodents. The presence of outdoor storage is an indicator that the existing building stock provides inadequate building space for existing business activities. Also, outdoor storage contributes to the declining appearance and perception of the Project Area, this perception of decline reduces the revenue properties can generate as investors will not pay the same rate commanded by non -blighted properties for properties perceived to be in decline. Overall, 52% of properties either had outdoor storage and or outdoor production. To further accommodate outdoor repairs and production, many businesses are using temporary canvas tarp (tent) buildings as permanent additions to existing areas for outdoor manufacturing. These tarp buildings present a fire hazard to existing buildings which the tarp is attached to. For example, sparks from welding operations under these tarps can smolder in the tarps and then spread to the building itself or nearby chemical or combustible materials storage as many of the manufacturing and repair businesses use chemicals and other combustible materials in their operations. Outdoor uses therefore, are often a safety hazard due to environmental, fire and vehicle access deficiencies. Structural Obsolescence While inadequate loading, parking and storage are characteristics of small lot size, these deficiencies are also indicative of properties 25 years or older. The deficiencies associated with many older properties are often referred to as obsolescence. Obsolescence is the result of a combination of blight factors, including the age of a buildings, lack of maintenance, and a lack of desirable amenities such as parking and tenant improvements that occur as contemporary market standards evolve. For these reasons, obsolescence results in factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings and lots. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 13 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL The appeal of obsolete buildings diminishes as market conditions and consumer preferences change causing other uses to fill the void. Many auto repair businesses locate in the Project Area to compliment the retail operations of the Mile of Cars area. However, most of these supporting businesses are located on side streets behind the modem buildings of the Mile of Cars, where the rents are significantly less and in obsolete/inadequate buildings without the needed amenities to properly operate these supporting businesses. Commercial and industrial development standards have changed significantly since the 1965 when over 40% of the commercial and industrial properties in the Project Area were developed. Modem industrial developments offer larger floor and lot sizes along with amenities such as landscaping, on -site parking and adequate loading areas for larger delivery vehicles. Commercial and industrial uses without adequate area often negatively affect surrounding properties through competition for on -street parking and on -street deliveries that restrict access to surrounding properties. Inadequate vehicle access is another indicator of obsolescence. The commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area were developed in a style that is deficient by today's development standards. Principally it did not provide driveways that had adequate site lines into oncoming traffic nor were the driveways properly designed to accommodate two-way traffic or traffic queuing particularly in commercial corridors. 134 parcels or 10% of the parcels in the Project Area exhibited inadequate vehicle access condition. Buildings Unsaf&Unhealthy to Live or Work In Section 33031(a)(1) of the Law identifies several blighting conditions that denote a building that is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These include the following: serious code violations, deterioration or dilapidation, and defective design or physical conditions, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. Substandard building materials, faulty additions and incompatible uses are other factors of defective design. Code Enforcement Violations Violations of local or state building codes are a blighting condition identified under Section 33031(a) of the Law, which characterizes buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Buildings and structures that do not meet current uniform building requirements, or other local codes mandated to ensure human health and safety, pose a threat to the workers, patrons, and residents of an area. Code enforcement efforts are, for the most part, limited to complaint generated enforcement. The majority of complaints come from property owners or tenants who observe potential violations in their neighborhoods. However, since code violations are primarily investigated only if a complaint is filed or observed by City staff, many violations go unnoticed and the true number of building and other code violations is likely to be greater than those reported. Even if adequate ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 14 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL funding was available for City staff to pursue all initial code enforcement violations from the first time each violation was observed, there would need to be at least two times this number of personnel to do the proper follow up that each case typically requires. Based on discussions with City staff, most code enforcement cases require at least one, if not two to three additional follow up visits to make sure the violation is not reoccurring. The following is a list of code violations observed by City staff in the commercial and industrial corridors of the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: • Unsafe wiring such as extension cords being used as permanent wiring, this fire hazard was typically observed in residential structures converted to commercial and industrial uses: • Unsafe and excessive signage that is improperly secured or with supports that have rusted, which then becomes a falling hazard; • A -frame signs on sidewalk and signage for a one-time use (real estate leasing) that was not permitted and laying in the public right-of-way, which becomes a tripping hazard; • Inventory (displays) stored on sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian access; • Public right-of-way (streets and sidewalks) being used for manufacturing and repair area, particularly for auto related businesses, which leads to manufacturing debris and pollution being left in the public right-of-way and a hazard to pedestrians; • Due to overcrowding on street parking in commercial and industrial areas, commercial and industrial vehicles are stored on nearby residential streets. Small parcel size also leads to parking of vehicles on grass and other non -paved surfaces, which has contributed to environmental contamination of the Project Area; • Public streets being used for loading and unloading of merchandise, usually blocking or impairing traffic, which is a safety hazard for drivers and pedestrians; • Canvass or plastic tarps were often observed being used as long-term roof covering or to creating an unsafe building addition as well as permanent outdoor work areas; • Inadequate securing of trash in dumpster enclosures leads to unsanitary conditions; • Illegal dumping of trash (including vehicles) was observed throughout the Project Area, particularly on vacant property or abandoned commercial and industrial properties; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 15 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ems • Unlicensed businesses operating on the site of another business or conducting operations, which are not allow under the current license. For example a car audio sales business doing installation in the parking lot contributes to overcrowding and promotes vehicles repair activity in the parking lots instead of the safety of a properly designed service facility, • Residential structures converted to non-residential uses without proper permits. Without proper permitting/inspections residential structures cannot be properly evaluated if they are suitable for industrial conversion. For example, multiple residential structures that were being used for commercial/industrial uses were observed to have excessive storage facilities (over 120 square feet of area) in the dedicated setback area, creating a fire hazard; • Outdoor chemical usage in addition, to toxic manufacturing with exhaust and particle venting not to code. This was often observed with outdoor auto repair shops, which in multiple cases are next to residential uses; • Along Highland Avenue several abandoned office/commercial buildings are illegally converted to residential uses, which has lead to substandard living conditions for residents; • Motels have illegally converted from short-term (less than 30-days) stay to long-term residential usage and attracting criminal activity as a result; • Abandoned houses in commercial areas attract criminal activity. In addition, several declining businesses have become storefronts for organized criminal activity such as narcotics, prostitution and general gang activity; • Decaying retaining walls along with dilapidated wood and corrugated fences threaten safety of those using the buildings, observed through the Project Area; • Overgrown vegetation becomes a fire hazard; and • Barbed/razor wire used to secure commercial and residential structures. It is important to note that if all code enforcement violations were corrected in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment, blighting factors such as environmental contamination, flooding, inadequately sized parcels and unsafe traffic conditions would still remain and the 2005 Amendment would still be justified and beneficial for the Project Area. Dilapidation and Deterioration During the field survey, the safety and condition of buildings in the Project Area were assessed using Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. This code section provides conditions that characterize a building as ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL. CITY - 16 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL substandard, unsafe, and unhealthy. Accordingly, a substandard building is one that exhibits any of the following conditions to an extent that it presents safety or property hazards: • General dilapidation or improper maintenance; • Wiring which does not conform to building codes and is in poor condition; • Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster, • Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint or weather stripping; • Broken or rotted, split or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings; • Construction materials not up to code which have not been property maintained and are in poor condition; • Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, stagnant water or similar materials or conditions which constitute a safety hazard; • Any building or portion thereof which is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the Uniform Building Code; and • Buildings or portions thereof occupied for commercial and industrial purposes, which were not designed or intended to be used for such occupancies. Deterioration and dilapidation is also an indicator of buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, as identified under the Law, section 33031(a)(1). It is a common physical blighting condition found in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Evidence of dilapidation and deterioration in these properties includes buildings with damaged exterior building materials (48% of properties), deteriorated paint or weather proofing (44% properties), deteriorated eaves or wood rot (14% properties), and exposed wiring (64% properties). The older age of many of the buildings, combined with deferred maintenance, are contributory factors to their current state. Review of Table B-1 indicates deterioration existing in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. As stated in the book How Buildings Learn. What Happens After They're Built (Stewart Brand), a lack of maintenance results in buildings becoming unusable, with a threat of structural failure. Brand states that due "to deterioration and obsolescence, a building's capital value (and the rent it can charge) about halves by twenty years after construction. Most buildings you can expect to completely refurbish from eleven to twenty-five years after construction. The rule of thumb about abandonment is simple...if repairs will cost half of the value of the building, don't bother." ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY -17 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL froaN As demonstrated in the figure below, if regular maintenance is not clone, first minor, and then major failures will result over time. As the cost of renovating the building goes up exponentially over the years, structural failure occurs and the building cannot be recovered. Because property owners may fear that they will not realize a retum on an investment in rehabilitation, buildings are often neglected. Poor building conditions indicate limited reinvestment in the building stock through renovation and rehabilitation, and reflect a weak environment for private sector development or redevelopment. Figure B -1: Time/Repair Cost Correlations Structural failures occur Structure not usable Start of major failures Start of minor failures B Normal wear A • • • • / '• Major repair Time in years Total cost of major repair (C) Total cost of minor repair (B) Total cost of preventive maintenance (A) Minor repair Preventive 11, maintenance PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (bottom line) not only costs markedly less in aggregate than repairing building failures, it reduces human wear and tear. A building whose systems are always breaking or threatening to break is depressing to the occupants, and that brings on another dimension of expense. This diagram is adapted from Preventive Maintenance of Buildings (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991), p.3. Quantification of the severity of building dilapidation would require access to building interiors and detailed review of the core structural, electrical, plumbing and roofing systems of each building. This type of extensive evaluation is not feasible as part of the documentation for the 2005 Amendment. However, it is possible to extrapolate from viewing the exterior of buildings that if little investment has been made to maintain and improve the exterior of a building, it is also likely that few improvements have been made to the core support systems and interior of the buildings. The fact that over 70% of buildings are over 25 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 18- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL years old and over 80% exhibit dilapidation and deficient exterior improvement, suggests significant interior dilapidation exists. Substandard Building Materials and Faulty Additions There were several examples of substandard building materials observed in the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. Corrugated metal sheeting is a primary example and is not a permitted building material according to the City code. The corrugated metal readily deteriorates from the weather and becomes more structurally unsound as it warps from the elements. Canvas and plastic tarps are even more prevalent and are not permitted to be used as building materials by the City. The results of the field survey indicate at least 375 incidences of substandard building materials and 208 buildings with faulty additions. Predominately, the industrial parcels affected by the 2005 Amendment represent the older style of development, offering limited or no amenities. Modem industrial buildings often use concrete tilt -up walls that can withstand the physical demands associated with industrial uses. The Project Area has multiple examples of wood - frame residential structures converted to industrial use. Residential wood -frame buildings are not designed to withstand industrial use requirements that may include production equipment or storage mounted to the walls as well as the high level of wear and tear associated with these non-residential activities. These activities cause the wood -frame structure to become dilapidated and wear down prematurely from the high -demands of industrial as well as commercial usage. Other inadequacies of older structures built for other uses include insufficient electrical supply, storage, and indoor manufacturing areas. Incompatible Adiacent Uses Incompatible adjacent uses where commercial and/or industrial properties are directly adjacent to residential uses were noted on 299 of the properties within the area affected by the 2005 Amendment and particularly in the Westside area between National City Blvd. and Interstate 5. As previously mentioned with respect to small -lot size, outdoor manufacturing was commonly observed without any noise buffers to surrounding residences. Furthermore, toxic dust created by outdoor industrial repairs and production drifts in an airbome state to surrounding residential properties, presenting a significant detrimental health and safety condition to these residents. Auto related uses on parcels of substandard size often have outdoor repairs and vehicle storage that spill out onto the street. These industrial uses congest streets for surrounding residents and reduce vehicle and pedestrian safety. Lack of Economic Viability These physical conditions of blight have had a serious impact on the economic viability of the Project Area. The lack of economic viability has resulted in all major chain grocery stores leaving the Project Area, where previously there were three (3). In their place, liquor stores have become the primary grocery providers ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 19 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL to many residents of the Project Area, which offer limited grocery services and contribute to the excessive number of alcohol distribution outlets in the Project Area and City as a whole. In addition, there are only four (4) banks operating in the Project Area, augmented by lenders such as payday loan outlets which charge interest rates that are substantially higher than commercial banks and lack the wide -range of financing services found at typical financial institutions. Within the last year a vacant Wells Fargo bank building was converted to a used car lot depriving the Project Area of another banking site. As preferred community serving businesses (banks and grocery stores) leave or refrain from locating stores in the Project Area, residents are left with fewer retail options. Community servicing businesses also create a synergy with existing retail and attract new customers to the businesses in the Project Area. In addition, to providing outside customers to augment the revenue of Project Area businesses, these outside customers often provide a positive retum to the City treasury through sales tax revenue. Not only do major chain retailers provide a wide -range of services to the Projed Area, but they traditionally serve as anchor tenants to shopping centers. A former Albertson's site of 65,000 square feet has remained vacant for over two years, the lack of this anchor tenant reduces the overall business traffic drawn to the shopping center and reduces the overall revenue existing business might realize in this shopping center. Over time this lack of total revenue may force some businesses to close further contributing to the economic blighting conditions of the Project Area. Economic Conditions that Cause Blight Recent court decisions have ruled that to qualify a new portion of an existing Project Area for eminent domain authority as the 2005 Amendment proposes to do, it must not only exhibit conditions of physical blight, but also must contain and suffer from economic blight. To accurately represent existing economic conditions, the Project Area has been analyzed and information has been gathered from the City, the County, and private sources to document the deteriorating economic conditions of the Project Area. The following describes economic blighting conditions that contribute to lack of proper utilization of Project Area properties. Impaired Investments Industrial Realtors familiar with the industrial properties in the Project Area cited a number of different problems that act in concert to impede the economic success of real estate within the older industrial corridors of the Project Area. For example, when ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 20 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE -PORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL the area developed, the standards for industrial development allowed for smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and reduced set -backs from other properties. These conditions negatively impact the appearance and detract from the marketability of the area. Most realtors also noted that the age of many industrial buildings renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned are listed on the following page. • Small building size; • Lack of parking on -site and off-street; • Lack of access to industrial sites; • Lack of other amenities or inadequate amenities such storage; • Low ceiling heights which restrict indoor operations and manufacturing and/or storage; • Inadequate construction materials such as wood frame used for industrial production; and • Lack of adequate utilities servicing properties. as loading and lead to outdoor buildings being The overall lack of amenities offered by a majority of industrial properties in the Project Area has created a lower tier market according to realtors. Most realtors graded the National City industrial market as a Class B or C (with Class A being the highest ranking) depending upon the condition of the building. This lower ranking attracts less desirable uses, such as outdoor auto repair and salvage, which further diminishes the image of the Project Area and the rents landowners are able to charge. Realtors surmise that the types of industrial businesses locating in the Project Area are looking for lower rents. Table B-2 shows a gross lease rate of $.85 per square foot monthly lease rate compared to the overall County rate of $1.02 per square foot or 17% lower. These lower lease rates generally result in little net income to reinvest in buildings to improve their condition. TABLE B-2 MONTHLY LEASE RATE COMPARISON SPRING 2005 Areas Industrial Office Retail National City $0.85 $1.20 $1.65 San Diego County Market Average $1.02 $2.03 $2.00 Source: CB Richard Ellis & Various Broker Interviews. Commercial In discussing the proposed Project Area with realtors familiar with the commercial properties in the area, a number of different problems were cited that act in ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 21 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL concert to impede economic success. For example, when the Project Area developed, the standards, as stated before, allowed smaller lot sizes than would be permitted today and no off-street parking particularly along Highland Avenue. Also noted is the age of many commercial buildings which renders them obsolete in today's market. Some of the deficiencies mentioned were: • Small building size; • Close proximity to uses (industrial) that detract from the physical appearance of the area. • Lack of streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way; • Lack of parking on and off-street; • Lack of proper access to site; and • Lack of amenities or inadequate amenities such as landscaping, loading and storage; and Several reaftors stated that the cost of land in the area is too high to be supported by the low lease rates that the existing uses bring, making improvement of existing buildings unlikely. Generally, commercial developers are looking for a minimum 2 acre parcels for development of a new neighborhood commercial center, which is available in only 5% of properties. An adequate revenue stream is necessary to enable property owners to perform routine maintenance of their real estate. Without funding for repairs, deferred maintenance issues become health and safety concems. This is especially true for older buildings. Table B-3 shows retail and office lease rates for the Project Area are in the low range when compared to the County average. Competition is also strong from other surrounding commercial offerings such as Chula Vista, San Ysidro or the Plaza Bonita shopping center. ft appears many businesses along portions of Highland Avenue and National City Blvd. north of 14th Street are just surviving due to vacancies or retail businesses being closed during normal working hours. This problem is likely to worsen if the physical constraints present in these portions of the Project Area are not addressed. The development proforma on the following page depicts the economic infeasibility of developing small lots in the Project Area market due to the lack of revenue generated by these small lots. The 2005 Amendment will provide the CDC with additional ability to address small lot sizes through lot assemblage. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 22 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROFORMA B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Assumes a lot 125 feet x 175 feet in size) Commercial Rental Income 10,938 Sf 5.0% of Gross Income $19.80 /Sf $216,563 (10,828) Gross Annual Rental Income (Less): Vacancy & Collection Gross Effective Income $205,734 Operating Expenses 8.0% of Gross Effective Income ($16,459) Property Management 3.0% of Gross Effective Income (6,172) Reserves 2.0% of Gross Effective Income (4,115) Total Expenses ($26.745) Net Operating Income $178,989 Cap Rate 9.0% Total Project Revenue $1,988,766 (Less) Development Costs (2,305,712) Profit/(Feasibility Gap) ($316,947) Per S.F. of Building 10,938 Sf ($28.98) Per S.F. of Land 21,875 Sf ($14.49) Hazardous Materials The Project Area has multiple locations of environmental concern, most of these sites are found in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment (Harbor District). Generally there are three land -uses generating environmental contamination in the 2005 Amendment area; large industrial uses (particularly in the Harbor District) along with auto repair facilities and small-scale industrial manufacturing (primarily in the Westside Area). The Harbor District is approximately 300 acres of industrial and distribution area at the westem edge of the Project Area between Interstate 5 and the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port District") Property along San Diego Bay. In 2003 the CDC undertook a Brownfields Grant Study Project ("Study Project") with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to determine the extent of the pollution in the Harbor District. The Study Project divided the Harbor District into fourteen (14) sites for individual analysis and concluded that each of the sites likely suffered from hazardous materials contamination. Historically the Harbor District was developed between 1885 and 1925 as a railroad staging area for transferring goods to ships on San Diego Bay. Industrial uses in the Harbor District over the last 100 years include: oil recycling and other oil distribution/refining facilities that used underground and aboveground storage tanks (including several gas stations), an ordnance company, aircraft parts manufacturer, a battery manufacturer, tank cleaning businesses, automotive servicing (including wreckers), machine and lumber storage, tool machining and metal fabrication, finishing and plating companies and gravel operations. At the time some of these businesses operated protective environmental regulations that are in place today did not exist. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 23 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL According to the Study Project many of these uses have resulted in the following types of pollution: soil and groundwater contamination with oils, lubricants, solvents, lead, asbestos, PCBs, corrosives, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and volatile organic compounds("VOC's"). Many of these uses generated hazardous wastes that in several cases was illegally disposed of onsite. At least 10 monitoring wells have been installed in the Harbor District to investigate subsurface conditions, with elevated petroleum hydrocarbons having been detected in soil as well as the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and VOCs confirmed in groundwater monitoring wells. While the CDC currently has eminent domain authority in the Harbor District, it is set to expire in July of 2007 and the 2005 Amendment would extend the CDC's eminent domain authority until 2015 to assist, if necessary in the clean up of these properties. Outside of the Harbor District are several other know sites of contamination which include; the Education Village, Police Station, Library site, and Public Works Yard, which were polluted by previous or surrounding industrial uses. It is important to note that the sites above are the most recently disturbed sites where significant excavation took place. It is suspected as more sites are excavated in the industrial and commercial corridors more polluted sites will be identified. Also, an area referred to as Duck Pond at the intersection of 30th Street and National City Boulevard was a former County of San Diego ("County") dumpsite, that suffers from methane gas discharge and ground sinking. It is likely there are more polluted sites in the Westside area, but as discussed above the CDC has only done environmental evaluation on sites where public buildings have been constructed. This is due to the CDC's very limited eminent domain authority outside of the Harbor District. Adoption of the 2005 Amendment will assist the CDC in facilitating development in these areas currently with limited eminent domain authority and provide a tool to expedite the cleanup of polluted sites as they are identified. The National City Fire Department ("Fire Department") in conjunction with the County issues permits for businesses handling hazardous materials ("Haz-Mat"). Currently, there are approximately 123 Haz-Mat permits in the City, with most of these being issued in the commercial and industrial corridors of the 2005 Amendment area. Fire Department staff believes the number of actual hazardous materials users or businesses with Haz-Mat permits that do not list all of the hazardous materials used on site, is significantly higher than the 123 permits issued. During the 2004 calendar year, the Fire Department responded to 42 Haz-mat calls. Outdoor manufacturing is a primary cause of hazardous materials being released in the outside environment, particularly with automobile related businesses. Many auto body shops were observed to be doing grinding of parts and spraying of toxic materials outside. This practice sends these hazardous materials airbome, often to surrounding residents. When these contaminants settle to the ground they either soak into the soil or run into the storm drains as contaminated urban runoff. This runoff eventually finds its way into San Diego Bay. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 24 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Further, contributing to these conditions are some of the storage practices for chemicals and debris observed during the field survey. 46% of properties were found to have signs of garbage, debris, stagnant water and/or combustible materials on site. Outdoor storage while being unsightly is also dangerous as holding containers are subjected to weather elements and decompose more rapidly. Numerous substandard building additions were observed to be used for hazardous materials storage. Many of these sheds are made of plywood or canvass tarps that in and of themselves present a fire hazard, but when these substandard structures are combined with hazardous materials storage and usage, it become a significant environmental and fire hazard to the surrounding structures many of which are residential. Crime A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and welfare is a condition of economic blight. In order to assess the impact of crime within the Project Area, information regarding the incidence of violent and other serious property crime reported by the National City Police Department was analyzed. All police agencies in the County report their crime statistics to the Automated Regional Justice Information System ("ARJIS"), which is a regionally standardized system that enables comparison of the number of crimes reported by jurisdictions across the County. ARJIS reports to the same categories as the nationally recognized Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Crime Index. The Index includes four violent offenses (willful homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and three types of property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft). The offenses included in the FBI Index were selected due to their serious nature and/or volume, as well as the probability that these crimes will be reported to the police. Crime rates in Table B-3 were computed by occurrence per 1,000 population using current San Diego Association of Govemment population estimates. The regional crime rate based on ARJIS incorporates both local jurisdictions and unincorporated areas in the County. The 2004 County crime rate based upon ARJIS is 36.3 crimes per 1,000 population. The 2004 crime rate for the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego are 38.4 and 40.4 respectively. The 2004 crime rate in National City is 57.1 per 1,000 or 57% higher than the County average and 49% and 41 % higher than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego respectively. The table on the following page uses data from the 2004 calendar year for all jurisdictions with the overall crime totals for the City being higher in every category. Due to the reporting format, crime data for National City is city-wide, which is larger than the proposed 2005 Amendment area. It is important to note that the existing Project Area represents over 60% of the City's non-military/Port District land3 and the city-wide data represents a good comparison to evaluate crime in the Project Area. 3 Military and Pan District ponce patrol their properties and maintain their own crime data for these areas. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 25 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TABLE B-3 2004 CRIME RATES PER 1,000 PERSONS FOR NATIONAL CITY AND SELECTED LOCAL JURh City Murder Rape Robbery Aggv. Assault Total Burglary Total Larceny/ Theft Motor Vehicle Theft Total Crime National City 0.1 0.3 2.4 4.6 6.8 27.1 15.8 57.1 City of Chula Vista City of San Diego County of San Diego 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 2.2 3.6 3.1 5.7 5.6 5.8 19.2 19.4 18.0 9.6 10.0 7.9 38.4 40.4 36.3 ources: ARJIS and SANDAG Note: Comparison crime rates are for calendar year 2004. These types of crime can negatively impact existing Project Area businesses, discouraging business investment and patronage. Crime represents an additional cost in conducting, retaining and attracting businesses to the commercial corridors of the Project Area. Parcels Needed for Effective Redevelopment Section 33321 of the Law states that a project area need not be restricted to buildings and properties that are detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. Areas cannot be included for the sole purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue but must have substantial justification that they are necessary for effective redevelopment. This Report documents that in the area affected by the 2005 Amendment there are parcels that do not exhibit blighting conditions but that they are interspersed with parcels that are blighted and necessitate inclusion in the 2005 Amendment area. The number of and severity of blighted parcels in the Project Area negatively affects the non -blighted parcels because of their appearance and proximity. In addition, there are certain types of blighting conditions that cannot be directly linked to a particular parcel such as substandard on -street parking, which is a cumulative factor. Given the overall condition of the Project Area and the economic status of both industrial and commercial property owners, it is clear that many of the parcels that do not exhibit significant blighting conditions now may do so over the life of the Project Area if nearby blighted parcels are not addressed. For example, if large- scale hotels on the Westside Area north of 9th Street were vacated due to worsening surrounding economic conditions, the resulting economic effect of such a large business closure would be severe to the Project Area because these hotels provide jobs to many in the surrounding community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 26 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL To spur economic development efforts, non -blighted parcels should be included in the 2005 Amendment area because the small parcel sizes further confounds revitalizing the area. Should the CDC attempt to assist new businesses in locating to the Project Area, parcel consolidation may be necessary. However, if all of the parcels in a section are not included in the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment it would severely impede the process and compromise the CDC's success. If only parcels that exhibited blighting conditions were included, the 2005 Amendment would be piecemeal. The CDC has already excluded many commercial and industrial properties at the southwest comer of 24th Street and National City Boulevard, commercial properties along portions of 30th Street and Plaza Boulevard and southem portions of National City Boulevard. The intention of the CDC through the 2005 Amendment is to facilitate rehabilitation programs that will cure health and safety issues and improving the appearance of the Project Area. Physical and Economic Burden on Community When evaluated in whole, the numerous physical and economic conditions described in this section of the Report are a serious physical and economic burden on the community. This burden cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise and/or existing govemmental authority, without the 2005 Amendment. A summary of the issues includes: • The documented presence of environmental contamination in the industrial corridors of the Project Area, causes safety hazards to area occupants and the cost of removal of these substances increases rehabilitation costs. These conditions are an economic burden on the community as property owners choose to maintain obsolete buildings on polluted sites, instead of pursuing new development which would likely require an expensive cleanup of pollutants. The 2005 Amendment will extend the CDC's eminent domain authority to provide another tool for the remediation of environmental pollutants through land acquisition where appropriate. • Many 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. These obsolete buildings attract lower commercial and industrial lease rates, which provide less revenue for property owners to make regular repairs and upgrades (such as electrical amperage and facade improvement). Without periodic maintenance, buildings become deteriorated or even dilapidated and higher maintenance costs are associated with older buildings. Buildings that are not upgraded as market needs change become less desirable to tenants for two reasons: 1) the buildings does not meet current market standards; ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 27 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL and 2) the costs associated with providing the necessary upgrades. This circle of disinvestment places a physical burden on the surrounding community as more properties forgo maintenance to maximize economic revenue. • The higher crime rates in the City/Project Area require more calls for service which increases municipal costs and creates an additional burden on community services as public resources are diverted to criminal apprehension. Crime also negatively impacts the lives of those working in or visiting the City/Project Area. • Incompatible adjacent uses typically require relocation or expensive upgrades to buildings, many of which are obsolete. The 2005 Amendment is the only viable method for the CDC to facilitate the relocation of incompatible uses to more appropriate sites. However, some properties owners may be reluctant to enter into relocation negotiations with the CDC and the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment can serve as an adjunct to initiate these discussion for the benefit of the community. • Response -based code enforcement is unable to address all of the health and safety code violations that exist in the commercial and industrial corridors of the Project Area. The added municipal cost of code enforcement activity is also a burden on the community as municipal resources are diverted from other programs to address code violations. • Inadequate lot size compounds blighting conditions in the Project Area, as these parcels are not adequate area to accommodate the necessary parking and loading amenities, while maintaining safe access to the site. Redevelopment of the small sized parcels that predominate the Project Area is not economically viable for private development, which results in a lack of investment in new development that continues to negatively impacting the surrounding community. The establishment of eminent domain authority would provide another tool to assist the CDC in correction of these and other blighting conditions for the properties affected by the 2005 Amendment. The private marketplace has not been successful in achieving the needed lot consolidations for new development due to limited number of property owners willing to enter into negotiations. The 2005 Amendment expands the pool of inadequately sized properties the CDC may acquire, thereby assembling more developable properties to reverse the escalating burden on the community. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 28 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section c Five -Year Implementation Plan On June 14, 2005, the CDC adopted its current Five -Year Implementation Plan ("Implementation Plan") for the Project Area. The Implementation Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 33490 of the Law 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 2005 Amendment. The Implementation Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Why the Elimination of Blight and Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the CDC's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the Law 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 29 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section E The Method of Financing The method of financing redevelopment activities was provided in the Original Reports when the Project Area was adopted. The 2005 Amendment will not alter the Project Area boundaries, affect the base year value or change the proposed method of financing. Therefore the 2005 Amendment does not warrant that the method of financing be reviewed. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 30 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section F The Method of Relocation Sections 33352(f) and 33411 of the Law require the CDC 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 The Law also requires a relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in said Project Area. In addition, the Law requires relocation assistance for commercial and industrial businesses displaced by redevelopment activities. The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of Relocation"), which 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 (Govemment Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines ("State Guidelines") as established in the Caliiomia 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 section 33411.1 of the Law. 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. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 31 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL oss Section G 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 2005 Amendment, additional analysis is not required. Section H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the Law 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 from the Planning Commission for the 2005 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. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 32 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section 1 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 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 2005 Amendment specifically excludes properties that are used for residential purposes, and no projects or programs have been identified that will displace 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. Section J General Plan Conformance The 2005 Amendment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 2005 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 Govemment Code is not required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 33- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section K 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 DR") was prepared in conjunction with the 1995 Amendment. The 1995 EIR 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 2005 Amendment, a Negative Declaration (Initial Study) was prepared pursuant to Califomia Environmental Quality Act guidelines, which found that the proposed 2005 Amendment to establish eminent domain authority for new properties and extend eminent domain for some properties would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment A copy of the Negative Declaration follows as Attachment 3. Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 2005 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 section 33328 of the Law. Project Area fiscal information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 2005 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 34 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Section M 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 2005 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 2005 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 not required or appropriate. Therefore, a summary of this report is not included. With regard to consultations, the taxing agencies received all notices regarding the 2005 amendment and they were invited to contact the CDC Executive Director regarding the 2005 Amendment. However, as of the date of this Report, no taxing agency has yet contacted the CDC. The 2005 Amendment does not affect the financing in any way nor does it change land uses or public improvement projects. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL crr - 35 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1 - Project Area Map With Proposed Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority as proposed by the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 36 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Attachment 1 ■ • • CITY OF SAN DIEGO r wit vie I1 /ryt 911I�1! 1l1I- .111111/1111�11t .111111111111IIW1 9.1tI 111111 11111: _.1 11111111N annnlnl: Illlllllllll c1111112 /01111/111 1111/1/11 11111 11111 •II• :III 11 11111111111 fI EA ®® MM 111 Pdffl Ear U0I0n0...i•m II ■nsn■ MI■ n® ... ■ 1a n T ... I nII. RUMMM UMWU, n! Minim 1i 1111 1.111 1111111 .ur 1111111 111111 1111111 1111111 111111 Inn IIIIIIIII' mina 11111111111E 111111111111 lr- 1.1E 1111 'lilt ■Illlll van =III' 1111 c,G Gn .11= Pi • - .ilrlll fly I11'"' I•IIIIIIIIIPu1 11 ■IIIIII111.. I�1./L hIIP:IIII IIIIIIIIIP � -IIIII�IY`. t111111111I11111 `III 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII h IIIIIIIIIIIIn■.! - MI Ir- 111111111112: ring 111111 1111 _I. uO s VLITI 1. Palm Ave —se ,It. a •ul . :111111111111 8th Street Corridor t' nut1,r uiIII V14$I111111= =111. ■ I1��!u;.e11I '11111 '11111 411-7 iti rE .= �111 NE 111111111111 11111111111 11 -- 11 111 :111111111 :11111111 :1,111111 Plaza Blvd -111111= 111111111= Il mssommnl IM ES 1111 Highland Ave iE EN • .- ■1- -- 1111 -- -- -- M NOM of as.sum -111011 MW - son vans imm 111111\■ll EWE - Ratio. ..ri -- -- -- -- -- -- CC -- MEIN WI '■111! 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA CHULA VISTA National City Redevelopment Project Area INN Project Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 Municipal Boundary 0 0.125 1--1 0.n 0.5 0.15 1 1111 nul1111 :11111n.. p111.11E Lola: -11 1111,1 nu Attachment 2 - Project Area Map With Current Eminent Domain See attached Project Area Map following this page, with eminent domain authority prior to the 2005 Amendment. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY -37- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL • Attachment 2 National City Rede11 velopment Project - Existing Eminent Domain Authority CITY OF SAN DIEGO rR_rwee. == =, '1i111115111 i,r:IBte mei et II111111111Z 111111111111 PEig1111rismolissi11111 1I1rpiiilc ?mums reni miema1l�ltlr mlullIlImi5'lumlm\, rinnnvrn.�: lu1ul■nnl'ullluulnllnL �l1•t �1'1 IYIIIIIrk• �, .Itl�i J���-\ :I�n1il1 11 Il .IIn1111� 1 � : —11 11111=•II! �I.INIIMMINSE �� 11- iri. �= 111111111111 111111rli �111itii ®® 8 n ®®=;®® MEM r. 11111 •1111111111111111111111t1t 1111111111111■�- 11111E11111U !minim 1 111 ■r_ nu a_.111111111111_Mini Ala CG nC [8th Street Corridor 1IIIIm1,1c •IInln 11- imminent! Plaza Blvd 1111 BEcccccc:C= 1\ ;IY�III Z1 �`� I �liil •� 30th St/Sweetwater CHULA VISTA IIII.II_l. Project Area Boundary El Existing Eminent Domain Authority Municipal Boundary 0 0.125 0.15 0.5 I—� 0.75 i Attachment 3 - Negative Declaration See attached Negative Declaration following this page. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 NATIONAL CITY - 38- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL California Environmental Quality Act Initial Study Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th 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. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of the City of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619) 336-4250 Project Location: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805 as shown in Figure 1. Project Description: The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Cornmission' authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (a defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single-family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 in the following areas: • Properties located immediately east and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and the south City limits. • Properties located immediately west and adjacent to National City Boulevard, between Division Street and State Route 54. • Properties located immediately north and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately south and adjacent to Civic Center Drive, between Interstate 5 and National City Boulevard. • Properties located immediately north and south and adjacent to 8th Street, between Interstate 5 and "D" Avenue. • Properties west of Interstate 5, excepting the San Diego Unified Port District property. • Specific properties located immediately southwest of the intersection of Plaza Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2014. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in thin 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 1 Attachment 1 CITY OF SAN DIEGO •inn,.. 1= �� • "'11\II!1111! Ulu IIIIIIti111 Eitilltlllm. eIit1ntfl•n?dl elo.,• mum •1111111. :1111111111111 1.111,1 - = ®g' ®'"' ' 8th Street Corridor w�.�.wwwwwwwlnnE_=nllj::'6•mmp_ 11111/111 ll� Itli Ns 111111II11M ImIUI11IluI NATIONAL National City Redevelopment Project Area Plaza Blvd i=11111111 e11UtI: —_ •- _pool: ! iiE �1. jPnuhP.". eniman 52 me, 1 ,, .01 III -11nLIP MI1M11 imIlli inn 1.1 ■ 1121 1 ti Rani NW=lllll mom 30th St/Sweetwater 1—P QProject Area Boundary ® Proposed Areas of Eminent Domain Authority through July 21, 2015 E:3 •�''•''� 0 0.125 Municipal Boundary 0.35 CHULA VISTA 0.6 0.75 ther public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, participation agreement): The Community Development Commission of the City of National City is the only agency whose approval is required for this proposed redevelopment plan Amendment. The proposed Amendment does not directly propose any projects, public or private at this time. Indirectly, however development could occur in the project area in the future as a result of the use of eminent domain for a specific project. It is speculative at this time to identify or determine with any certainty projects that may occur in the future and the environmental impacts, if any that would be associated with the project. The Community Development Commission and/or the City of National City would conduct the appropriate environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act at the time a project is formally submitted to either agency for approval. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources 0 Hydrology/Water Quality El Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning 0 Transportation/Traffic ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ] Cultural Resources 0 Noise 0 Mandatory Findings ❑ Geology/Soils 0 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 0 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 Muiica, 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 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 II b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 0 M c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 ❑ is d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 0 • 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? 0 0 0 • b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 III 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? 0 0 ❑ • III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 0 IN b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 • 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)? 0 0 0 II d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 • e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 0 • IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: p 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? 0 ❑ ❑ ■ c) Have substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 0 0 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 0 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0 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.) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 IN iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including II liquefaction? 0 0 ❑ iv) Landslides? 0 0 0 • b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 0 0 0 a c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 0 0 II 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? 0 0 0 II e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 0 0 II I. 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 ❑ 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 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)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 ❑ 0 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard map? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ goo July 2004 Page 8 Alo 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? 1004 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 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 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 0 0 ■ i) Fire protection? 0 ❑ 0 ■ ii) Police protection? 0 0 0 ■ iii) Schools? 0 0 0 ■ iv) Parks? ❑ 0 0 ■ v) Other public facilities? 0 0 0 IN 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 altemative 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 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 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 10 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? El 00 • d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 ❑ 0 II e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0• VII. 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? 0 01 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? • XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with 0 0 II 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 AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Amendment indirectly could encourage development in the redevelopment project area . The National City General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas in the city; therefore, future development in the project area due indirectly to the adoption of the Amendment would not impact any scenic vista. The Amendment would not have any scenic vista impacts. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The Amendment would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the redevelopment project. A section of National City Boulevard in the Mile of Cars section of National City is a state scenic highway. The city would require all development along this portion of National City Boulevard to comply with the appropriate state and city guidelines to protect a state scenic highway. Development that indirectly occurs in any other section of the project area would not damage or impact any trees, rocks, or historic buildings since none of these features exist. The Amendment would not have any significant scenic resource impacts. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The Amendment would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the redevelopment project area and the surroundings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project area. Subsequent development in the project area due indirectly to the use of eminent domain as allowed by the Amendment could impact the existing visual character of a specific site and its surroundings. The Community Development Commission and/or City of National City would conduct subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the time projects are submitted for approval to determine if a project would have an impact on the visual character or quality of a specific site and its surroundings. If the city determines a project could impact the visual character of a site and/or its surroundings, changes or modifications would be required. The city adopted the National City Design Guidelines to assure that development is in harmony with the character and quality of the environment that the city finds desirable to foster. The purpose of the National City Design Guidelines Manual is to provide a "guide" to what the city considers appropriate, quality design, which promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The Guidelines articulate the city's goals and basic design philosophy for quality development within the city limits and provide the framework for the design review process. The Guidelines are not specifications nor do they preclude alternatives or restrict imagination. Rather, Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 13 they are the city's preferences and provide examples of what the city considers acceptable.' The Guidelines® supplement the development standards and regulations contained in the National City Land Use Code and are applicable in accordance with the requirements for site plan review under Chapter 18.128 of the Code. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would require changes to projects to ensure that they do not degrade the visual character of a specific site or its surroundings. All projects would be required to meet the applicable guidelines in the National City Design Guidelines based on the project proposed. The Amendment would not degrade the visual character of the project area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The Amendment would not create any new sources of substantial light or glare and affect day or nighttime views in the redevelopment project area because development is not proposed directly in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create new sources of light or glare. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of development, light and/or glare could impact surrounding land uses. Nighttime lighting including safety and security lights, interior building lights, automobile headlights, etc. could impact surrounding development. Glare from windows and metal surfaces could also impact adjacent development. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all projects for potential light and glare impacts and require changes and modifications when necessary to reduce light and glare impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Commission, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect on prime farmlands because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could impact farmland or agricultural land. There are no agricultural operations or prime farmland in the project area. Therefore, future development would not impact agricultural resources or operations and would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agricultural use since none exist. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a conflict or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not directly propose any public or private development projects that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plan(s). City of National City Design Guidelines, February 1991, Amended by Resolution No. 96-19, February 6, 1996, page I-1. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 0004 July 2004 Page 14 National City is located in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Indirectly, the extension of the use of eminent domain could encourage new development. Depending upon the type and density of development, project air emissions could impact and obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all development projects for potential impacts to air quality plans and require project changes or modifications to ensure compliance. The Amendment would not directly impact the implementation of any air quality plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The Amendment would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing projected air quality violation. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the type and density of new development the project air emissions could violate an air quality standard or standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would review all future projects for potential violations to existing air quality standards such as exceeding air emission thresholds during either project construction or the life of the project. If a project is expected to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation specific measures would be required to be incorporated into the project to reduce air emissions in compliance with air quality standards in force at that time. The Amendment would not violate air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation, including ozone. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 only and does not propose public or private development projects that would result in a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is non -attainment. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development that is constructed, the Amendment could cumulatively add criteria pollutants that are non -attainment in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, including ozone. The air emissions generated by future development due indirectly to the Amendment could contribute emissions to the air basin that are cumulative and further non -attainment of ozone. The Community Development Commission and/or city would review all projects for potential impacts to criteria pollutants and require the use of all applicable pollution control measures as applicable to control emissions to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not directly impact criteria pollutants for which the San Diego Air Pollution Control District is non -attainment, including ozone. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 15 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 conk expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential impacts to sensitive receptors at the time projects are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce the impacts. The Amendment would not directly impact sensitive receptors by exposing them to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The Amendment would not create objectionable odors that could affect people because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could create objectionable odors. The Amendment could indirectly result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Depending upon the type and density of development odors could be generated and affect people in close proximity to the site. The Community Development Commission and/or the city would evaluate all projects for odor impacts to people that either live or work in close proximity at the time they are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a project could generate odors that affect a substantial number of people the Community Development Commission and/or city would require changes to reduce or eliminate odor impacts accordingly. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Amendment would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications to any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would impact plant or wildlife species. The property in the project area is most developed and urbanized. Due to the lack of suitable habitat there are not any candidate plant or wildlife species that would be impacted if development occurs indirectly due to the Amendment. There are no habitat conservation plans associated with any property in the project area. The Amendment would not have any biological resource impacts directly or indirectly because there are no biological resources in the project area that can be impacted. b) Have substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Have substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 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. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely impact a historical resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical buildings. The Community Development Commission and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a historical resource could be impacted, the Community Development Commission and/or city would require measures to ensure the protection of the resource in compliance with the law. If resources suspected of being historically significant were uncovered during construction the city would evaluate the resources and protect it in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5, as applicable. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause adversely impact an archaeological resource. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any archaeological resources within the project area that would be impacted by future development. If archaeological resources, or artifacts of historical importance are uncovered during construction all construction activity shall cease and the city shall be notified immediately. The city would take the lead to determine whether or not the resources are significant and need to be protected in compliance with CEQA Guideline § 15064.5. The Amendment would not impact archaeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The Amendment would not destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose any public or private development projects that would destroy a unique paleontological resources or unique geologic feature. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development in the project area if eminent domain is used to acquire property. The National City General Plan does not identify any paleontological resources in the city, including the project area. The Amendment would not impact paleontological resources. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 17 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. TheTheAmmo 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 thereoitik are no known active faults in the city. However, there are several faults outside the city that coulc 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause strong seismic ground shaking because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the ,,4l4 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 Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 for commercial and industrial property and does not propose any public or private development projects that could cause or be impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Indirectly, the Amendment could result in development if eminent domain is used to acquire property. Residents, employees, and buildings would not be exposed to any greater degree of ground shaking with the adoption of the Amendment than currently exists. All projects, independently of the use of eminent domain, must provide applicable earthquake construction measures and hardware as required by the Uniform Building Code to reduce ground -shaking impacts. The Amendment would not change the exposure of people and buildings to seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause ground -failure, such as liquefaction. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Depending upon the location a project could be impacted by liquefaction or other seismic — related ground failures. However, whether or not development is impacted by liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure is not dependent upon the use of eminent domain. The use of eminent domain to would not change the exposure of a project to liquefaction or any other type of ground failure. Geotechnical reports would be prepared for individual projects to determine if they would be exposed to seismic -related ground failures. If a site is subject to liquefaction or any other seismic -related ground failure, measures would be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to mitigate the impact. The Amendment would not have any seismic -related ground failures, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides? No Impact. The Amendment would not cause any landslides or expose people or property to landslides because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or be exposed to landslides. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. There are no large hillside areas within or adjacent to the project areas that could impact development. Therefore, landslides would not impact development and the Amendment would not have any landslide impacts. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause or result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development of projects could result in soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil if construction occurs during the winter months when rainfall typically occurs and proper measures to reduce soil erosion are riot 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 soillik erosion protection measures such as soil binders are not used. The incorporation of all applicable soil erosio 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 soiWik because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. Th 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 ojt hazardous materials? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration 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 not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create a hazard to the public or the environment. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The development of projects could include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, depending upon the project. The city would review all future projects for potential hazards and the projects that generate or use hazardous materials would be required by the city would require each project to meet all applicable laws and regulations for the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. Compliance with all applicable laws and regulations for the transport and use of hazardous materials would minimize hazards to the public and the environment to acceptable levels. The Amendment would not have any hazardous impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment? No Impact. They're no sites in the redevelopment project area that are listed as a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the Amendment would not have any direct or indirect impacts with regards to listed hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area? No Impact. The redevelopment project area is not located within the boundary of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The closest airport to the project area is the San Diego International Airport, which is approximately seven miles northwest of National City. f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. All development would be required to provide emergency access that allows for safe and effective access routes for fire and police equipment and personnel as well as people leaving the site in the event of an emergency. The city would review all projects for safe emergency access to ensure that emergency access is provided. The Amendment would not have any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan impacts. g) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas? No Impact. The Amendment would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the presence or release of methane gas because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 21 use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could create i 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�Il construction and maintained throughout the construction to reduce soil erosion. The BMP's would be installer' 3 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 22 '4.411 T d) 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 pattems or cause substantial erosion or siltation impacts. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? No Impact. Please see the response to c) above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Amendment would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects the could create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New construction could generate quantities of runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. As stated in response a) above, all applicable projects would be required to install and maintain proper measures to reduce the amount of sediments and other potential sources of surface water pollution. The development of property that is currently vacant or underdeveloped could generate quantities of surface water runoff and impact the local or regional storm drain system. The generation of surface water beyond the capacity of the storm drain system could significantly impact the storm drain system. The city would review all projects to determine if the existing system has capacity to handle the surface water flows or if upgrades are required. The Amendment itself would not impact the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems. 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 directlyproposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment specifically excludes residential development; therefore no housing would be placed in a flood hazard area indirectly by the adoption and implementation of the Amendment. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The Amendment would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that would place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are areas located in a 100-year flood zone, thus it is possible that future development could be placed in a 100- year flood hazard. The city would review all development proposals for potential flood hazards and require proper protection from flooding for those structures constructed in a flood hazard area. The Amendment would not directly have any flood hazard impacts. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project area is not located in a dam inundation area and there are no levees that could break and flood properties in the project areas. The Amendment would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding due to the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow? No Impact. There are no large bodies of water either located within or adjacent to the project area that could impact a project due to a seiche. While there are a few areas in National City with hillsides, there are no areas that are known to have mudflows and could impact development. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could be inundated by a seiche or mudflow. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The Amendment would not expose people or property to inundation or impacts by a seiche because there are no large bodies of water that could impact development. The areas in National City where hillsides do exist are not large enough in area to have mudflows that could impact development. The Amendment would not impact any development due to inundation by a seiche or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Amendment would not physically divide an established community because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could physically divide an established community. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 24 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development must be consistent with and comply with the National City General Plan, which does not allow development to divide an established community. The proposed Amendments would not directly or indirectly divide an established community. b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over development in the project area because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with a land use plans, policies or regulations. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could conflict with the land use adopted by the general plan, a specific plan or the city's development code. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency and compatibility with the adopted plans and codes and changes or revisions would be require if necessary to comply with the applicable plans and codes. The Amendment itself would not directly impact or conflict with any adopted land use plans or codes. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The Amendment would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with that adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The city does not have any adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. However, there are areas in close proximity to the project area with habitat and wildlife resources that are protected and development could impact the resources. The city would review projects for potential conflicts with these known wildlife resource areas and require measures to protect the resources when necessary. Since no development is directly proposed with the Amendment, no impacts due to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans would occur. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Amendment would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is of value to the region and the residents of the state. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. There are no known mineral resources within the project area that are of value to the region or the state. Therefore, future development would not impact any mineral resources. The Amendment would not impact minerals of value to the region or the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Please see the response to a) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 25 XL NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could expose persons to or generate noise in excess of standards established by the National City General Plan. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could expose residents or employees to noise levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance or projects could generate noise levels that exceed the city's allowable noise levels. The city would review all development proposals for noise impacts and require changes or modifications accordingly to ensure compliance with the city's noise standards. The Amendment would not have any noise impacts by exposing people to levels that exceed the city's noise ordinance. b) Exposure of person to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Amendment would not exposure people to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects and would not expose people to or generate excessive ground borne vibrations or noise levels. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Futurt 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 26 Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels above existing levels. Temporary or periodic noise increases due to the operation of construction equipment could occur during project construction and impact surrounding land uses. The city would review development proposals at the time they are submitted for approval for potential temporary or short-term noise level increases that could impact surrounding land uses and require changes to reduce noise impacts. The Amendment would not directly result in substantial temporary noise level increases. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project areas associated with the Amendment are not located in an adopted airport land use plan. The San Diego International Airport is the closest airport to the project areas and is located approximately seven miles northwest of National City. The project would not expose people to excessive noise levels at an airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project would not induce a substantial population growth directly because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could induce substantial population growth. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could induce a substantial population growth depending upon the type of development, residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The city would review development proposals for population growth impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. If projects would induce substantial population increases the city would determine at that time if an increase would be substantial and the impact the growth could have on the environment. The Amendment would not have a substantial population growth impact since no development is proposed. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project would not displace a substantial number of houses requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could displace existing housing. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development. The Amendment excludes using eminent domain for residential purposes. Therefore, the Amendment could not use eminent domain authority to acquire residential property resulting in the demolition of existing housing that would require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Please see the response to b) above. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 27 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact fire protection services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for new fire stations and other facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on fire protection services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the fire departments ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans, conducting fire inspections in buildings, etc. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development and includes fire protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as fire protection to serve new development.' The fee can be used to construct new fire protection facilities, expand existing fire facilities, purchase fire trucks, fire equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area due indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts on the fire department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to fire protection services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. ii) Police protection? No Impact. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact police services. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Future development could increase the need for police protection services and facilities that could have a substantial adverse impact on police services, including personnel and equipment. This increase demand could impact the police department's ability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives such as reviewing building plans. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development, including police protection. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and rTh 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 Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 28 004P, construct new police facilities, expand existing facilities, purchase equipment, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects that may be developed in the redevelopment project area indirectly by adoption of the proposed Amendment. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts to the police department. The Amendment would not have any impacts to police services since development is not proposed as part of Amendment. iii) Schools? No Impact. The project would not impact schools because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2014 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact schools. Indirectly, the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The proposed Amendment only allows the use of eminent domain for commercial and industrial land uses and not residential. Although commercial and industrial development does generate students, the generation rate is much lower than residential. The number of students that would be generated by commercial or industrial development would be minimal and is not anticipated to significantly impact the capacity of schools serving the project area. The two school districts, National City School District and Sweetwater Union High School District that serve National City collect school impact fees from development as allowed by state law. The school impact fee is used by both school districts to provide classroom space for students. New commercial and industrial development would be required to pay school impact fees as applicable, which would be used to provide additional classroom space for students. The proposed Amendment would not impact area schools since development is not directly proposed at this time. iv) Parks? No Impact. The project would not impact city parks because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could impact parks. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase the need for additional parks and recreational facilities or increase the use of existing park facilities in National City. The city strives to maintain or expand the current (1996) ratio of park and open space land to population, which is 44 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 (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could increase traffic. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could increase traffic with a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on area roads, or congestion at intersections. Additional development could impact the street system in the project area as well as the street system outside the project area. National City is preparing a Development Impact Fee study to calculate a fee that would be assessed for future development in National City. The fee would be used to pay for the cost of providing public services for new development including the circulation system. The study is scheduled to be completed in August of this year and would have to be approved by the City Council before it is effective. If approved, the Development Impact Fee would fund new and expanded public services and facilities such as street improvement to serve new development. The fee can be used to widen streets, construct needed intersection improvements, purchase and install traffic signals, restripe roadways, etc. The fee cannot be use for labor, payroll expenses, etc. The Development Impact Fee, if approved, would be applicable to all projects, including projects developed in the project area. Payment of the fee, if adopted, would mitigate incremental impacts by development to circulation# facilities throughout the project area as well as the city. The Amendment would not have any impacts to th( 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) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could substantially increase hazards due to design features. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. New development could require new design features for traffic to flow properly, which could increase hazards and impact traffic and circulation. The city would review all future development proposals for potential impacts associated with street design, including sharp curves and roadway intersections that could impact traffic flow and safety. When necessary, the city would require project changes or modifications to provide safe circulation features, including curves and intersections. Because development is not proposed by the Amendment, no circulation impacts would occur. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project would not provide any inadequate emergency access because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not proposed public or private development projects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city along with the police and fire departments would review all development proposals for adequate emergency access. Projects would be required to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Amendment would not have any emergency access impacts because development is not proposed as part of the Amendment. 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. j) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. The city has adopted policies requiring projects to provide alternative forms of transportation, including bus turnouts and bicycle racks when applicable. The city would review development proposals to ensure that bus turnouts and/or bicycle racks are provided as required. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 31 XV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Qualily 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 T d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The project would not impact existing water supplies because development is not proposed in conjunction with or as part of the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would have a need for potable water. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate a need for potable water for drinking, landscape irrigation, and fire flow. Depending upon the type and intensity of development the existing water supplies may not be adequate to provide a sufficient water supply for a project. The city along with the Sweetwater Authority would review all development proposals to determine if there is a sufficient supply of water or if additional water supplies would be required. As applicable, all projects would be required to incorporate water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. The Amendment would not have any water supply impacts since development is not proposed in conjunction with the Amendment. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The Amendment would not exceed wastewater treatment capacity of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant because development is not proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that would generate wastewater. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Additional development would generate wastewater that would be treated by the Point Loma treatment plant. The wastewater would not impact the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and its ability to provide wastewater treatment services. By agreement, the City of National City is allowed to generate 7.5 million gallons of wastewater per day to the South Metro Interceptor Sewer. Flows in National City as of August 2003 were 5.67 million gallons per day, which allows capacity for additional wastewater flows by future development without requiring the San Diego Wastewater Department to increase or expand the capacity of any trunk lines or the Point Loma treatment plant. f) 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. g) 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. 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 of probable future projects.) No Impact. The project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable because there is no development directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 34 RINN only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could cause cumulative impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings because development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the Amendment. The Amendment only extends the authority of the Community Development Commission to use eminent domain until 2004 and does not propose public or private development projects that could have adverse environmental effects. Indirectly the use of eminent domain to acquire property could result in development in the project area. Development could have impacts that cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The city would review all future projects for potential impacts to humans and the environment and require changes accordingly to reduce or eliminate the impacts. The Amendment would not directly have any impacts on human beings. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain July 2004 Page 35 Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B California Environmental Quality Act National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 2004/2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan - Negative Declaration A. INTRODUCTION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain ("2004 Amendment"). The Community Development Commission prepared the proposed 2004 Amendment to extend the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority over al] properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20), regardless of their zoning designation, the entire National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of twelve (12) years from the date of approval, until 2017. Properties that are currently being used for residential purposes would continue to be excluded from eminent domain. The Community Development Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur by amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received on the Negative Declaration for the proposed 2004 Amendment during the public review period. The community raised many issues and concerns during the public review and public hearing process for the proposed 2004 Amendment. Due to the community's concerns and public testimony, the Community Development Commission has subsequently reduced the geographic areas that could be subject to the authority to use eminent domain within the Project Area to those areas that are now referred to the Commercial and Industrial Corridors. The commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area that would now subject to the use of eminent domain are shown on the attached map. Additionally, the Community Development Commission reduced the number of years to extend its eminent domain authority from twelve (12) years to ten (10) years until 2015. The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now referred to as the proposed 2005 Amendment, which reflects the stated changes. B. CEQA PROVISIONS As stated above, a Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the requirements of Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ("CEQA Guidelines"). The proposed 2005 Amendment does not require the recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) which states: "Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: ...(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects." Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain The changes to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment were due solely in response to verbal and written comments to the City Council and Community Development Commission due to concerns towards the proposed 2004 Amendment. The revisions to the originally proposed 2004 Amendment are now reflected by the currently proposed 2005 Amendment, which did not cause or generate any avoidable significant effects. C. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain for the originally proposed 2004 Amendment. The Negative Declaration also adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the currently proposed 2005 Amendment due to the fact that no new avoidable significant effects would occur. The proposed 2005 Amendment does not change the analysis or conclusions of the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2004 Amendment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(2), the Negative Declaration is adequate in its analysis of the reduction in the number of properties subject to the use of eminent domain for the proposed 2005 Amendment. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06-09-2005 16:17 From-SP2, INC. 9496600920 7-694 P.002/004 F-588 California Environmental Quality Act Addendum — Negative Declaration A. PROJECT INFORMATION Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Telephone (619) 336-4250 Project Title and File No.: Redevelopment Plan Amendment — Extend the Authority to Use Eminent Domain Lead Agency: Community Development Commission 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 National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 (619)336-4250 Project Sponsor: Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12t1 Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 Project Location: Project Description: Prepared By: The project includes the redevelopment project areas west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission of the City of National City proposes to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project to expand the Commission's authority to acquire property, as a last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property (as defined in the National City Municipal Code Section 7.06.20) and all commercial and industrial zoned properties within the National City Redevelopment Project Area located west of Interstate 805 (Amendment). The current exemption for single- family residences would not be changed. The Commission currently has the authority to acquire property through eminent domain until July 2007 for specific areas within the Project Area. The Amendment will extend the Commission's authority to acquire commercial and industrial (non-residential) property through eminent domain until 2015. No other changes to the Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project are included in is Amendment. Date: Community Development Commission of National City— Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 06/09/2005 THU t6:20 LOB NO. 55221 0009 06-09-2005 16:17 From-5P2, INC. 9496E00920 T-594 P.003/004 F-588 B. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (the "CDC") prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment plan amendment to extend the authority to use eminent domain. The Negative Declaration was mailed for a 30-day public review period beginning July 30, 2004 and ended August 30, 2004. No comments were received to the Negative Declaration during the public review period. The Negative Declaration evaluated the potential environmental impacts that could occur with amending the existing Redevelopment Plan to extend the authority to use eminent domain for commercial and industrial properties west of Interstate 805. The Community Development Commission has since reduced the commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain to specific areas due to concerns raised by the community during the public hearing process. Thus, the Community Development Commission has restricted the use of eminent domain to those commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area as shown on the attached map. The Negative Declaration did not identify any significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with establishing the authority to use eminent domain as proposed last year. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the use of the authority to use eminent domain for the reduced number of commercial and industrial properties within the Project Area. The reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties that are subject to the use of eminent domain does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration complies with the California Environmental Quality Act in its analysis of the reduction in the number of commercial and industrial properties subject to the use of eminent domain as shown in the attached map. Community Development Commission of National City — Negative Declaration - Addendum Extension of the Authority to Use Eminent Domain 08/09/2006 THU 16:20 1.1103 NO. 55221 03003 Appendix A CRL Section 33030 and 33031 The CRL sets forth speck parameters that define blight. According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area contains both of the following: 1. An area that is predominantly urbanized and is an area in which the combination of physical and economic blighting conditions is so prevalent and substantial that it causes "a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or govemmental action, or both, without redevelopment" (CRL Section 33030(b)(1)). 2. An area that is characterized by either physical blight and economic blight or the "existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership" (CRL Sections 33030(b)(2) and 33031(a)(4)). Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. The characteristics of both physical and economic blight, as defined above, are present throughout the Project Area. The characteristics of physical blight include deteriorated and dilapidated structures, lots/buildings suffering from defective design, substandard design, and lots of inadequate size, and incompatible uses. The characteristics of economic blight include low lease rates, depreciated property values, impaired investments, low per capita retail sales tax, and crime, all of which are indicative of declining market conditions. These blighting conditions are detrimental to surrounding uses and the community. CRL Section 33031(a) describes the following physical conditions that constitute blight: 1. Lots/buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; examples of these conditions include: a. Dilapidated and deteriorated buildings. b. Lots/buildings suffering from defective design or physical construction. c. Lots/buildings suffering from faulty or inadequate utilities. d. Serious building code violations. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX A-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots; examples of these conditions include: a. Lots/buildings suffering from substandard design. b. Lots/buildings of inadequate size, given present standards and market conditions. c. Lack of available parking. 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape, inadequate size for proper usefulness and development, and that are in multiple ownership. ECONOMIC BLIGHT CRL Section 33031(b) describes the following economic conditions that constitute blight: 1. Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments. This condition includes the presence of hazardous waste. 2. Stagnant or declining market conditions; examples of this include: a. Abnormally high business vacancies. b. Abnormally low lease rates. c. High turnover rates. d. Abandoned buildings. e. Excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban uses and served by utilities. 3. A lack of necessary commercial facilities such as those normally found in neighborhoods including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 4. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. 5. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. Provided that other conditions of physical and economic blight are present, a blighted area may also be one that is characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, and utilities. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2905 APPENDIX A-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix B Data Source List 1. Land use survey performed by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (March through May 2005). 2. San Diego County Assessor's parcel maps and assessed value data provided by Metroscan data service (2003-04 and 2004-05). 3. California Health and Safety Code including Sections 17920.3, 33030 and 33031. 4. Automated Regional Justice Information System from the San Diego Association of Governments, 2004 calendar year. 5. Data from the City of National City a. Code enforcement violations b. Hazardous Materials — Fire Department c. Traffic — Police Department d. City of National City Fire Department — 2004 Annual Report e. 1999-2000 Survey of Underage Drinking and Perceptions of Alcohol in National City. 6. How Buildings Learn, What Happens After They're Built. Stewart Brand, Penguin Books, (1994). 7. Local realtors and shopping center managers provided information, vacancy rates and lease rates (Spring 2005). 8. Environmental Protection Agency web site article, Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. 9. Environmental Hazardous Site — Environmental Protection Agency — Brownfields Grant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX B-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Appendix C Photo Survey The following is a photographic depiction of some of the conditions observed from properties affected by the 2005 Amendment: Parcel Number— 562 330 24 On four separate occasions at least 12 semi -trailers related to the same business were observed using the street as Tong -term storage for trailers and materials. This is an example of inadequate lot size as the operator does not have sufficient on -site storage for materials and trailers. ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-1 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number— 559 117 05 The loading area for this industrial building is inadequate to accommodate larger delivery vehicles such as the one pictured. This creates access issues for the other vehicles seeking to enter and exit the area. Parcel Number — 559 072 07 Residential building between two industrial uses is incompatible for both residential occupants and industrial uses as there are no buffers between the two. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-2 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 063 07 This obsolete motel has been the site of various criminal activity and as revenue has declined the owner has been cited for illegally converting short-term rooms to long-term apartments. Parcel — 560141 05 Outdoor welding under canvas tarp is a fire hazard as well as detracts from surrounding uses. Industrial sites with inadequate building sizes resort to substandard outdoor manufacturing as there are no other on -site alternatives. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-3 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel— 555 111 08 Across the street from this residence are multiple industrial buildings with inadequate parking as shown in the picture below. This lack off -site parking forces residents to illegally park their vehicles on already crowded streets. Parcel— 555 112 09 This property cannot accommodate the number of cars seeking repairs as well as parking for employees. Business such as this adversely effect on street parking for residents and reduce vehicle site lines at intersections. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C4 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel — 560 202 09 The business where this vehicle is waiting to be repaired is stored with five other vehicles on the street. This practice is common throughout the Project Area and contributes to the overall crowded street conditions. Parcel Number — 562 251 36 This site suffers from environmental contamination and cannot be built upon for the foreseeable future. Storage activities are the only usage this site is able to maintain until the pollution subsides and the ground stops sinking. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-5 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 556 35410 This site is one of several on Highland Avenue that are vacant or are used for storage instead of typical commercial activity. As the site only has on -street parking it reduces the types of businesses that might occupy the site. The owner was cited for attempting to illegally convert the building to residential units. Parcel Number — 559 105 01 Substandard construction was used to connect this residential building to the industrial building and is a fire hazard to both structures. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21. 2005 APPENDIX C-6 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Parcel Number — 560 202 01 This site and building are obsolete for the business operating out of it. Substandard building materials such as corrugated metal flex during an earthquake or fire and compromise the structural integrity of buildings. Parcel Number — 563 370 43 This former grocery store has been vacant for over 2 years and detracts from the surrounding businesses who have to survive without an anchor tenant. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIXC-7 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY' COUNCIL Parcel Number — 559 125 16 This residential building next to a manufacturing facility represents an incompatible use. This property shows how residential buildings are less likely to be maintained as surrounding incompatible uses detract from the rent these properties might realize. Parcel Number — 559 010 04 If companies cannot find a consolidated site for operations they use nearby sites and have to transport goods between the areas. This is an unsafe condition for other vehicles as well as the driver of the forklift ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. JUNE 21, 2005 APPENDIX C-8 NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL 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 lnzunza, Councilman Parra and Councilwoman Zarate are Located in the redevelopment project area. Additionally, Mayor Inzunza 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 Attachment 3 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 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, Ili City Attorney GHE/gmo cc: City Manager Executive Director, CDC City Clerk MEETING DATE: June 21, 2005 City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE WRITTEN N RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez Executive Director EXPLANATION: DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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, re- gardless of their zoning designation, within the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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 2005 Amendment the City Council shall evaluate all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the amendment and shall make written findings in re- sponse to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Accordingly, pursu- ant to Community Redevelopment Law, the Community Development Commission has prepared written responses to the written objections received on the proposed 2005 Amendment. 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 2005 Amendment. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2005- approving the written responses to the written objections received. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2005 Amendment. ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Resolution No. 2005- 2. Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney Resolution No. RESOLUTION 2005 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) did duly pass and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, the CDC has formulated an amendment to the Plan ("2005 Amendment") which would permit the CDC to use eminent domain to acquire all commercial and industrial zoned properties, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings, regardless of their zoning designation, within in the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the CDC and City Council held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed 2005 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 2005 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 CDC has prepared written responses to the written objections received on the proposed 2005 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 CDC as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" adequately address the written objections submitted on the proposed 2005 Amendment. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit "A" as the City's written responses to the written objections submitted on the proposed 2005 Amendment. -- Signature Page to Follow -- Attachment 1 Resolution No. 2005 — June 21, 2005 Page 2 PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2005. Nick lnzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS Six letters were received objecting to the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). The 2005 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, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use along with vacant and abandoned properties (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the commercial and industrial corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015. The following presents a summary of the written objections (attached) and a corresponding response. These responses were prepared to address the requirements set forth in Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law"). 1. Marion Julius — Requests clarification that residential uses are exclude from the 2005 Amendment. CDC staff sent the attached letter, confirming that residential uses while included in the area of the 2005 Amendment are in -fact excluded from eminent domain authority. 2. Kile Morgan — Is concerned that more employees will be needed to administer the Project Area increasing the costs to the National City employees pension fund. Other concerns include schools being under funded and the 2005 Amendment not being placed on the ballot for a general vote. Currently the CDC funds its administrative positions from its own (non -general fund) revenue, including all employee benefits. While there may be intermittent staffing needs from time to time to develop specific projects, the CDC has agreements with private vendors to assist in the administration of these specific one-time projects. These private vendors are not eligible for CDC employee benefits, therefore no increase in employee costs are expected from the 2005 Amendment. Prior to the establishment of National City's seven individual project areas, financial agreements were negotiated with the school districts to protect the school districts from loss of revenue. The only exception is the Harbor District Project Area, where the specific amount of payments to the affected school districts was mandated by a recent change to the Law, at the time the Harbor District was adopted. The 2005 Amendment does not change or modify the existing payment structure to the school districts, as the boundaries of the seven individual projects areas themselves are not changed by the 2005 Amendment. EXHIBIT A 1 The Project Area and existing eminent domain authority was established in 1995 after public discussion and a public hearing. Also, all property owners, residential and business tenants were notified of the public hearing for the 2005 Amendment. If the 2005 Amendment is not adopted, the properties currently included in the Project Area would remain and the CDC would have the authority to implement redevelopment initiatives. However, the CDC would not have the enhanced authority to acquire the commercial, industrial, vacant and abandoned properties as proposed by the 2005 Amendment and this has hampered efforts to reverse the blighting conditions on these properties. 3. Art Flaming — States that his property (National City Self Storage), while adjacent to blighted properties is not blighted and should be excluded from the 2005 Amendment area. In some instances non -blighted properties are needed to facilitate the effective redevelopment of surrounding blighted properties. There are no specific projects being considered at this time that would be implemented by the 2005 Amendment. Given that, staff is recommending that the eminent domain authority be granted for the 10-year period to allow greater flexibility for the community to implement future redevelopment projects. It is important to note that just because a redevelopment agency/commission has eminent domain authority it is not required to use the authority. 4. Jeffrey Silverman — Writes that his property is currently being redeveloped and requests exclusion for the 2005 Amendment. Since the 2005 Amendment proposes eminent domain authority for a 10-year period, it is impossible to predict future development trends with respect to surrounding properties. As stated in the previous response, just because a redevelopment agency/commission has eminent domain authority it is not required to use the authority. 5. Michael Kennedy — Believes a facade improvement program should be used in place of the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment. The CDC has attempted many programs including facade improvements to facilitate redevelopment in the Project Area. Unfortunately these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. In -fact, the CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of the properties continue to be neglected. 5. Ernest Peterson — States the eminent domain authority proposed by the 2005 Amendment is beyond the authority granted by the law. He states that eminent domain authority is restricted for use on public building/infrastructure projects and not to be used for economic development purposes. Section 33333.2(a)(4) of the Law allows redevelopment agencies/commissions to establish and extend eminent domain authority for periods of up to 12 years, for the purpose of exercising this authority in achieving economic redevelopment. The authority to use eminent domain to facilitate economic redevelopment as granted by section 33333.2(a)(4) of the Law has been upheld by the courts. 2 May 24, 2005 Maricela Leon Community Development Commission of National City 140 East 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950-3312 Re: 2005 Redevelopment Plan Amendment Dear Ms. Leon: My siblings and I are in receipt of your letter dated May 20, 2005, concerning the revised proposal for the use of eminent domain. I am writing for clarification of specific wording. Your letter states, "Residential Properties are excluded from the 2005 Amendment and could not be acquired using eminent domain." However, the letter also states that "the proposed 2005 Amendment would allow the CDC to purchase properties in specific commercial and industrial corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area." Our home lies within this area. My question is —Is our house, which is located at 1128 Harding Avenue, National City, subject to this proposed eminent domain? Also, would you be so kind as to mail to me the metes and bounds legal description for the Project Area (as described in your letter). I have enclosed a self- addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you in advance for your response. Sincerely, aZ Marion Valdez Julius Valdez Family Trust 22009 Vincennes Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Chairman Nick Inzunza Members Ron Morrison Luis Natividad Frank Parra Rosalie Zarate Executive Director Benjamin Martinez June 1, 2005 Preserving History... Shaping the Future Community Development Commission of National City Marion Valdez Julius Valdez Family Trust 22009 Vincennes Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Dear Marion: I am in receipt of your letter dated May 24, 2005 in regards to the Redevelopment Plan Amendment notice you received. This is to confirm that residential properties are excluded from the 2005 Amendment and cannot be acquired using eminent domain even if they are located on the commercial and industrial corridors. I have enclosed a copy of the metes and bounds legal description for the Project Area as requested. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-336-4279. Project Manager 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B; National City, California 91950 Tel.: (619) 336.4250 Fax: (619) 336.4286 -7, aooS Yna.tr_ °A/IA_ e:±j_ e&-e.vr, P52-efac� %1a�A�ciQ C� Yt�ceoL iCo VofL eve f.Gvw) .Az_- ct�ue.Q,auP'''''` a -dAa typ)t,i .wL,L2 PA.o�,,� o� c9 ctotPaA-0, w eitocA- o-6 %efiwAP—e_ b-u-e Xo i,1A2 6.+Ad_ 1,-z-E&PC yn-e.o_A S- to I D q41.0AAq°4_ ivn s-,Q- xs_r_eAl c'YY\A2 joilL612 Q.)1,;t " . 94 /imp( '1HE TIERR4 CORPORAION Commercial Development Asset and Property Management 4437 Twain Avenue San Diego, California 92120 (619) 641-7851 Fax (619) 641-7899 June 3, 2005 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Michael Dallas City Clerk City of National City Civic Center 1243 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950 Mr. Nick Inzunza Chairman Community Development Commission of National City 140 E. 12th Street, Suite B National City, CA 91950 RE: National City Redevelopment Plan — Eminent Domain Amendment Dear Sirs: I am the owner of National City Self Storage ("NCSS") located at 430 West 30th Street, National City, CA. While I fully support the much needed redevelopment efforts in National City, I have significant concerns over the use of eminent domain and its application in this circumstance. Although the use of eminent domain is a necessary tool for redevelopment efforts, it is often applied in an abusive, heavy-handed and inconsistent manner. 1 _strongly -object to NCSS being included in the eminent -domain area and the implication that NCSS may be considered blighted. The fact that a thriving and well -maintained business, such as my property, is included in an eminent domain area, is a prime example of the misapplication of the eminent domain powers. Even under the broad and somewhat ambiguous definitions of blight, NCSS exhibits absolutely no characteristics of a blighted business. I take great pride in ownership of NCSS. I provide a safe and healthy place of business, both for my employees and customers. My business is flourishing with 90% occupancy, market rental rates and increasing property value. The facility is impeccably maintained by a full-time maintenance staff and has ample parking. In the last year I have spent in excess of $200,000 upgrading the facility including repainting, new signage, new elevators and additional landscaping. The facility is secure and crime -free. Despite Mr. Michael Dallas and Mr. Nick Inzunza June 3, 2005 Page 2 significant wall exposure along Interstate 5, incidents of graffiti are very rare and are removed immediately. Self storage is the highest and best use for the property. For over twenty years NCSS has been a contributing business member to the National City community. Not only is NCSS not blighted, it reduces blight by eliminating personal and business clutter that might otherwise accumulate in open view on residential and commercial properties. The adjacent Bannister Steel property is extremely blighted and I have logged a number of complaints regarding its trucks clogging the cul-de-sac. However, just because the surrounding properties may be blighted does not justify including NCSS in the area of eminent domain authority. I trust you will find my objection to NCSS being included in the eminent domain area to be well founded. Any attempt to exercise eminent domain authority against my property will be vigorously defended. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. 10) SiArt L.F. in, Owner National City Self Storage 'HE TIERR 1 CORPORA7iON UD/ GJ/ GYJUZ VJ7: 1G PI. 7. PIHNHUG9CIN I '7 71717JJb,4et t, MJK Real Estate Holding Company, LLC 790 Estate Drive - Suite 100 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Tel: 847-919-4801 Fax: 847-919-4829 DATE: May 23, 2005 TO: Ben Martinez Fax: 619-336-4286 FROM: Jeffrey Silverman RE: NW Corner of Plaza & Highland I just received the National City Redevelopment Project Area mapping. Our new project has been included within the designated area. How do we exclude as were presently redeveloping? 05/23/2005 MON 8:04 [JOB NO. 5328] 0001 May 24, 2005 RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2005 Community Development Commission Michael Kennedy 1114 Mary Lane National City, CA 91950 City of National City Michael Dalla, City Clerk Re: Use of eminent domain in plans for National City Redevelopment Project Area To the City Council of the City of National City, I simply do not understand how or why eminent domain would even be considered within the context of redevelopment of storefronts. This is an abuse of power on the part of local government. There have been successful programs locally, e.g., The Adams Avenue Business Association, that have made terrific improvements to the neighborhood with the added benefit of maintaining some of the neighborhood's original character. I have cited the web link below and included printouts describing the incentive programs for local businesses that led to the improvements. http://www.s and iego.gov/economic-development/pdf/sipbrochu re.pdf I urge the community and the City Council of the City ofNational City to reject such strong-arming tactics in favor of allowing the freedom for the businesses to develop as they see fit with the individuality and creativity that makes a community vibrant. Please review the brochure and consider revising plan for the National City Redevelopment Project Area to exclude the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a necessary albeit painful tool for infrastructure development and should not be trivialized in this manner to satisfy a narrow vision of community development. Thank you for considering my opinion, Michael Kennedy 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 Inzunza 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 Attachment 2 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 of the California Code of Regulations, Mayor lnzunza, 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 Tess 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 1EETING DATE: June 21, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO. ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: Benjamin Martinez Executive Director EXPLANATION: DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission The Community Development Commission has prepared the proposed 2005 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, re- gardless of their zoning designation, within the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015. 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, on July 21, 2005, the Community Development Commission's eminent domain authority will be extended until July 21, 2015. J 1 Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Commission has prepared a Negative Declaration and Addendum for the proposed 2005 Amendment. As the Lead Agency, the City Council will consider the approval of the Negative Declaration and Addendum. Financial Statement There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of this action. J STAFF RECOMMENDATION Introduce the attached Ordinance adopting the 2005 Amendment. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Commission will consider the adoption of a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed 2005 Amendment. ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) 1. Ordinance No. 2. Memorandum dated February 22, 2005 from City Attorney 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 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council 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 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("2005 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the 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 Code Regulations Section 15000 et seq., and the local procedures adopted by the CDC pursuant thereto, the CDC has prepared and completed a proposed Negative Declaration and Addendum for the 2005 Amendment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33452, public notice has been duly given, and a full and fair public hearing on the proposed 2005 Amendment was held on June 21, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of National City does ordain as follows: Section 1. The 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan is hereby amended by modifying Section 603 of the National City Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: Attachment 1 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 Commercial and Industrial Corridors of 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 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015. Section 2. Based upon the evidence contained in the Report to the City Council for the 2005 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 California Redevelopment Law; and (b) The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the California Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare; and (c) The 2005 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 California Redevelopment 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) 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 (g) 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 Health and Safety Code Sections 33411 and 33411.1. 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 Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5; and (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 2005 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 June 21, 2005 on the 2005 Amendment, and the City Council having considered all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the 2005 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 2005 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 the California Redevelopment Law. PASSED and ADOPTED this ATTEST: Michael R. Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney day of , 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor 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 publichearing 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 Inzunza 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 Attachment 2 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 of the California Cade 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