HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Agenda Statement (3)Final
Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
National City Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
Prepared for the:
CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL airy
INCORPORATED - J1
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
November 2010
Prepared by:
•
B
B
BRG Consulting, Inc.
304 Ivy Street
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 298-7127
Project Title:
Applicant:
Project Location:
CALIFORNIA *�
NATIONAL CITy
� ICAV ' \ INCORPORATED
FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS (Previously Case No. SP-2005-3)
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, CA 91950
Raymond Pe, AICP, Principal Planner
Advance Planning Division
(619) 336-4421
A 3.69-acre area, including 13-parcels totaling 1.95 acres, situated
south of Civic Center Drive, north of 16th Street, east of Roosevelt
Avenue, and west of National City Blvd., within the City of National
City.
Project Description: See Attachment A of the Initial Study
Determination:
The City of National City conducted an Initial Study for the National City Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS (Previously Case No. SP-2005-3), and
determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant effect on the
environment and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
Documentation:
The attached Initial Study documents the evidence to support the above determination.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
The following recommended mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed project, to below a level of
significance:
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Short -Term Construction
If air quality impacts associated with construction of an approved project within the
Downtown Specific Plan Amendment project area exceed the significance thresholds,
mitigation measures identified below should be implemented as feasible to reduce
emissions of the project. Mitigation measures from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) are presented below and are recommended for
projects in the San Diego Air Basin, where applicable. The following measures are
recommended to reduce pollutant emissions from construction activities. The
construction operators shall implement these measures:
• Use water trucks to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent
dust raised when traveling on the site;
• Wet down the site in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
• After construction, wet inactive areas down to reduce windblown dust;
• Employ street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public roadways;
• Wash off trucks leaving the site;
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering
on portions of the site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods (such as two
months or more);
• Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned; and,
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Long-term
The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions are attainable
through programs, which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project.
Support and compliance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the basin is the
most important measure to achieve this goal. The RAQS includes improvement of mass
transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally,
energy conservation measures are included. None of these recommended mitigation
measures are strictly required. However, all relevant measures should be applied to the
greatest extent possible.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures:
• Schedule truck deliveries and pickups for commercial uses during off-peak hours
when feasible. This will alleviate traffic congestion; therefore, emissions during the
peak hour.
• Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to
minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. Presumably, this measure would improve
traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are
incalculable because more specific data is required.
• Provide on -site services. Provide incentives such as on -site ATMs and other similar
measures that address lifestyle needs. These measures reduce Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), but the air quality benefit cannot be quantified because more
specific data is required.
Energy Efficient Measures and Additional Measures:
• Compliance with Title 24, Part 6, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. All buildings must comply with Title 24,
Part 6. Reducing the need to heat or cool structures by improving thermal
integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in
pollutant emissions.
• Develop operational emissions mitigation plan. Prior to approval of each building
permit for a commercial or office use, the applicant shall submit to the City for
approval, an operational emissions mitigation plan. The plan shall identify
implementation procedures for each of the following emissions reduction
measures. If certain measures are determined infeasible, an explanation thereof
shall be provided in the operational emissions mitigation plan.
- Utilize built-in energy -efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption
and emissions.
- Utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners and
lighting to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions.
• Coordinate with Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) regarding the location of bus
turnouts and buses routed within the project area.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1 :
Prior to future project approval and issuance of any construction permit within the
project site, including but not limited to a demolition or building permit, the applicant
shall conduct an evaluation of the five onsite buildings identified as potentially eligible
historical structures in the Cultural and Historical Resources Survey prepared by ASM
Affiliates, Inc. dated April 2, 2009. The evaluation shall determine if these buildings are
eligible for inclusion in the state or local historical registers. The evaluation shall be
performed by a historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation Professionals. The
historian/architectural historian shall consult with knowledgeable local groups (e.g., Save
Our Heritage Organization, National City Historical Society, San Diego Historical Society,
and others) and individuals, appropriate archives, and appropriate repositories in an
effort to identify the original and subsequent owners as well as the architect and the
builder to establish whether any of these individuals played important roles in local or
regional history (criterion B). Additionally the physical characteristics and condition of
the building or structure shall be evaluated under criterion (C), and those judged to
possess "the distinctive characteristic of a type, period, region, or method of
construction" shall be further assessed for integrity and context.
The results of the archival research and field assessment shall be documented in an
evaluation report. This report will explicitly state whether the resource is eligible for either
state or local historical registers and shall also make specific recommendations as
appropriate. The historian/architectural historian shall complete the necessary California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site forms (minimally Primary Record and
Building/Structure/Object record; others as required) and include as an attachment to
the report. Copies of the DPR site forms shall be submitted to the California Historical
Resource Information System via the SCIC, an auxiliary of San Diego State University.
Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GS-1 :
A geotechnical investigation shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for any development project that requires grading. The geotechnical
investigation shall include fieldwork (e.g., subsurface exploration, sampling) and
laboratory analysis as directed by the City to determine the exact location and extent of
potential geologic/seismic hazards. All applicable remedial grading measures and
seismic design parameters recommended by the geotechnical engineer shall be
incorporated into the project and shown on the final grading plans and/or incorporated
into contractor specifications prior to award of construction contracts, to the satisfaction
of the City.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 :
Consistent with the intent of AB32, the proposed project shall demonstrate that it has
measures in place that would assist in providing statewide reduction of CO2 as
compared to 'business as usual.' The following greenhouse gas offset measures have
been shown to be effective by CARB and shall be implemented wherever possible:
Diesel Equipment (Compression Ignition) Offset Strategies (40% to 60% Reduction)
• Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators.
• Construction equipment operating onsite should be equipped with two to four
degree engine timing retard or precombustion chamber engines.
• Construction equipment used for the project should utilize EPA Tier 2 or better
technology.
Vehicular Trip (Spark Ignition) Offset Strategies (30% to 70% Reduction)
• Encourage commute alternatives by informing construction employees and
customers about transportation options for reaching your location (i.e., post
transit schedules/routes).
• Help construction employees rideshare by posting commuter ride sign-up sheets,
employee home zip code map, etc.
• When possible, arrange for a single construction vendor who makes deliveries for
several items.
• Purchase Carbon Offsets to compensate for miles traveled by construction
vehicles.
• Plan construction delivery routed to eliminate unnecessary trips.
• Keep construction vehicles well maintained to prevent leaks and minimize
emissions, and encourage employees to do the same.
• Provide car/van pool parking for construction employees.
• Sell bus or light rail passes on -site or at a discount to construction employees.
On -site Energy Offset Strategies (50% to 70% Reduction)
• Complete regularly scheduled maintenance on HVAC (heating, ventilation and
air conditioning) systems.
• Use an energy management system to control lighting, kitchen exhaust,
refrigeration and HVAC.
• Install occupancy sensors for lighting in low occupancy areas.
• Retrofit incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights.
• Install ultra efficient ballasts to dim lights to take advantage of daylight.
• Insulate all major hot water pipes.
• Insulate refrigeration cold suction lines.
• Use weather stripping to close air gaps around doors and windows.
• Select electrical equipment with energy saving features (e.g., Energy Star).
• Plant native shrubs or trees near windows for shade.
• Convert hot water heaters to on -demand systems.
• Reduce the number of lamps and increase lighting efficiency by installing optical
reflectors or diffusers.
• Install ceiling fans in homes where applicable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HM-1:
Prior to the development of any property that was formerly occupied by or adjacent to
existing facilities that used or stored hazardous materials, a detailed Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment shall be approved by the City of National to evaluate the
potential for soil and groundwater contamination. If warranted by the Phase I
environmental site assessment, soil and possibly groundwater sampling shall be required.
Mitigation Measure HM-2:
Asbestos, mercury, and a lead -based paint survey of existing buildings shall be
conducted prior to any renovation or demolition activities to the satisfaction of the City.
Mitigation Measure HM-3:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any property where the results of the Phase I,
Phase II, and/or asbestos, mercury, or lead -based paint evaluation indicates the
presence of these materials or the potential for hazardous materials at levels requiring
mitigation, all remedial measures identified in the studies shall be shown on the face of
the grading plans and/or incorporated into contractor specifications prior to awarding
the construction contract or issuance of a demolition permit, whichever is first. All
remedial measures required by law shall be implemented and completed prior to the
issuance of grading or building permits, whichever is issued first.
Noise
Mitigation Measure N-1 :
To ensure that construction activities comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, a
Construction Noise Abatement Plan shall be prepared for each construction project and
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits,
whichever is issued first. The Plan shall describe the construction activities, equipment
required for those activities, and noise level generation characteristics of the equipment
to be used. Noise levels at the closest residential use shall be predicted. If projected
noise levels will exceed the Noise Ordinance limits, measures to reduce those levels to
comply with the Noise Ordinance shall be described and implemented.
Mitigation Measure N-2:
The structure compliance of all future development within the Specific Plan Amendment
area would be required to demonstrate a closed -window interior noise level of 45 dBA
CNEL for all residential sensitive use areas. Office space mitigation would be at the
discretion of the City of National City. Given this, a separate architectural acoustical
assessment shall be completed for each proposed project within the project site, prior to
issuance of any building permits for the residential aspects of any future development
projects.
Public Services
Mitigation Measure PS-1 : Police Protection
The Police Department shall review all future development projects for police protection
impacts and ensure that additional police personnel and/or equipment are provided to
provide acceptable level of police protection services deemed acceptable by the
National City Police Department prior to issuance of building permits.
Mitigation Measure PS-2: Fire Protection
The Fire Department shall review all future development projects for fire protection
impacts and ensure that additional fire personnel and/or equipment are provided to
provide acceptable level of fire protection services deemed acceptable by the
National City Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits.
Transportation/Traffic
Mitigation Measure T-1: Intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -
ramp
As part of the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Port Access Improvements Project
for the intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, Caltrans has
prepared a Project Report and traffic analysis which indicates capacity improvements
and a new signal for the intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -
ramp, to be constructed in the near -term.
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure U-1: Wastewater
All development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment area shall be
reviewed by the National City Public Works Department to make sure that adequate
wastewater facilities will be available to serve the project. If the Public Works
Department determines the existing wastewater facilities as not adequate the project
developer shall construct the facilities necessary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
Mitigation Measure U-2: Water
All water utility plans shall be approved by the Sweetwater Authority to ensure that
adequate water service is provided to the development.
Mitigation Measure U-3: Water
The City shall require the incorporation of all state mandated water conservation
measures. The City shall also require the additional incorporation, as applicable, of
water conservation measures including water efficient dishwashers, water pressure
reducing valves, hot water pipe insulation, and hot water on -demand units as
applicable.
Public Review:
The Draft MND, Initial Study, and supporting documents were submitted to federal, state,
and local agencies and other entities/organizations for a 30-day public review period
(July 28, 2010 to September 2, 2010). The documents were also made available for
review at the City of National City, Advance Planning Division and on the City's website,
www.nationalcityca.gov.
Results of Public Review:
() No comments were received during the public input period.
()
Comments were received but did not address the Draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No
response is necessary. The letters are attached.
(X) Comments addressing the findings of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or
accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public input
period. The letters and responses follow.
List of Public Agencies that Commented:
A draft version of this MND was circulated for public review from July 28, 2010 to
September 2, 2010. Six comment letters were received. The letters and response to
comments are attached to this document following the MND. One revision was made to
the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist as a result of the letters received on the Draft
MND. Specifically, Mitigation Measure T-1 was revised in response to the letter received
from Caltrans. However, no new significant impacts would result from the proposed
project or no new mitigation measures are proposed for implementation different from
those discussed in the Draft MND.
INDEX OF COMMENT LETTERS
Comment
Commenter
di
Letter Date
Letter —
A
Native American Heritage Commission
8/10/10
B
San Diego County Archaeological
Society, Inc.
8/16/10
C
Department of Transportation, District 11
9/1/10
D
Public Utilities Commission
9/2/10
E
State of California, Governor's Office of
Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
9/3/10
F
Max Friedheim, Pres., PDQ Precisions, Inc.
9/14/10
Raymond Pe, AICP
Principal Planner
July 28, 2010
Date of Draft Report
Date of Final Report
Comment Letter A
STABS OF CArffONNIA
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364
SACRAMENTO, CA 96014
(916) 653-0251
Fax (016) 66T-6390
Wob Slto www noOm..9Av
e'nndl: do. noho®posbo9.not
August 10, 2010
Mr. Raymond Pe, AICP, Principal Planner
CITY OF NATONAL CITY
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Sent by FAX to: 619-336-4321
Number of pages: 2
o91$Ghwwoeo
Re: Tribal Consultation Per Government Code && 65352.3, 65352.4 and 65560 (SS 18/Sacred
Lands File Search) for Project- Specific Plan Amendmept: Case No. 2010-23 SPA. IS
(Preeviously Case No. SP-2005-31: located on 3.69-acres including 13 parcels all within the City
of Najional Clty: San Diego County California' State Clearinghouse No for the Mitigated Negative
Declaration 2010071074
Dear Mr. Pe:
Government Code §65352.3 and .5 requires local governments to consult with California Native
American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of
protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places. Attached is a Native American Tribal
Consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the requested plan
boundaries
As a part of consultation, the NAHC recommends that local governments conduct record searches
through the NANG and California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine If any
cultural places are located within the area(s) affected by the proposed action.
A NAHC Sacred Lands File search was conducted based on the project site n information included in
your request and No Native American cultural resources were identified within the 'area of potential
effect' (APE). This is considered a culturally sensitive area by the NAHC. Local governments should be
aware that records maintained by the NAHC are not exhaustive, and a negative response to these
searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only source of
information regarding the existence of a cultural place. I suggest you consult with all of those on the
accompanying Native American Contacts list, which has been Included separately. If they cannot supply
information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge about cultural resources in your plan
area. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that
you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project Information has been received.
If you have a
questions, please contact me at (916) 653-6251.
Attachment: Native American Tribal Government Contacts
Al
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY DAVE SINGLETON, PROGRAM ANALYST, NATIVE
AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, DATED AUGUST 10, 2010 (COMMENT LETTER A)
Response to Comment Al:
The letter recommends a series of actions to determine if any cultural resources may
be affected by the proposed project. As discussed in Section V. Cultural Resources of
the MND, no cultural resources (e.g., archaeological or human remains) were
identified on the project site. The proposed project has the potential to impact
historical resources, due to the presence of potentially historically significant resources
within the project site; however, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1,
this impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
Furthermore, the City of National City has consulted with the California Native
American tribes pursuant to Government Code §§ 65352.3, 65352.4 and 65560 (SB
18/Sacred Lands File Search). Currently, no Tribes have responded.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendmen
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-1
November 2010
Native American Tribal Consultation List
SAN D)EGO COUNTY
August 10, 2010
Samna Group of the Capitan Grande
Edwin Romero, Chairperson
1095 Barona Road
Lakeside , CA 92040
sue@barona-nsn.gov
(619) 443-6612
Ewliaapaayp Tribal Office
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine , CA 91901
wmicklin @ ieaningrock. net
(619) 445-6315 - voice
Diegueno
Viejas Band of Mission Indians
Bobby L. Barrett, Chairperson
PO Box 908
Alpine , CA 91903
jrothauff@viejas-nsn.gov
(619) 445-3810
Jamul Indian Village
Kenneth Meza, Chairperson
Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 612
Jamul , CA 91935
jamulrez@sctdv.net
(619) 669-4785
Comment Letter A
(cont'd.)
Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Diegueno/Kumeyaay
La Posta Band of Mission Indians Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson Mark Romero, Chairperson
PO Box 1120 Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O Box 270
Boulevard . CA 91905 Santa Ysabel , CA 92070
(619) 478-2113 mesagrandeband@msn.com
(760) 782-3818
San Pasqua) Band of Mission Indians
Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson
PO Box 365 Diegueno
Valley Center CA 92082
(760) 749-3200
Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians
Johnny Hernandez, Spokesman
PO Box 130
Santa Ysabel , CA 92070
brandietaylor@yahoo.com
(760) 765-0845
Diegueno
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
Danny Tucker, Chairperson
5459 Sycuan Road
El Cajon CA 92021
ssilva@sycuan-risn.gov
619 445-2613
Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Diegueno
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas
P.O. Box 775
Pine Valley , CA 91962
(619) 709.4207
Diegueno - Kwaaymii
Inaja Band of Mission Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Spokesperson
2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Diegueno
Escondido , CA 92025
(760) 737-7628
Thin fiat In current only au of the date of this clocument.
oletrlbution of this Hat doom not relieve any person of statutory rsapo,wibiety ae defined in Section 7050.9 of the Health and
Safety Code, Section 0097.8a of the Punic Resources Coda and Section 5087.98 of the Public Resources Code.
Thin not la applicable only for conauhallon wan Nation Atmnean eibpe under Government Coda Section 653525.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-2
November 2010
l
Comment Letter B
9‘EGa co(,
hP j,
r
1, 73 14
yeo go
l o o l 00-
To:
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
Environmental Review Committee
16 August 2010
Mr. Raymond Pe, AICP
Principal Planner
Advance Planning Division
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, California 91950
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
Dear Mr. Pe:
RECEIVED
AUG 162010
Develo Community
pment Commission
I have reviewed the subject DMND. on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County
Archaeological Society.
Based on the information contained in the DMND and initial study, and the letter reports from
ASM Affiliates, we have the following comments:
1. Regarding the.potential for archaeological resources, the ASM letter of April 2, 2009
concludes that there is little likelihood of encountering substantial historical deposits "given
the fact that the houses were first constructed here. after 1910 when sewer and trash collection
services were likely provided." When were sewers actually provided in the project area?
Additional research may be required to confirm whether or -not there is a potential for privies
or other subsurface deposits. Also, if not already done, an inspection of the 1928-29 aerial
photographs available at the County offices in Kearny Mesa and the San Diego History
Center may be helpful in confirming earlier development in the area, including locations
where structures and, therefore, archaeological material may be encountered.
2. Regarding historical structures, the ASM letter of June 7, 2010 addresses the potential
impacts of demolition of the existing structures on four parcels. Based on the information
provided, we agree that they are not historically significant.
3. DMND mitigation, measure CR-1 calls for, additional analyses of five other structures
currently more than 50 years old. While we agree with that requirement for those five
structures, consideration will also need to be given to any other structures which reach the
age of 45 years at the time a project affecting them is under consideration.
P.O. Box 81106 • San Diego, CA 92138-1106 • (858) 538-0935
B1
B2
B3
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY JAMES W. ROYLE, JR., CHAIRPERSON,
ENVIONRMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SOCIETY, INC., DATED AUGUST 16, 2010 (COMMENT LETTER B)
Response to Comment 81:
ASM did not research sewer hook up dates for the parcels discussed in the April 2, 2009
letter, because they were developed relatively late. ASM's previous experience with
projects in the City, is that trash and sewer was provided by 1910. As such, ASM does
not expect significant subsurface deposits on the lots due to the relative late date of
development on them.
In addition, ASM did not research the 1928 aerials because the Sanborn Fire Insurance
maps provide more detailed information regarding historic land use over a greater
time period. The Sanborn maps for 1907, 1911, 1926 and 1950 were consulted for this
project.
Response to Comment B2:
Comment noted.
Response to Comment B3:
Comment noted.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-3
November 2010
Comment Letter B
(cont'd.)
Thank you for including SDCAS in the City's environmental review process for this project.
Sincerely,
es W. Royle, Jr., Chairp
Environmental Review Comnu ee
cc: ASM Affiliates
'SDCAS President
File
P.O. Box 81106 • San Diego, CA 92138-1106 • (858) 538-0935
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-4
November 2010
sTATs of CAUPORNIA—RIISINRSS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY _ASNi)) J)WARZENEGG6R. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT II
PLANNING DIVISION
4050 TAYLOR STREET, M.S. 240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
PHONE (619) 688-6681
FAX (619) 688-2511
rry 711
September 1, 2010
Mr. Raymond Pe, AICP
Principal Planner
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, CA 91950
Dear Mr. Pe:
Comment Letter C
Fie, your power!
Be energy efficient!
11-SD-5
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opporunity to comment
on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the National City Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment Case No. 2010-23 SPA, located in the City of National City (City) and adjacent to
Interstate 5 (I-5). Caltrans would like to submit the following comments:
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario calls for two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
Lanes along I-5 from State Route 905 (SR-905) to Interstate 8 (I-8). Caltrans is currently
preparing a Project Study Report (PSR) for the addition of two HOV Lanes along I-5 from
approximately State Route 15 (SR-15) to SR-905, including National City. Caltrans encourages
the City to participate on this effort as part of this specific plan, as well as the City's General Plan
Update, with the possibility of evaluating potential future interchange improvements or
modifications as part of this work.
Potential transit'mitigation along the I-5 South Corridor for development impacts should also be
analyzed, such as improved transit accommodation through the provision of park and ride
facilities, bicycle access, signal prioritization for transit, or other enhancements that can improve
mobility and alleviate traffic impacts to 1-5. Caltrans encourages the City of National City to
engage and work with Caltrans, SANDAG and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System to
explore potential transit improvements as part of a comprehensive strategy to address impacts to
I-5.
Caltrans would expect that the feasibility of implementing cumulative impact Mitigation along I-
5 be thoroughly analyzed, and funded or implemented in a manner consistent with development
approvals. Caltrans recommends an impact fee approach similar to the Chula Vista Western
Traffic Development Impact Fee Program be considered as a potential strategy as part of this
Specific Plan.
"Caimans improves mobility across California"
Cl
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER
BRANCH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2010 (COMMENT LETTER C)
Response to Comment Cl:
Comment Noted. The City
transportation planning efforts
Caltrans.
BY JACOB ARMSTRONG, CHIEF, DEVLEOPMENT REVIEW
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 1,
of National City will continue to participate in
on the regional/subregional level with SANDAG and
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-5
November 2010
Mr. Raymond Pe
September 1, 2010
Page 2
Comment Letter C
(cont'd.)
The project will impact Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 northbouni. To mitigate the impact
the project identifies that a traffic signal be installed at the subject intersectio i. There currently is a
Caltrans project that proposes at -grade improvements on Civic Center Drive from Cleveland Avenue to
Harding Avenue. Please contact Michael Webster, Caltrans Project Manager at (619) 688-6090 to
coordinate the proposed mitigation and Caltrans project.
Any work performed within Caltrans right-of-way (R/W) will require discretionary review and
approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the
Caltrans' R/W prior to construction. Current policy allows Highway Improvement Projects
costing $1 million or less to follow the Caltrans Encroachment Permit process. Highway
Improvement Projects costing greater than $1 million but less than $3 millior would be allowed
to follow a streamlined project development process similar to the Caltrans Encroachment
Permit process. In order to determine the appropriate permit processing of projects funded by
others, it is recommended the concept and project approval for work to be do ie on the State
Highway System be evaluated through the completion of a Permit Engineering Evaluation
Report (PEER). A PEER should always be prepared, regardless of the cost o f improvements,
when new operating improvements are constructed by the permittee that beccme part of the
State Highway System. These include but are not limited to, signalization, cliannelization, turn
pockets, widening, realignment, public road connections, and bike paths and .ones. After
approval of the PEER and necessary application and supporting documentation an encroachment
permit can be issued.
Highway Improvement Projects greater than $3 million, or considered complex projects, would
be required to adhere to the full Project Development Process (e.g. Project Initiation Documents,
Project Study Reports and Cooperative Agreements). A Caltrans District responsible unit will
be notified and a project manager will be assigned to coordinate the project approval.
In order to expedite the process for projects sponsored by a local agency or private developer, it
is recommended a PEER be prepared and included in the Lead Agency's Cali 'ornia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. This will help expedite the C altrans
Encroachment Permit Review process. The PEER document forms and procedures can be found
in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM).
littp://www.dolca.gov/hq/oppd/pdprn/pdpmn.htm
http://www.dot.ca. gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/pdf/forms/PEER_(TR.-0112).pdf
As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide an approved final
environmental document including the CEQA determination addressing any environmental
impacts within the Caltrans' R/W, and any corresponding technical studies. If these materials are
not included with the encroachment permit application, the applicant will be required to acquire
and provide these to Caltrans before the permit application will be accepted. identification of
avoidance and/or mitigation measures will be a condition of the encroachment permit approval
as well as procurement of any necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Encroachment
permit submittals that are incomplete can result in significant delays in permit approval.
"Caltrans improves mobility, across California"
AloW
.01111
C2
C3
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY JACOB ARMSTRONG, CHIEF, DEVLEOPMENT REVIEW
BRANCH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 1,
2010 (COMMENT LETTER C) (continued)
Response to Comment C2:
As discussed in Section XVI. Transportation/Traffic of the MND, the proposed project is
calculated with one horizon year significant impact at the intersection of Civic Center
Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp due to the addition of more than two seconds
of delay. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, this impact will be
reduced to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure T-1 requires the following:
As part of the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Port Access
Improvements Project for the intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson
Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, Caltrans has prepared a Project Report and traffic
analysis which indicates capacity improvements and a new signal for the
intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, to be
constructed in the near -term. These improvements will reduce the traffic impact
to a level less than significant.
Response to Comment C3:
Comment noted. The City of National City will continue to participate in
transportation planning efforts on the regional/subregional level with SANDAG and
Caltrans.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-6
November 2010
Comment Letter C
Mr. Raymond Pe (cont'd.)
September 1, 2010
Page 3
When a property owner proposes to dedicate property to a local agency for Caltrans use in
conjunction with a permit project, Caltrans will not issue the encroachment permit until the
dedication is made and the property has been conveyed to the Department.
Improvement plans for construction within State Highway R/W must include the appropriate
engineering information consistent with the state code and signed and stamped by a professional
engineer registered in the State of California. Caltrans Permit Manual contains a listing of
typical information required for project plans. All design and construction must be in
conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the
Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised
for all encroachment permits.
CEQA requires, under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, the adoption of reporting
or monitoring programs when public agencies include environmental impact mitigation as a
condition of project approval. Reporting or monitoring takes place after project approval to
ensure implementation of the project in accordance with the mitigation adopted during the
CEQA review process. According to PRC Section 21081.6, when a project has impacts that are
of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance, a reporting or monitoring program shall be
submitted to Caltrans. Attached are Caltrans guidelines for the submittal of reporting or
monitoring programs. Please submit the attached information to the Caltrans Inter -Governmental
Review/Development Review contact following project approval.
If you have any questions, please contact Anthony Aguirre, of the Development Review Branch,
at (619) 688-3161.
Sincerely,
JACOB ARMSTRONG, Chief
Development Review Branch
"Cattalos improves nobility across California,"
1.0
C3
(cont'd,)
C4
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY JACOB ARMSTRONG, CHIEF, DEVLEOPMENT REVIEW
BRANCH, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED SEPTEMBER 1,
2010 (COMMENT LETTER C) (continued)
Response to Comment C4:
Comment noted. The City of National City will continue to participate in
transportation planning efforts on the regional/subregional level with SANDAG and
Caltrans.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-7
November 2010
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Comment Letter D
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 WEST 4" STREET, SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
September 2, 2010
Raymond Pe
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Dear Mr. Pe:
RECEIVED
SE 1 0 7 ZON)
Community
Development Commission
Re: SCH# 2010071074; Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS (Previous Case
No. SD-2005-3)
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway -rail
crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the
construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and
closure of crossings. The Commission Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) is in receipt of the Notice of
Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal -Mitigated Negative Declaration from the State
Clearinghouse for the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Amendment and has reviewed the document for
impacts to rail crossing safety.
In the TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure T-1, its states: "Intersection of Civic Center Drive
at Wilson Avenue/I-5. A traffic signal shall be installed when warranted. The design of the traffic signal shall
be coordinated between City of National City and Caltrans." Civic Center Drive crosses the shared BNSF
Railway Company and San Diego Trolley tracks. Any modification to an existing highway -rail crossing
including the installation of a new traffic signal within 60 feet of a crossing that would be interconnected to the
railroad warning devices would require a GO 88-B request to be submitted to RCES. Requirements under
Section 8D.07 Traffic Control Signals at or Near Highway Rail Grade Crossings of the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices should be followed. The Commission should also be listed as a party to coordination
efforts.
The following link below provides more information regarding our GO 88-B process and frequently asked
questions: <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Transportation/crossings/Filing+Procedures/go88B.htm>
If you have any questions, please contact Laurence Michael, Utilities Engineer at 213-576-7076,
Idi@cpuc.ca.gov, or myself at rxm@cpuc.ca.gov, 213-576-7078.
Sincerely,
Rosa Mufioz, PE
Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering Section
Consumer Protection & Safety Division
DI
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY ROSA MUNOZ, UTILITIES ENGINEER, RAIL CROSSINGS
ENGINEERING SECTION, CONSUMER PROTECTION & SAFETY DIVISION, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 (COMMENT
LETTER D)
Response to Comment Dl:
This letter states that Civic Center Drive crosses the shared BNSF Railway Company and
San Diego Trolley tracks. As such, any modification to an existing highway -rail crossing
must comply with the PUC requirements regarding rail -crossing safety. The proposed
project will comply with the PUC requirements with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure T-1, which has been revised since the Draft MND to address Caltrans Project
Report prepared for the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Port Access
Improvements Project. This mitigation measure requires the installation of a traffic
signal and necessary traffic signal warrants at the Civic Center Drive at Wilson
Avenue/I-5 NM on -ramp.
In addition, the City of National City will coordinate with Caltrans and the PUC to
ensure that all requirements, including execution of a GO 88-B, are met prior to
construction of the programmed improvements at the intersection of Civic Center
Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-8
November 2010
Comment Letter E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Arnold Schwarzenegger
' Governor
September 3, 2010 •
Raymond Pe
National City •
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
RECEIVED
SEP 0 7 2010.
CommunDevelopment Commission
ml4�o
peAufe
Cathleen Cox
Acting Director
Subject: National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS (Previous Case
No. SD-2005-3)
SCH#: 2010071074
Dear Raymond Pe:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. The review period closed on September 2, 2010, and no state agencies submitted
comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question' about the above-named.project, please refer to the
ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. '
Sincerely,
Scott Moran •
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREW P.O. BOX 3044 • BAORAMENTO, OALIFOIiNIA 95812.8041
TEL (916) 445-0619 PAX (916) 821.1018 www.opr.ca.gav
El
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY TERRY ROBERTS, DIRECTOR, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND
PLANNING UNIT, DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 (COMMENT LETTER E)
Response to Comment El:
The letter states that this project complied with CEQA requirements for review of draft
environmental documents, and no comments were received from any state agencies.
No response is required.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-9
November 2010
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Comment Letter E
(cont'd.)
SCH# 2010071074
Project Title National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS (Previous Case No.
Lead Agency SD-2005-3)
National City
Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
Description The proposed project is a proposed Specific Plan Amendment to the existing National City Downtown
Specific Plan. The project consists of two components: 1) an amendment to the Downtown Specific
Plan; and 2) a proposed residential development within one half -block portion of the project site. The
Downtown Specific Plan boundary would be expanded to incorporate the three, half -blocks located
east of Roosevelt Avenue, south of Civic Center Drive, and north of 16th Street.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Raymond Pe
Agency National City
Phone 619-336-4421 Fax
email
Address 1243 National City Boulevard
City National City State CA Zip 91950
Project Location
County San Diego
_ _ City National City
Region
Lat/Long
Cross Streets Roosevelt Ave and Civic Center Drive
Parcel No. 13 parcels
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways 1.5, 1-805, SR-54
Airports
Railways San Diego Trolley
Waterways San Diego Harbor
Schools 10 within 2 miles
Land Use Residential, Light Manufacturing/MLR (Residential, Light Manufacturing)
Project issues AestheticNlsual; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Geologic/Seismic; Landuse; Noise; Public
Services; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation
Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of
Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources;
California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9;
Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission
Date Received 07/28/2010
Start of Review 07/28/2010 End of Review 09/02/2010
Note: Blanks In data fields result from insufficient infnrmatinn nrnviried nv lead
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-10
November 2010
The Fio,,, of •{.. P,oducts
A CAL Cozp 5ezvinz Industry
September 14, 2010
City of National City
Planning and Building Dept
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, Ca 91950-4301
Mr.Pe:
PRECISION, INC.
P.O BOX99838 '" SAN DIEGO CA 92169
ATT: Raymond Pe, AICP
Principal planner'
Comment Letter F
Tel: (858) 581-6370
Fax: (619)474-1300
Thank you for the time spent several weeks ago to explain your departments plans for National
City where the three half streets would now be annexed into your "East" plan. My property is
in the center street and would be subject to whatever discretionary ideas that come up.
The street next to mine is being spoken for by a proposal to build within 15th and 1 e streets
by Library Village South, inc. My property corners on 15thst. You indicated that I would become
subject to eminent domain should they or others wish to do the same on my street.
I strongly oppose your current plan for a number of reasons. Some of which are:
I am in limbo for further development of energy conservation by adding solar and wind as you
might try to eject me at any time.
I cannot attempt to sell my,property to anyone, you've locked me in with eminent domain as a
prospect. If I have an offer today it would fall by the wayside and any deal would fall apart, and
if I had an offer, would eminent domain pay that same price?
You had refused in earlier years to deny access to others that wanted to build in these streets,
yet now you wish to turn this over to a shell company.
Library Village South, Inc is owned by Willmark Communities: google them and find as I did
the following reviews they have received:
"They are Useless" By Mandie June 9, 2010
"Lie, cheat and steal" by Trost Dec. 15 2009
"Horrible company" by Daniel Oct 1 2009
• So I ask the following questions: Have your ever investigated the developer for character?
How come they used a shell name and not their own when approaching you? If they did, why did
you hide that information. Does my being on site over 10 years and employing local people have
any bearing at all or is my size as a company so small you can just roll over me?
Sincerely, •
Max Fried im, Pres.
PDQ Precision, Inc.
Awe4pti•IeaGonufigiQn
PLANT: 1433 Roosevelt Ave., National City, CA. 91950. Tel: (619) 474-3600
RECEIVED
SEA I a 2WU
unity •
F1
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER BY MAX FRIEDHEIM, PRESIDENT, PDQ PRECISION, INC.,
DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 (COMMENT LETTER F)
Response to Comment F1:
Comment noted.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
RTC-11
November 2010
Initial Study - Page 1 of 42
CALIFORNIA
NATIONAL €Iry
I7an ,i
NCORPORATED -�
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Planning Division
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Environmental Checklist
1. PROJECT TITLE/PROJECT #: National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, Case No.
2010-23 SPA, IS (Previously Case No. SP-2005-3)
2. LEAD AGENCY:
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Contact Person: Raymond Pe, AICP, Principal Planner
Advance Planning Division
Phone No.: (619) 336-4421
3. PROJECT LOCATION: A 3.69-acre area, including 13 parcels totaling 1.95-acres,
situated south of Civic Center Drive, north of 16th Street, east of
Roosevelt Avenue, and west of National City Boulevard, within
the City of National City (APN #'s: 560-064-01, 560-064-02,
560-064-03, 560-064-04, 560-064-05, 560-063-01, 560-063-
02, 560-063-03, 560-063-04, 560-063-05, 560-014-01, 560-
014-11, 560-014-05).
4. PROJECT SPONSOR:
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Contact: Raymond Pe, Principal Planner
Advance Planning Division
Phone No.: (619) 336-4421
5. COMBINED GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING DESIGNATION:
6. ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS:
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Residential, Light Manufacturing (MLR)
Consistency Review, Case No. 2008-41 and 2008-42
Please refer to the attached Project Description.
8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: Please refer to attached Project Description.
9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): N/A
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 2 of 42
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Aesthetics
❑ Agriculture and Forestry D Air Quality
Resources
❑ Biological Resources l Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils
ID Greenhouse Gas Emissions l Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality
❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ID Noise
❑ Population & Housing El Public Services ❑ Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Inifi�tl tihu14� - of -I_'
DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial Evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project COULD HAVE a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, and an ❑
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) 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
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect that remains to be addressed.
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 (B) 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.
Signature
Plla
Date: July 28, 2010
Printed Name: Raymond Pe, AICP
Title: Principal Planner
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Irlili,ltihci-}'a•,c4o.-ICI
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence than an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated" applied where the
incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to
"Less then Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier
Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This in only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whichever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 5 of 42
ISSUES with Supporting Documentation & Sources
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 which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w! Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ x
0
0
a) No Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas nearby or across the project site. As such, the
proposed project would not affect a scenic vista. The proposed project would be incorporated into the
boundaries of the existing Downtown Specific Plan. Any future development of the project site would
be subject to the development standards, design guidelines, and landscaping requirements as
established in the Downtown Specific Plan and the currently proposed Development Zone 12B
standards. The blocks adjoining Roosevelt Avenue, (to the west of the project site) is within the
Westside Specific Plan and Mixed Residential Commercial Office is identified for the parcels located
along the west side of Roosevelt Avenue. This zone allows buildings up to three stories in height.
The proposed Development Zone 12B would be compatible with, and complement the Mixed
Residential Commercial Office zone to the west of the project site. Therefore, no impact is identified
for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
b) No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway.
Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. For comparison purposes, Figure 1 (found at the end of this Initial
Study) provides a basic frame model that depicts the potential maximum building massing that could
occur under the immediately adjacent (to the east) Development Zone 12 (proposed `12A'), which
allows for mid -rise residential development with an FAR of 5:1 and a maximum building height of 90
feet. Figure 1 provides the development standards that were applied to the mass models that were
prepared for the proposed project.
Figures 2 and 3 provide conceptual computer model simulations of how the Specific Plan Amendment
Area (Blocks 1 through 3) could look after the blocks are redeveloped in accordance with the
proposed Development Zone 12B development standards. As described in the Project Description,
Development Zone 12B would allow a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 4:1 and a maximum building height
of 65 feet. Required parking in the Downtown Specific Plan area is excluded from the FAR
calculation; therefore, any above grade parking does not count (is not factored into) the maximum
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 6 of 42
FAR calculation. Therefore, the primary limiting factor is the 65-foot height limit, which allows a five to
six story in height building, depending on topography and actual story height.
Figures 2 and 3 depict the context of the potential building massing that would be allowed under
proposed Development Zone 12B as compared to existing Development Zone 12 (proposed 12A)
regulations. The maximum development envelope allowed under the new Development Zone 12B
regulations would result in development that is stepped down in scale and height from the
immediately adjacent Development Zone 12A. Roosevelt Avenue then provides a transition between
the Downtown Specific Plan development regulations and the Westside Specific Plan development
regulations, which allow for building heights up to 50-feet along Roosevelt Avenue.. As such,
proposed development allowed within the project area will be consistent with surrounding
neighborhoods.
To further illustrate the development standards proposed for Development Zone 12B, Figures 4 and 5
provide cross -sections of potential development options for the new Development Zone 12B that are
depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 3.
Furthermore, similar to that described in the National City Downtown Specific Plan Final Program
Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR), any proposed development within the project site will be
required to be consistent with the design and landscaping guidelines of the National City Downtown
Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") (City of National City, 2005). All projects within the project site will be
reviewed by the City for consistency with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan during the project
approval process (i.e., consistency review). The proposed project will have a positive aesthetic
impact to the project area with new and improved development with a downtown aesthetic feel, which
is anticipated to enhance the visual character of the area. Therefore, the proposed project will not
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and the surrounding area, and a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Future development within Development Zone 12B will increase
nighttime lighting; however, the increase would not be considered substantial, would not be high
intensity, and would not affect any nighttime views. Furthermore, all proposed lighting would be
consistent with design guidelines and standards of the Specific Plan. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1, 3, 4, and 5)
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant Impact Mitigation Impact
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Incorporated
Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,
including the Forest Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
❑ ❑ ❑
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 7 of 42
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
❑ ❑ ❑
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, 0 0 0 x
forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land 0 0 ❑ x
to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 0 0 0 x
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non -forest use?
Discussion:
a) though e) No Impact. National City is a built -out community and there is no farmland or forest land
mapped or planned to be mapped within the City, or more specifically on the project site. The site is also
currently zoned for light -manufacturing and residential uses and the proposed Development Zone 12B
will allow uses such as multifamily residential, retail, office, and hospitality, none of which allow for
agricultural or forestry uses. Furthermore, no Williamson Act contract is associated with the land;
therefore, the development would have no impact on agricultural or forestry zoned areas.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, and 14)
III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w! Significant Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air Impact Mitigation Impact
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to Incorporated
make the following determinations.
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 pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
❑ ❑ x
❑ x 0
❑ x 0
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
1iuf ..I I 1v - -42
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Discussion:
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
a) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail below, the proposed project will not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, a less than significant
impact is identified for this issue area.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in detail below, the proposed
project would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, this impact
will be reduced to a level less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in detail below, the proposed
project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). However,
with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, this impact will be reduced to a level
less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in detail below, the proposed project will not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in detail below, the proposed project would not create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
The following information is summarized from the Air Quality Conformity Assessment prepared for the
proposed project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. (ISE), dated January 26, 2010. This
report is provided as Appendix A of this Initial Study.
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in the northwestern coastal portion of the San Diego Air Basin. The Basin
continues to have a transitional -attainment status of federal standards for Ozone (03). The Basin is
either in attainment or unclassified for federal standards of CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and lead.
The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are the Chula Vista and San Diego
Monitoring Stations. Tables 3a through 3h of the Air Quality Conformity Assessment (Appendix A of this
Initial Study) provide a summary of the highest pollutant levels recorded at these monitoring stations for
the last year available.
San Diego County areas in general are also in attainment of state air quality standards for all pollutants
with the exception of 03 and PM10. Furthermore, factors affecting ground level pollutant concentrations
include the rate at which pollutants are emitted to the atmosphere, the height from which they are
released, and topographic and meteorological features. Given these factors, both the Chula Vista and
San Diego stations reported exceedances for 03 and PM10. All other criteria pollutants were within both
federal and state standards or not monitored due to these factors.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Inifi�i1 tihuiv - ) -I'
Short-term Impacts
Project Construction Emissions Impacts
Table 4a of the Air Quality Conformity Assessment identifies the estimated diesel exhaust emissions for
site clearing and grading inclusive of any onsite powered haulage. Construction of the proposed project
would generate the following air emissions in pounds/day: CO (28.0), NOx (69.4), SOX (6.3), PM10 (4.4),
PM2.5 (4.2), and ROG (8.1). Based upon these findings, no significant air quality impacts are expected
due to construction grading operations associated with the proposed project. The APCD thresholds
would not be exceeded.
In addition, Table 4b of the Air Quality Conformity Assessment identifies the anticipated emissions due to
underground utility construction and surface paving activities for any phase of construction. As identified
in Table 4b, no significant impact is expected from these smaller operations associated with the proposed
project.
Fugitive Dust Emission Levels (PMwo, PM2.52
Construction activities are also a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, but
temporary, impact on local air quality. Construction grading operations on the project site are anticipated
as being no greater than a worst -case 6,300 cubic -yards (cy) of material moved over any anticipated 30-
day earthwork period. Remedial grading, if required in some areas, would occur at a subsequent date
and would be minimal compared to this value. Based on the calculations provided in the Air Quality
Conformity Assessment, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total fugitive dust (PM10) load
of 5.6 pounds per day. This level is far below the 100 pounds per day threshold established by the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). Therefore, no impacts are identified for the construction
phase. As for PM2.5 levels the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1.2 pounds per day, which is
below the proposed threshold of significance of 55 pounds per day for this pollutant. Therefore, no
impact associated with fugitive dust is identified with the implementation of the proposed project.
Unpaved road travel due to construction activities is also unknown at this time. For the purposes of
analysis within the Air Quality Conformity Assessment, it was assumed that contractors' vehicles moving
onsite would traverse a total of five miles per day (VMT) during the 60 days of earthwork and site
preparation. Therefore, unpaved road travel is calculated to generate 2.7 pounds of PM10 per day and
0.6 pounds of PM2.5 per day, both of which are below the threshold of significance levels identified above
and established by the SDAPCD. Therefore, no impact related to unpaved road travel during
construction of proposed project is identified.
Combustion -Fired Health Risk Emission Levels (CO, NO,, SO, PMio PM2.52
Table 5 of the Air Quality Conformity Assessment identifies the emission rates for the various criteria
pollutants, in grams per second and grams per square meter per second. Table 6 of the Air Quality
Conformity Assessment identifies the expected combustion fired construction emission concentrations
from the SCREEN3 modeling. Based upon the model results, all criteria pollutants were below the
recommended health risk level with a PM10 risk probability of 0.423 percent per 70-years exposure
duration. Therefore, no significant carcinogenic impact potential is expected due to the proposed grading
operations associated with the proposed project.
In addition, the proposed project is identified as generating a worst -case PM10 level of 14.1 pg/m3
occurring at a distance of 132 meters (433 feet) from the project site. This pollutant concentration is
below the California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) of 50 pg/m3 established by the Stated for
any given 24-hour exposure period. Furthermore, the anticipated diesel -fired PM2.5 levels would not be
expected to exceed 13 pg/m3, which is also below the Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) 24-hour threshold of 35 pg/m3. Therefore, no impact associated with the generation of diesel -
fired PM10 and PM2.5 is identified with the implementation of the proposed project.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Iniliul SthLIv - 1'dIc 10 of 12
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions Potential from Architectural Coatings
Due to the programmatic nature of the project design at this point, exact painting quantities are unknown.
It is expected that the proposed project will generate a total unmitigated architectural generated VOC
level of 71.2 pounds per day. However, this VOC load can be reduced to a VOC level of 25.6 pounds per
day with the use of Low VOC paints. As such, with the assumption that the project contractors will use
Low VOC paints, no impact associated VOC emissions is identified with the implementation of the
proposed project.
Odor Impact Potential from the Project Site
The inhalation of VOC's causes smell sensations in humans. These odors can affect human health. The
development of the project site could generate trace amounts of substances such as ammonia, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, dust, organic dust, endotoxins, etc. Odor generation impacts due to
the proposed project are not expected to be significant, since any odor generation would be intermittent
and would terminate upon completion of the construction phase of the project. As a result, no significant
air quality impacts associated with odors is anticipated to occur.
Project Vehicular Emission Levels (Construction Phase)
As discussed in the Air Quality Conformity Assessment, it is assumed that the off -site powered haulage
for demolition debris removal from the project site would consist of a total of a worst -case 50 Average
Daily Trips (ADT) during a 30-day construction period. The average trip distance for material export is
also assumed to be 20-miles based upon the driving distances to nearby landfills/recycling areas. Based
on the analysis provided in the Air Quality Conformity Assessment no significant impacts associated with
vehicular emissions during construction are anticipated. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
Long-term Impacts
Vehicular Emissions due to Project Operation
The proposed project is expected to have a worst -case trip generation level of 2,873 ADT based upon
the cumulative trip generation produced by the proposed project. Table 7 of the Air Quality Conformity
Assessment identifies the calculated daily emission levels due to travel to and from the project site. The
operation of the proposed project will result in the following vehicular air emissions in pounds per day:
CO (159.2), NOX (50.3), SOX (0.2), PM10 (1.5), PM2.5 (1.5), and ROG (6.1). Based upon the findings, no
significant impacts for any criteria pollutants were identified.
In addition, Tables 8a through 8e of the Air Quality Conformity Assessment lists the roadway segments
identified by the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by LOS Engineering, Inc. for the proposed project
(Appendix F of this Initial Study) for the cumulative buildout scenarios, the predicted peak hour traffic
volume, and the expected incremental criteria pollutant emission levels. Based upon results of this
analysis, no localized criteria pollutant impacts were identified for any roadway segment examined. The
roadway segments were found to comply with the CAAQS and NAAQS standards. Therefore, no impact
associated with vehicular emissions during project operation are identified with the implementation of the
proposed project.
Predicated Operational Emission Levels
As described in the Air Quality Conformity Assessment, fixed emission sources for the proposed project
would consist of small gasoline engines used with lawn mowers and landscaping equipment as well as
emissive sources from natural gas powered appliances. Each of these sources are discussed in detail in
the Air Quality Conformity Assessment. Based on the analysis, these sources would not generate
significant emission sources and would not result in an air quality impact.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Iniliul S[.aLJv - PI,c 11 of 42
Natural Gas Emission Sources
As described in the Air Quality Conformity Assessment, natural gas consumption (typically due to the
usage of central heating units and water heaters) associated with the proposed project would not
generate a significant amount emission sources and would not result in an air quality impact.
Consistency with Regional Air Quality Management Plans
Based on the analysis provided in the Air Quality Conformity Assessment, the proposed project is
consistent with the future build out plans for the project site under the City of National City's General Plan
per the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, and therefore satisfies the Consistency
Criterion of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for the San Diego Air Basin.
In summary, based on the Air Quality Conformity Assessment prepared for the proposed project it is not
anticipated that future development will exceed any established air quality emission thresholds.
However, because specific development projects are not proposed at this time for the entire project site,
future projects could emit emissions that exceed air quality thresholds at that time. Consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR, the City will evaluate all future projects proposed for the project site for
potential air quality impacts at the time plans are submitted for approval. Measures to reduce air quality
impacts will be incorporated when required to reduce both short and long-term air quality impacts for
compliance with air emission thresholds enforced by SDAPCD. Therefore, Mitigation Measures AQ-1
and AQ-2 which have been derived from the Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR shall be implemented to
ensure future development within the project site will not result in a significant air quality impact (City of
National City, 2005).
(Sources: 5 and 7)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Short -Term Construction
If air quality impacts associated with construction of an approved project within the Downtown Specific
Plan Amendment project area exceed the significance thresholds, mitigation measures identified below
should be implemented as feasible to reduce emissions of the project. Mitigation measures from the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) are presented below and are recommended for
projects in the San Diego Air Basin, where applicable. The following measures are recommended to
reduce pollutant emissions from construction activities. The construction operators shall implement these
measures:
• Use water trucks to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised
when traveling on the site;
• Wet down the site in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
• After construction, wet inactive areas down to reduce windblown dust;
• Employ street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public roadways;
• Wash off trucks leaving the site;
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering on portions of
the site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods (such as two months or more);
• Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned; and,
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Long-term
The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions are attainable through
programs, which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project. Support and compliance with
the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the basin is the most important measure to achieve this
goal. The RAQS includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 12 of 42
reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included. None of these
recommended mitigation measures are strictly required. However, all relevant measures should be
applied to the greatest extent possible.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures:
• Schedule truck deliveries and pickups for commercial uses during off-peak hours when feasible.
This will alleviate traffic congestion; therefore, emissions during the peak hour.
• Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling
at curbsides. Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot.
The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required.
• Provide on -site services. Provide incentives such as on -site ATMs and other similar measures
that address lifestyle needs. These measures reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), but the air
quality benefit cannot be quantified because more specific data is required.
Energy Efficient Measures and Additional Measures
Compliance with Title 24, Part 6, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and
Nonresidential Buildings. All buildings must comply with Title 24, Part 6. Reducing the need to
heat or cool structures by improving thermal integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of
energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions.
Develop operational emissions mitigation plan. Prior to approval of each building permit for a
commercial or office use, the applicant shall submit to the City for approval, an operational
emissions mitigation plan. The plan shall identify implementation procedures for each of the
following emissions reduction measures. If certain measures are determined infeasible, an
explanation thereof shall be provided in the operational emissions mitigation plan.
- Utilize built-in energy -efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption and emissions.
- Utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air conditioners and lighting to reduce
electricity consumption and associated emissions.
Coordinate with Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) regarding the location of bus turnouts and
bus routed within the project area.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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 (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a 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 (CDFG) or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w! Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ 0 ❑
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 13 of 42
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ x
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?
❑ ❑ ❑
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ x
biological resources, such as a 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?
Discussion:
❑ ❑ ❑
x
a) through f) No Impact. The project site is located completely within an urbanized area, is developed
or otherwise disturbed, and is surrounded by development and roads. The site contains no sensitive
habitats or biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances. There are also no
adopted habitat conservation plans known that include the proposed project site. Based on a physical
inspection of the property, the site is improved with various buildings and residences and the site
contains ornamental landscaping. There are no jurisdictional wetlands, other sensitive habitat, or
sensitive species detected on the property; and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service maps indicate that there are
no jurisdictional wetlands or jurisdictional waters of U.S. or state -defined streambeds on site. There are
no anticipated impacts to biological resources.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ x ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 14 of 42
Discussion:
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in detail below, five buildings
within the project site are potentially considered historic resources that would be impacted by the
proposed project. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, this impact will be
reduced to a level less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed below in detail, the proposed project will not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5.
Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
The following information is summarized from the Cultural and Historical Resource Survey conducted for
the project site and prepared by ASM Affiliates, dated April 2, 2009. The survey included a records
search and literature review, field survey, photo documentation of potentially significant buildings
identified during the survey, and archival research This report is provided as Appendix B1 of this Initial
Study.
Based on the records search, twenty-two historical buildings, sixteen historical resources and three
archaeological resources have been recorded within one mile of the project area; however, none of these
resources are located within the National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment project area (the
project site).
No prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within the project area as a result of the records
search and field survey. The parcels within the project area are developed and there is a low potential
for prehistoric or historic resources. Additionally, a Sacred Lands File search was conducted and no
known Native American cultural resources were identified in the project area. There is a low potential for
subsurface cultural deposits based on the results of the records search and the fact that the area is
developed. Additionally, the portion of National City where the project site is located did not begin to be
developed until the early 1900s. Prior to that time, development was focused on the lots adjacent to the
railroad, to the west of the present downtown area. The potential for substantial historical deposits is low
within the project site given the fact that houses were first constructed within the project site after 1910
when sewer and trash collection services were likely provided.
CEQA Section 15064.5, provides for a public agency to determine the significance of impacts on
historical resources. A structure is considered a historic resource if it is "listed in, or determined to be
eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources" or "included in a local register of historical resources" or "identified as significant in an
historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code."
Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code provides criteria for evaluating the significance of a
potential resource. The resource would be considered historically significant if the resource is:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
As summarized in Table 5 of the Cultural Resources Report six buildings located within the project area
were constructed between approximately 1910 and 1929 (one was extensively altered after 1950).
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 15 of 42
These buildings meet the age threshold for eligibility to the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR) and may be eligible for listing in the CRHR as they relate to the early residential development of
National City in the early 1900's. The buildings may be eligible under criteria A (historical association),
criteria B (association with important person), or C (architectural distinction).
1405 Roosevelt Avenue. This building is identified as a church with a Spanish Eclectic architectural
style. The building was constructed in the 1920s based on review of the Sanborn Fire Insurance
Company maps.
1415 Roosevelt Avenue. This building is identified as a vernacular bungalow style single-family
residence. The building was constructed in the 1920s based on review of the Sanborn Fire Insurance
Company maps.
1423 Roosevelt Avenue. This building is identified as a one -and -one half story Craftsman bungalow
single-family residence. The building was constructed in 1911/1912 based on review of the Sanborn
Fire Insurance Company maps and County Assessor records.
1427 Roosevelt Avenue. This building is identified as a Craftsman bungalow single-family residence.
The building was constructed in 1911/1915 based on review of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
maps and County Assessor records.
1429 Roosevelt Avenue. This building is identified as a vernacular two-story single-family residence.
The building was reconstructed in 1950 based on review of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
maps.
1513 Roosevelt Avenue. This building is identified as a vernacular bungalow style single-family
residence. The building was constructed in the 1911 based on review of the Sanborn Fire Insurance
Company maps.
A Historical Building Evaluation of the portion of the project site proposed to be developed with the
residential development was conducted by ASM Affiliates on June 7, 2010. This report is provided as
Appendix B2 of this Initial Study. Specifically, the study provided an eligibility evaluation for the buildings
located within Assessor Parcels 560-064-01, 560-064-02, 560-064-04, and 560-064-05 to the CRHR and
National City List of Historic Sites (City List). Three buildings are located within these parcels: 1503
Roosevelt Ave (auto garage), 1513 Roosevelt Avenue (single-family bungalow), and 1539-1543
Roosevelt Avenue (two-story storage building with offices). According to the report, none of the three
buildings are eligible for the CRHR or the City List as a historical building. Two of the buildings, 1503 and
1539-1543 Roosevelt Avenue, were constructed in 1978 and 1980, respectively, and therefore fail to
meet the age threshold for eligibility. The single-family residence located at 1513 Roosevelt Avenue,
which is one of the potential eligible buildings identified above from the Cultural and Historical Resources
Survey prepared by ASM (Appendix B1), was constructed prior to 1911. However, this building is
recommended not eligible to the CRHR and the City List as it is neither historically nor architecturally
significant. Therefore, no historical resources are located within the proposed residential development
portion of the project site.
Due to the potential eligibility of the five buildings (1405, 1415, 1423, 1427, and 1429 Roosevelt Avenue)
located within the remaining portion of the project site, a significant impact to historical resources is
identified with the implementation of the proposed project. However, with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1, which requires that a formal evaluation of eligibility to the CRHR be
conducted for these buildings, this impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 16 of 42
Native American Consultation
On March 4, 2009, ASM contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a
Sacred Lands File search. NAHC replied that no known Native American cultural resources were located
within the project area. NAHC also provided ASM with a list of Native American tribes and individuals
that should be contacted. ASM sent letters to all the tribes and individuals requesting input on March 13,
2009.
(Sources: 1, 5, and 8)
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with existing light
manufacturing and residential uses within a densely urbanized area. The project site is underlain with
the Bay Point Formation and unnamed, nearshore, marine sandstone (California Division of Mines and
Geology, 1977), which has a high sensitivity potential for paleontological resources (Demere, 1993). The
project site has been substantially disturbed by grading activities associated with the previous
development of the site. Any significant paleontological resources would have likely been unearthed
during past grading of the project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue
area.
(Sources: 5, 16, and 17)
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with existing light
manufacturing and residential uses within a densely urbanized area. The project site has been
substantially disturbed by grading activities associated with previous development of the site. It is highly
unlikely that any human remains would be found or disturbed. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1, 5, and 8)
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure CR-1:
Prior to future project approval and issuance of any construction permit within the project site, including
but not limited to a demolition or building permit, the applicant shall conduct an evaluation of the five
onsite buildings identified as potentially eligible historical structures in the Cultural and Historical
Resources Survey prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. dated April 2, 2009. The evaluation shall determine if
these buildings are eligible for inclusion in the state or local historical registers. The evaluation shall be
performed by a historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation Professionals. The historian/architectural historian shall
consult with knowledgeable local groups (e.g., Save Our Heritage Organization, National City Historical
Society, San Diego Historical Society, and others) and individuals, appropriate archives, and appropriate
repositories in an effort to identify the original and subsequent owners as well as the architect and the
builder to establish whether any of these individuals played important roles in local or regional history
(criterion B). Additionally the physical characteristics and condition of the building or structure shall be
evaluated under criterion (C), and those judged to possess "the distinctive characteristic of a type, period,
region, or method of construction" shall be further assessed for integrity and context.
The results of the archival research and field assessment shall be documented in an evaluation report.
This report will explicitly state whether the resource is eligible for either state or local historical registers
and shall also make specific recommendations as appropriate. The historian/architectural historian shall
complete the necessary California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site forms (minimally
Primary Record and Building/Structure/Object record; others as required) and include as an attachment
to the report. Copies of the DPR site forms shall be submitted to the California Historical Resource
Information System via the SCIC, an auxiliary of San Diego State University.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Iniliul Study - 17 o1 4 )
VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant wl Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ 0 x 0
o o x ❑
o x ❑ ❑
o x ❑ ❑
o x ❑ ❑
o x ❑ ❑
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of 0 x 0 0
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Discussion:
o 0 0 x
a) i) and ii) Less Than Significant Impact. California Geological Survey information indicates the site
is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and there are no known active or potentially
active faults that intercept the project site; therefore, the potential for ground rupture at this site is
considered low. Accordingly, the site is not considered to possess a significantly greater seismic risk than
that of the surrounding area in general. In addition, the proposed structures shall be designed in
accordance with California Building Code guidelines and/or those adopted by the City of National City.
Similar to that described in the National City Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR, the building plans for future
development projects within the project site, must be approved by the National City Building department
before building permits are issued. As part of the building permit process the City will require the
incorporation of all applicable earthquake construction measures required by the Uniform Building Code
and the City to protect people and structures from ground -shaking impacts. The incorporation of all
applicable earthquake and seismic measures will minimize seismic impacts to less than significant levels.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 18 of 42
a) iii) through iv) and c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. It should be
recognized that Southern California is an area that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is
generally not considered economically feasible nor technologically practical to build structures that are
totally resistant to earthquake -related hazards (e.g., landslides, liquefaction, differential settlement, etc.).
Therefore, there is a potential that future development within the project site would be exposed to
geologic hazards. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building
Code should minimize damage due to seismic events. In addition, the project will also be designed to
achieve adequate stability through appropriate grading standards and soil testing to avoid any potential
impacts related to expansive soils.
However, similar to that described in the National City Specific Plan FPEIR, since specific development
plans for future development within the project site, except for the proposed residential apartment
buildings, are not available at this time it is speculative to identify with any accuracy the direct and
indirect soils and geologic impacts that may occur with their construction. However, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-1, which was derived from the National City Downtown
Specific Plan FPEIR, impacts related to geologic hazards will be reduced to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
b) and d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Depending upon the specific
development project, length of construction and the measures that are incorporated, the soil erosion
impacts on the project site could be significant. The City requires the installation of erosion protection
measures for all projects from the start of construction throughout the life of the project, as applicable, to
reduce soil erosion impacts. The incorporation of erosion control measures and Mitigation Measure GS-
1 will reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks. The existing development
within the project site is currently connected to the City's wastewater disposal network. Any new
development within the project site would be reconnected to this system and would not require alternative
wastewater disposal system such as septic tanks. Therefore, soil suitability for wastewater disposal is
not an issue and no impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 5 and 13)
Mitigation Measure:
Mitigation Measure GS-1:
A geotechnical investigation shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
any development project that requires grading. The geotechnical investigation shall include fieldwork
(e.g., subsurface exploration, sampling) and laboratory analysis as directed by the City to determine the
exact location and extent of potential geologic/seismic hazards. All applicable remedial grading
measures and seismic design parameters recommended by the geotechnical engineer shall be
incorporated into the project and shown on the final grading plans and/or incorporated into contractor
specifications prior to award of construction contracts, to the satisfaction of the City.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
0 x 0
0
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 19 of 42
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted 0 x 0 0
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Discussion:
a) and b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The following information is
summarized from the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment prepared for the proposed
project by Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc. (ISE), dated January 26, 2010. This report is
provided as Appendix C of this Initial Study.
Background Information
Greenhouse gases are defined as those naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical compounds
within the atmosphere that absorb and reflect infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. A
numerical metric known as the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given mass
of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming relative to pure carbon dioxide. Table 1
of the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment provides a list of known greenhouse gases
and their associated GWP.
California has adopted AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The law requires the California Air
Resources Board (GARB) to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with that program. As part of
this effort, GARB will adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide
greenhouse gas emission levels in 1990, to be achieved by 2020.
AB32 does not directly amend CEQA requirements, and there are no acceptable Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), CARB, or SDAPCD thresholds for significance relative to global warming. As a
result, there is no consistent means to determining whether a project will make a significant contribution
to greenhouse gases. Also, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties commonly associated
with the greenhouse gas emission inventory due to the limited availability of CO2 emissions factor data
for several mobile sources, stationary sources, and other sources. However, the CARB has published
CO2e screening levels as described in detail in the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment
and were used to analyze the impacts of the proposed project.
Analysis
Diesel Powered (Compression Ignition) Equipment Contribution
The proposed project would utilize a worst -case contingency of construction equipment required to grade
and prepare the site for a period of 30-days. As identified in Table 2 of the Greenhouse Gas/Global
Warming Risk Assessment, during construction, the proposed project will result in the direct production of
59,721.3 pounds of CO2 or 520,593.3 pounds of CO2e.
Operational Motor Vehicle (Spark Ignition) Contribution
Motor vehicles are the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed
project. Typically, vehicular trips to and from proposed and existing land uses are the significant
contributor of greenhouse gases. The proposed project is expected to have a total trip generation level
of 2,873 ADT. Table 3 of the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment identifies the
operational vehicle GHG levels for the proposed project. Based on the information provided in Table 3,
the vehicle operation associated with the proposed project would result in an equivalent CO2e level of
4,469.6 pounds for N2O. The final equivalent daily CO2, load due to vehicular traffic would be 27,551.4
pounds.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 20 of 42
Small Engine and Natural Gas Fired (External Combustion) Contribution
Landscaping equipment utilized in the course of maintenance of the grounds would result in GHG
emissions. Assuming ultimate user purchases of cleaner burning engines new from the store, emissions
rates are specific by CARB in Table 4 of the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment (in
pounds per day). Based on these rates the proposed project will produce the following small engine
emissions levels in pounds per day:
• Multi Family Small Engine Emissions: CO2 = 1,529.6 pounds/day N2O = 0.2 pounds/day
• Retail/Commercial Small Engine Emissions: CO2 = 1,128.7 pounds/day N2O = 0.3 pounds/day
Similarly, natural gas consumption (typically due to usage of water heaters, stoves, and central heating
units for this type of proposed use) would produce the following natural gas fired emissions levels in
pounds per day:
• Multi Family Small Engine Emissions: CO2 = 702.6 pounds/day N2O = 0.1 pounds/day
• Retail/Commercial Small Engine Emissions: CO2 = 849.8 pounds/day N2O = 0.0 pounds/day
The N2O equivalent CO2e level for both small engine and natural gas fired contribution would be 162.0
pounds per day. The final equivalent CO2 GHG load due to the above cited onsite uses would be 4,372.7
pounds per day.
Projected Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Budget
As identified in Table 5 of the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment, the projected
greenhouse gas emission budget for the proposed project is the summation of the construction
operations, vehicle emissions, and small engine/natural gas levels described above. The total emissions
for the proposed project would be 552,517.4 pounds/day of CO2er which is 5.9 times greater than the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) threshold, which is 1,984,160 pounds of
CO2e per year. Therefore, a significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions is identified for the
proposed project. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GG-1, which requires all
future development to implement energy conservation measures consistent with the intent of AB32, this
impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
Projected Warming Effects Due to Project Equivalent CO20
Based on the detailed analysis and calculations provided in the Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk
Assessment, the local annual warming due to the level of project emissions was found to be 9.0370x10-7
°C, which is considered a cumulatively significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure GG-1 this impact will be reduce to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 9)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure GHG-1:
Consistent with the intent of AB32, the proposed project shall demonstrate that it has measures in place
that would assist in providing statewide reduction of CO2 as compared to `business as usual.' The
following greenhouse gas offset measures have been shown to be effective by CARB and shall be
implemented wherever possible:
Diesel Equipment (Compression Ignition) Offset Strategies (40% to 60% Reduction)
• Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators.
• Construction equipment operating onsite should be equipped with two to four degree engine
timing retard or precombustion chamber engines.
• Construction equipment used for the project should utilize EPA Tier 2 or better technology.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Inillll1 StHLIV - ;c 2 I 12
Vehicular Trip (Spark Ignition) Offset Strategies (30% to 70% Reduction)
• Encourage commute alternatives by informing construction employees and customers about
transportation options for reaching your location (i.e., post transit schedules/routes).
• Help construction employees rideshare by posting commuter ride sign-up sheets, employee home
zip code map, etc.
• When possible, arrange for a single construction vendor who makes deliveries for several items.
• Purchase Carbon Offsets to compensate for miles traveled by construction vehicles.
• Plan construction delivery routed to eliminate unnecessary trips.
• Keep construction vehicles well maintained to prevent leaks and minimize emissions, and
encourage employees to do the same.
• Provide car/van pool parking for construction employees.
• Sell bus or light rail passes on -site or at a discount to construction employees.
On -site Energy Offset Strategies (50% to 70% Reduction)
• Complete regularly scheduled maintenance on HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)
systems.
• Use an energy management system to control lighting, kitchen exhaust, refrigeration and HVAC.
• Install occupancy sensors for lighting in low occupancy areas.
• Retrofit incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights.
• Install ultra efficient ballasts to dim lights to take advantage of daylight.
• Insulate all major hot water pipes.
• Insulate refrigeration cold suction lines.
• Use weather stripping to close air gaps around doors and windows.
• Select electrical equipment with energy saving features (e.g., Energy Star).
• Plant native shrubs or trees near windows for shade.
• Convert hot water heaters to on -demand systems.
• Reduce the number of lamps and increase lighting efficiency by installing optical reflectors or
diffusers.
• Install ceiling fans in homes where applicable.
VIII. 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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ x ❑ ❑
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 22 of 42
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 0 0 x
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 sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the 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 or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
❑ x ❑ ❑
❑ 0 0 x
❑ ❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ ❑ x
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will allow for the development of multi -family
housing, retail, office and hospitality uses within the project site. Such uses, will require the routine
transport, use and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials associated with typical residential
and retail cleaning and maintenance. However, the use of such materials would be handled in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
b) and d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The following information is
summarized from the Environmental Review prepared for the proposed project by Environmental
Resources Management (ERM), dated April 2009. This report is provided as Appendix D of this Initial
Study.
ERM conducted a Environmental Review of the project site, which included a limited environmental
reconnaissance and document review of the project site to provide information regarding the presence or
likely presence of hazardous substances on or in close proximity to the project site.
Based on observations made during the site visit to the exterior areas of the project site conducted by
ERM and a review of available environmental database, the following are considered as potential
recognized environmental conditions (REC's):
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 23 of 42
On -site Properties
• Several parcels within the project site have been or are currently being used as automobile type
repair/maintenance facilities. Given the nature of these businesses, there is a high likelihood that
minor to moderate amounts of hazardous materials such as batteries, hydraulic oils, anti -freeze,
solvents, and other chemicals are both stored and utilized on a regular basis within the individual
businesses.
• At least two light industrial manufacturing facilities exist within the project site which likely utilize
hydraulic fork lifts, small quantities of solvents, degreasers, and industrial coatings or paint
products.
Due to the presence of these potentially hazardous materials located on the project site, a significant
impact is identified with the implementation of proposed project. However, with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures HM-1 and HM-3, this impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
Off -site Properties:
Two off -site facilities of concerns were identified that represent potential REC's and are summarized
below:
The National City Police Station: located north of the project site across Civic Center Drive is
associated with a previous unauthorized release of petroleum product (gasoline). The date of this
release was identified as February 26, 1992 and was discovered during removal of an
underground storage tank at the facility. The release at this facility has been listed as inactive
(low priority) based on correspondence from the Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
regarding the Priority Oversight Program dated July 21, 2004. A letter from DEH, dated June 8,
1998, indicated that the horizontal extent of the groundwater contamination had not been
delineated. There is some indication that the groundwater contamination may extend into Civic
Center Drive and off -site facilities. The most recent report on file appears to be 1995.
1520 Roosevelt Avenue — Hopsing Automotive Repair: while not currently a listed site on the
database reports reviewed, this site is adjacent to, and potentially located upgradient to the
project site. Typical concerns these type of automotive repair facilities include: hazardous
materials/petroleum product use, hazardous waste generation disposal issues, small releases
over time, paint booths, in -ground hydraulic lifts, in -ground sumps/clarifiers, and solvent parts
washers. The lack of involvement in regulatory oversight programs combined with the expected
use of hazardous materials is a concern.
Due to the close proximity of these sites to the project site a potential impact is identified with the
implementation of the proposed project. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures
HM-1 and HM-3, this impact will be reduce to a level less than significant.
In addition to the database search, ERM conducted a review of previous environmental reports, which
included a report titled Hazardous Materials Technical Study, National City Downtown Specific Plan,
Preliminary Master Environmental Plan, prepared by Ninyo and Moore dated April 6, 2005. This report
was included in the Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR. The conclusions and recommendations provided in
that report and the FPEIR are relevant to the project site and are summarized in detail in Environmental
Review report (Appendix C of this Initial Study). Potential hazardous materials described in the Ninyo
and Moore report include the potential presence of PCB contamination at facilities that use hydraulic
equipment; several facilities that likely contain underground wastewater systems, such as clarifiers,
sumps, grease traps, and floor drains; and the potential presence of lead based paint (LBP) and
asbestos containing materials (ACM's) in buildings that were constructed prior to the 1980's. It is
speculative at this point to determine if the future development within the project site would expose
humans to a significant health hazard due to the presence of hazardous materials. As such, the potential
for hazardous materials to exist within the project site is considered a significant impact. However,
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 24 of 42
Mitigation Measures HM-1 through HM-3 derived from the Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR are relevant to
the proposed project and would reduce potential hazardous materials impacts associated with future
development of the project site.
(Sources: 5 and 10)
c) No Impact. See discussion under VIII a) above. The proposed project would not emit hazardous
emissions or require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances.
Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
e) and f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip. The San Diego International Airport is the closest
airport to the project site and is located approximately seven miles to the northwest. The proposed
project will not expose people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport and aircraft noise.
Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
(Source:1 and 5)
g) No Impact. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. All future development plans
proposed within the project site would be required to be consistent with the City standards and
requirements for emergency response and evacuation. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue
area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
h) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with existing residential and light manufacturing
uses within a densely urbanized area. There are no wildlands within or adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1, 5, and 18)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure HM-1:
Prior to the development of any property that was formerly occupied by or adjacent to existing facilities
that used or stored hazardous materials, a detailed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be
approved by the City of National to evaluate the potential for soil and groundwater contamination. If
warranted by the Phase I environmental site assessment, soil and possibly groundwater sampling shall
be required.
Mitigation Measure HM-2:
Asbestos, mercury, and a lead -based paint survey of existing buildings shall be conducted prior to any
renovation or demolition activities to the satisfaction of the City.
Mitigation Measure HM-3:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any property where the results of the Phase I, Phase II, and/or
asbestos, mercury, or lead -based paint evaluation indicates the presence of these materials or the
potential for hazardous materials at levels requiring mitigation, all remedial measures identified in the
studies shall be shown on the face of the grading plans and/or incorporated into contractor specifications
prior to awarding the construction contract or issuance of a demolition permit, whichever is first. All
remedial measures required by law shall be implemented and completed prior to the issuance of grading
or building permits, whichever is issued first.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 25 of 42
IX. 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 the
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)?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
0
0
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ x ❑
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 or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater 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 delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
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, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion:
❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
0
0
a) and f) Less Than Significant. Development within the project area is not anticipated to violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements due to demolition of existing structures, grading of
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 26 of 42
sites, or construction of new buildings. If demolition and construction of new buildings occur during the
winter months when rainfall typically occurs, storm water runoff could carry sediments from the
construction sites to the local storm drain system and ultimately the ocean. The city has measures that
will be required to be incorporated into all projects during construction and the life of the project to control
surface water runoff and minimize sediment being deposited off -site to eliminate the violation of water
quality discharge standards.
All projects proposed to be developed within the project site will be required to have a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMP's). The SWPPP will
have BMP's that will 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 during periods of rainfall and
wind. A typical BMP that will be required for most projects are sandbags. Some BMP's will be
maintained throughout the project construction period only while other BMP's will be maintained
throughout the life of the project. The city will 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 for both the construction and operational period of each project. Future development within
the project site will be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and is not anticipated to have any
significant water quality impacts because all future development within the site will be required to have a
SWPPP to mitigate surface water quality impacts (City of National City, 2005). Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 5)
b) Less Than Significant. As with the existing Downtown Specific Plan Area, all new development
within the project site would be required to connect to the public water distribution system (City of
National City, 2005). There are existing water mains in the streets throughout the project site that can
provide an adequate supply of water. It is anticipated that the existing water supplies are adequate to
provide water for future development within the project site without any significant groundwater supply
impacts. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
c) through e) Less Than Significant. The development allowed by the Specific Plan Amendment and
the Downtown Specific Plan on the project site is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing
drainage patterns, resulting in substantial erosion or siltation. Because the project site is urbanized, new
development will not significantly alter the existing topography or change the existing drainage patterns.
There are no streams or rivers in or adjacent to the project that would be altered or changed by the
proposed project (City of National City, 2005). The proposed project would not directly or indirectly alter
any existing drainage patterns or substantially increase erosion or siltation. Therefore, a less than
significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
g) and h) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, the
proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact is identified for
this issue area.
(Sources: 5 and 18)
i) No Impact. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area and there are no levees that
could break allowing the project site to flood. No people or structures will be exposed to significant risk or
loss, injury or death due to flooding with the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no
impact is identified for this issue area.
(Source: 5 and 18)
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
'nilial Study - Y<i;;c 27 o1 47
j) No Impact. There are no large bodies of water that could impact the project site due to a seiche or
tsuanmi. The project site is relatively flat, thus there are no hillsides that would impact the site due to a
mudflow. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
(Source: 5 and 18)
X. LAND USE & PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Discussion:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ x
0
O 0 0 x
a) No Impact. The proposed project is an amendment to a specific plan and would allow for the
existing area to be redeveloped with uses such as multi -family residential, office, retail, and hospitality.
The proposed project would not divide an established community. Therefore, no impact is identified for
this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project site is currently developed with several different types
of uses and structures including light manufacturing, a church, residences, warehouse, garage, and a
store. The project site is surrounded by urban uses as well, including the police station to the north,
commercial uses to the south, residential and commercial uses to the west, and residential and retail
uses to the east. The project site is bordered by Civic Center Drive to the north, Roosevelt Avenue to the
west, and 16th Street to the south. New development within proposed Development Zone 12B would not
physically divide an established community.
The existing General Plan/Zoning designation of Residential, Light Manufacturing (MLR) allows for the
continuation and establishment of low intensity industrial uses while protecting existing residential and
institutional uses from potentially incompatible industrial development. The MLR regulations include a
maximum FAR of 2:1 for non-residential uses, and a minimum 5,000 lot size for single family residential
uses.
The project site is located immediately adjacent to the boundary of the City's Downtown Specific Plan
Area. The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City in 2005, and provides a comprehensive set
of plans, guidelines, and regulations that will guide future development in the City's Downtown Area.
The Downtown Specific Plan boundary would be expanded to incorporate the three half -blocks located
east of Roosevelt Avenue, south of Civic Center Drive, and north of 16th Street (the project site). Figure 3
depicts the location of the existing Downtown Specific Plan boundary and the area that will be
incorporated into the Specific Plan. The addition of the three half -blocks to the Downtown Specific Plan
boundary would add 3.69 acres to the Downtown Specific Plan; for a total Specific Plan area of
approximately 137 acres.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 28 of 42
The proposed Development Zone 12B would allow for mid -rise multifamily residential, street -oriented
retail, office, or hospitality. The proposed Development Zone 12B would have the attributes of the
immediately adjacent Development Zone 12; however, the maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) would be
4:1 (instead of 5:1 as allowed in Development Zone 12A), and the maximum building height would be 65
feet (instead of 90 feet as allowed in Development Zone 12B).
Development Zone 12, located on the eastern half of the three blocks, allows for mixed uses including
multi -family residential, retail, office, and hospitality. Development Zone 12 has a maximum FAR of 5:1
(0.5) and maximum building height of 90-feet. This area would be redesignated Development Zone 12A
in order to differentiate it from the proposed Development Zone 12B.
The following are specific design guidelines for the proposed Development Zone 12B that are consistent
with the City of National City General Plan:
• Parking shall be underground, "encapsulated" within the development site or in structures adjacent
to these sites to the west. Placement of parking areas, blank walls or service areas along
Roosevelt Avenue is prohibited.
• Where full -block developments are proposed, a breakdown of building massing and significant
articulation of dwelling units should be employed to avoid a monolithic, institutional appearance.
As with the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed project will conform to all the policies of the General
Plan in terms of promoting sensible infill development and transitioning between residential and
commercial uses. The proposed project does not conflict with any land use policies of the General Plan.
The proposed project will have positive impacts by encouraging the private community, City, and
Community Development Commission to upgrade and improve the physical appearance of the project
site. The adoption of the Specific Plan Amendment will not have any significant direct land use impacts
based on the land use threshold criteria. At the time when future private and public development projects
are submitted for approval, the City will evaluate the projects for potential land use impacts and
compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan (i.e., consistency review). Furthermore, the existing multi-
family apartment buildings project proposed for development within the project is in conformity with the
Specific Plan Amendment. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6)
c) No Impact. The project site is currently development with existing residential and light manufacturing
uses within an urbanized area. The project site is not located with in an area under the jurisdiction of a
habitat conservation plan area. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat
conservation or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue
area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
XI. 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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
x
x
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 29 of 42
Discussion:
a) and b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with residential and industrial uses within
in an urbanized area. There are no known mineral resources on the proposed project site or delineated
on a local plan for the site. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
XII. 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?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ x ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion:
x
x
x
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ x
❑ ❑ ❑ x
a) through d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The following information is
summarized from the Acoustical Site Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Investigative
Science and Engineering, Inc. (ISE), dated January 27, 2010. This report is provided as Appendix E of
this Initial Study.
Environmental Significance Thresholds
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Thresholds
The minimum change in sound level that the human ear can detect is approximately 3-dBA. This
increment, 3-dBA, is commonly accepted under CEQA as representing the point at which a noise level
increase would represent a significant impact. This impact threshold is accepted by the City of National
City, and will be used as the significance threshold to determine the proposed project's impact on the
affected (existing) environment.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 30 of 42
City of National City Construction Noise Ordinance
Construction and demolition activities with the City of National City are governed under Section
12.10.160 of the City's municipal code (Ord. 2188 §2, 2001). The applicable standards are summarized
in the Acoustical Site Assessment report. For purposes of the analysis in the Acoustical Site Assessment
report, construction operations at the project site will be deemed in compliance if the 85 dBA LMax noise
contour does not touch the closest semi -residential or commercial receptor area.
National City Noise Element
The City of National City through its Noise Element of the General Plan has established criteria for
compatibility of noise for various land uses. Sound levels up to 60 dBA Ldn are considered compatible
with outdoor sensitive land uses (ie., residential rear yards, etc.). This standard would apply to all
transportation sources identified within the City.
National City Noise Ordinance
The City of National City Noise Ordinance, Section 12.06.040, governs fixed operational noise within the
proposed development area, and its impact potential to surrounding uses. The applicable requirement is
a function of the time -of -day and land use zone. Table 1 of the Acoustical Site Assessment report
summarizes those requirements.
State of California CCR Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Noise Insulation Standards, states that multi -family
dwellings, hotels, and motels located where the CNEL exceeds 60 dBA, must obtain an acoustical
analysis showing that the proposed design will limit interior noise to less than 45 dBA CNEL for sensitive
residential uses. The City of National City has adopted the CCR Title 24 standards. These standards
would be applicable to all multifamily and (discretionary) office space within the proposed project site.
Existing Conditions Survey
Three noise -monitoring locations were selected at the project site for the purpose of determining the
ambient daytime baseline site conditions. The instrumentation locations denoted as Monitoring Locations
ML 1 through ML 3, are shown in Figure 5 of the Acoustical Site Assessment report. Measurements at
all three locations were taken on January 13, 2010, between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., with normal traffic
flow conditions in the vicinity of the project site.
Ambient Sound Measurement Results
The results of the sound level monitoring conducted throughout the project site are provided in Table 2 of
the Acoustical Site Assessment. Measurements collected reflect typical ambient community noise levels
consistent with the observed community setting. The hourly average sound level recorded over the
monitoring period was found to range between 55 and 61 dBA. The dominant noise source in all cases
was observed to be traffic noise from nearby and adjacent surface streets. Maximum sound levels were
in all cases observed to be due to single automobile events.
Construction Noise Emission Levels
The estimated construction equipment emissions are provided in Table 3 of the Acoustical Site
Assessment for the anticipated major construction grading operations expected at the project site.
Construction within the project site would typically occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday, in accordance with City operational requirements. The nearest sensitive
receptor capable of housing a residential type sensitive land use would be approximately 100-feet from
the construction centriod of the project site.
As can be seen in Table 3 of the Acoustical Site Assessment, predicted maximum construction noise
levels could be as high as 79.3 dBA LMax at 50-feet and 73.3 dBA LMax at 100-feet assuming all activities
occurred in a single condensed area (a highly unlikely, but worst -case condition). This level is far below
the City's 85 dBA LMax noise abatement threshold for the current and proposed land uses observed and is
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Irilliil] Shady - I ot -L
not expected to generate impact nor require mitigation. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue
area.
However, to further ensure that all future construction of individual projects within the project comply with
the City's Noise Ordinance, and are consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR, Mitigation
Measure N-1 shall be implemented.
Future Traffic Noise Impacts
The results showing the effect of traffic noise increases on the various servicing roadway segments
associated with the proposed project are provided in Tables 4a through 4d of the Acoustical Site
Assessment. For each roadway segment examined, the worst case average daily traffic volume and
observed/predicted speeds are shown, along with the corresponding reference noise level at 50-feet (in
dBA). Additionally, the line -of -sight distance from the roadway centerline to the 60 dBA CNEL contours
are provided as an indication of the worst -case unobstructed theoretical traffic noise contour placement.
As can be seen from the tables, future cumulative traffic noise levels are expected to increase by a worst
case 6.0 dBA along Plaza Boulevard between National City Boulevard and B Avenue, due to ultimate
build out in the area. The project contribution to this level would be negligible under this condition. The
maximum project contribution would occur along Roosevelt Avenue, between Civic Center Drive and 16th
Street, with a cumulative project contribution of 1.4 dBA. This increase is not considered a significant
impact.
In addition, future development within the project site would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the
CCR Title 24 threshold of 60 dBA CNEL (as can be see in Table 4c of the Acoustical Site Assessment)
and would require mitigation consistent with the intent of this code. Therefore, a significant impact is
identified for this issue area; however, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, this impact will
be reduced to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 1, 5, and 11)
e) and f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip. The San Diego International Airport is the closest
airport to the project site and is located approximately seven miles to the northwest. The proposed
project will not expose people to excessive noise levels associated with an airport and aircraft noise.
Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure N-1:
To ensure that construction activities comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, a Construction Noise
Abatement Plan shall be prepared for each construction project and submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, whichever is issued first. The Plan shall describe the
construction activities, equipment required for those activities, and noise level generation characteristics
of the equipment to be used. Noise levels at the closest residential use shall be predicted. If projected
noise levels will exceed the Noise Ordinance limits, measures to reduce those levels to comply with the
Noise Ordinance shall be described and implemented.
Mitigation Measure N-2:
The structure compliance of all future development within the Specific Plan Amendment area would be
required to demonstrate a closed -window interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential sensitive
use areas. Office space mitigation would be at the discretion of the City of National City. Given this, a
separate architectural acoustical assessment shall be completed for each proposed project within the
project site, prior to issuance of any building permits for the residential aspects of any future development
projects.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 32 of 42
XIII. POPULATION & 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?
Discussion:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑
x
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
a) through c) No Impact. The proposed project will allow an increase in the number of residential units
that can be constructed in the project site beyond the number currently contemplated by the General
Plan. An increase in the number of housing units that can be provided to the residents of National City
will allow the City to provide a range of housing types toward meeting more of the housing needs of the
community. The proposed specific plan amendment will require the City to adjust its housing and
population projections to reflect the increase in the number of residential units. The proposed project
will not require a displacement of a large number of people, rather it will allow construction of increased
housing units to meet some of the current housing need in National City. Furthermore, this increase
would be compatible with housing densities contemplated in the Downtown Specific Plan and Westside
Specific Plan for this area.
Future development of the project site would be served by existing roadways. The project site would be
served by infrastructure available to the site, and as is anticipated to be improved in accordance with the
Downtown Specific Plan Utilities Impact Report (November 2006).
No impacts are expected from the increased density of the project. Therefore, no impact to population
and housing is identified.
(Sources: 5 and 13)
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for 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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 33 of 42
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion:
❑ x ❑ ❑
❑ x ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ ❑ x ❑
a) Fire and Police Protection: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Similar to the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed project is anticipated to encourage development
and increase the need for police and fire protection services. Additional service demands for police and
fire protection could impact the Police and Fire Departments, which is considered a significant impact.
However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2, which are consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR, any future development plans will be required to be reviewed by the
Police and Fire Departments at the time they are submitted to the City for review. As such, the
implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-2 will reduce impacts related to police and fire
protection to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
School Facilities: Less Than Significant
The proposed project should have a significant impact on public schools due to an increase in the
population within the project site. An increase in population could increase the number of students that
will attend area schools. The payment of developer impact fees as allowed by state law prior to the
issuance of building permits for future development projects will mitigate the impact due to the generation
of additional students that will be generated by new development within the project site. Therefore, a
less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Source: 1 and 5)
Parks: Less Than Significant
As discussed in XV. Recreation, below, a less than significant impact to park facilities is identified with
the implementation of the proposed project.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
Other Public Facilities: Less Than Significant
At the time building permits are submitted to the City for approval of future development projects within
the project site, the City may require the developer to pay developer impact fees for other public facilities.
With the payment of any required developer impact fees required by the City of National City, potential
impacts to other public facilities will be reduced to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure PS-1: Police Protection
The Police Department shall review all future development projects for police protection impacts and
ensure that additional police personnel and/or equipment are provided to provide acceptable level of
police protection services deemed acceptable by the National City Police Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 34 of 42
Mitigation Measure PS-2: Fire Protection
The Fire Department shall review all future development projects for fire protection impacts and ensure
that additional fire personnel and/or equipment are provided to provide acceptable level of fire protection
services deemed acceptable by the National City Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits.
XV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ ❑ x
0
❑ ❑ x ❑
a) and b) Less Than Significant. Based on the thresholds criteria, the adoption and implementation of
the proposed project will not result in any significant park or recreational impacts. Consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR, the City of National City will collect a fee for each new residential unit
constructed within the project site. The monies will be used to upgrade or provide additional recreation
facilities as needed and the park fee will mitigate the impacts of the project on park and recreational
services. There are no activities associated with the proposed project that will reduce or eliminate
existing park and recreational facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue
area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non -motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ x ❑
❑ x ❑
0
0
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Sind - I-'<a;;cnI 42
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an 0 0 0 x
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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding 0 0 0 x
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion:
a) and b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The following information is
summarized from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by LOS Engineering, Inc.,
dated December 18, 2009. This report is provided as Appendix F of this Initial Study.
Significance Criteria
A project is considered to cause a significant impact if the new project traffic decreases the operations on
the surrounding roadways by the City of National City defined thresholds as shown in Table 1 below. If a
significant impact is calculated due to the addition of project traffic, then a feasible mitigation is required
to return the impact to LOS D. Otherwise the impact may be considered significant and unmitigated.
TABLE 1 - City of National City Impact Significant Thresholds (Based on Santec Guidelines)
Level of Service with Project
Allowable Increase Due to Project Impacts
Freeways
Intersections
Ramp Metering
V/C
Delay (sec.)
Delay (min.)
E & F
0.01
2
2*
Source: LOS Engineering, Inc., 2009.
Note: = The impact is only considered significant if the total delay exceeds 15 minutes; Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle
measured in seconds; V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Please refer to Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix F for a detailed description
of the existing traffic conditions.
The existing AM, PM, and daily volumes are provided in Figure 4a and 4b of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
The LOS calculated for the intersections is provided in Table 5 of the Traffic Impact Analysis with daily
roadway segments provided in Table 6 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The arterial operations are
provided in Table 7 of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Under existing conditions, all of the study roadways were calculated to operate at LOS D or better except
for Civic Center Drive from Hoover Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue and from Roosevelt Avenue to National
City Boulevard.
Existing Transit Services
The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) provides bus service on National City Boulevard as bus route
932. Several other bus routes also run through National City and are reasonably close to the project site.
A MTS map shown transit service in National City is included in Appendix E of the Traffic Impact
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 36 of 42
Analysis. The project traffic generation was not reduced to account for existing mass transit available
near the project site. The potential transit capture rate for such a project is unknown at this time.
Proposed Project
Project Traffic Generation
The project traffic generation was calculated using SANDAG traffic rates. The higher intensity land uses
are calculated to generate a net increase of 2,873 ADT with 153 AM peak hour trips (24 inbound and 129
outbound), 270 PM peak hour trips (188 inbound and 82 outbound) as shown in Table 8 of the Traffic
Impact Analysis.
Project Access
Project access is anticipated along Roosevelt Avenue; however, details of the exact locations will only
become available as development is proposed and submitted to the City for review.
Project Distribution and Assignment
Project traffic was distributed to the adjacent roadway network based on a Series 11 SANDAG Select
Zone Assignment (SZA). Distribution adjustments were made to the SZA based on direction from
National City engineering staff and accounted for the planned closure of West Avenue by 2030, thus no
project traffic was assigned to West Avenue. The project distribution is shown in Figures 5a and 5b of
the Traffic Impact Analysis, with the project assignment is shown in Figures 6a and 6b of the Traffic
Impact Analysis.
Horizon Year 2030 Conditions
The horizon year 2030 scenario is based on volumes provided by National City staff from the Draft
Westside Specific Plan, which includes the Westside Specific Plan redevelopment traffic volumes. The
peak hour intersection volumes and daily traffic volumes are shown in Figures 7a and 7b of the Traffic
Impact Analysis. Intersections LOS are provided in Table 9 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, with daily
roadway segments are provided in Table 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The arterial operations are
provided in Table 11 of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Under horizon year 2030 conditions, all of the study roadways were calculated to operate at LOS D or
better with the exception of the following:
• Intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 Northbound on -ramp (LOS F AM and PM);
• Segment of 8th Street from Hoover Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue (LOS E);
• Segment 18th Street from National City Boulevard to B Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Civic Center Drive from Harbor Drive to Wilson Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Civic Center Drive from Wilson Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Civic Center Drive from Roosevelt Avenue to National City Boulevard (LOS F);
• Segment Plaza Boulevard from Hoover Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Plaza Boulevard from National City Boulevard to B Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Roosevelt Avenue from 8th Street to Plaza Boulevard (LOS F); and,
• Segment of Roosevelt Avenue from Plaza Boulevard to Civic Center (LOS E).
Horizon Year 2030 with Project Conditions
This scenario accounts for the addition of project traffic onto horizon year 2030 traffic for AM, PM and
daily conditions. The peak hour intersection volumes and daily traffic volumes are shown in Figures 8a
and 8b of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Intersection LOS is provided in Table 12 of the Traffic Impact
Analysis, with daily roadway segments provided in Table 13 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The arterial
operations are provided in Table 14 of the Traffic Impact Analysis.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Inilllli St.uie - 7 of 42
Under horizon year 2030 with project conditions, all of the study roadways were calculated to operate at
LOS D or better with the exception of:
• Intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 Northbound on -ramp (LOS F AM and PM);
• Segment of 8th Street from Hoover Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue (LOS E);
• Segment 18th Street from National City Boulevard to B Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Civic Center Drive from Harbor Drive to Wilson Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Civic Center Drive from Wilson Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Civic Center Drive from Roosevelt Avenue to National City Boulevard (LOS F);
• Segment Plaza Boulevard from Hoover Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Plaza Boulevard from National City Boulevard to B Avenue (LOS F);
• Segment Roosevelt Avenue from 8th Street to Plaza Boulevard (LOS F); and,
• Segment of Roosevelt Avenue from Plaza Boulevard to Civic Center (LOS E).
The proposed project is calculated with one horizon year significant impact at the intersection of Civic
Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp due to the addition of more than two (2) seconds of delay.
However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, this impact will be reduced to a level less than
significant.
(Sources: 5 and 12)
c) No Impact. The proposed project will allow uses such as multi -family residential, retail, office and
hospitality. Such uses will not change any air traffic patterns that may exist in the vicinity of the project
site and no new substantial risks would be introduced. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue
area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
d) No Impact. At this point it is uncertain if the existing surrounding circulation network would change
with future development within the project site. However, as specific development projects are proposed
for this area, the City of National City will review all plans and ensure that all projects are designed to
include features that would not increase roadway hazards. Therefore, no impact is identified for this
issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
e) No Impact. The proposed project would not change emergency access to the site. Any future
development projects proposed for the project site would be required to be designed to include adequate
emergency access pursuant to the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, no impact is identified for
this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
f) No Impact. Although no specific development projects, other than the two apartment buildings, are
proposed for the project site at this time, all future proposed development projects would be required to
be consistent with all existing public transit, pedestrian and bicycle plans. Therefore, no impact is
identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure T-1: Intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp
As part of the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Port Access Improvements Project for the
intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, Caltans has prepared a Project
Report and traffic analysis which indicates capacity improvements and a new signal for the intersection of
Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, to be constructed in the near -term.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study ,1 --I_
XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
❑ x 0 0
❑ x 0 0
❑ ❑ x ❑
❑ x ❑ ❑
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 x 0 0
provider which 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?
Discussion:
❑ ❑ x 0
❑ ❑ x 0
a) and e) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in more detail below,
with the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1 and compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan
Utilities Impact Report, impacts related to wastewater will be reduced to a level less than significant.
b) and d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in more detail below,
with the implementation of Mitigation Measures U-2 and U-3 and compliance with the Downtown Specific
Plan Utilities Impact Report, impacts related to water will be reduced to a level less than significant.
The project proposes to increase the amount of development within the project site, which will impact the
existing utility services that currently serve the project site. A Downtown Specific Plan Utilities Impact
Report was prepared by Infrastructure Engineering Corporation, dated November 2006, which includes
the proposed project site and a level of development consistent with the level proposed in Development
Zone 12B. The purpose of the Utilities Impact Report was to determine potential impacts that the
Downtown Specific Plan will have upon wastewater, water, natural gas and electric facilities.
Wastewater
Wastewater service within the project site is provided by the National City Public Works Department. The
proposed project would increase the amount of development within the project site, which will impact the
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 39 of 42
existing wastewater system that serves the project site. As discussed in the Utilities Impact Report for
the Downtown Specific Plan, which included the proposed project in its analysis, the proposed project
along with the Downtown Specific Plan will impact the existing wastewater system and the system that
serves the area would need to be upgraded to serve future sewage flows if they cannot be handled by
the existing facilities. The Utilities Impact Report identifies specific wastewater system upgrades for the
area. The construction of upgrades to the wastewater system could have construction impacts, which will
have to be specifically identified at the time sewer improvement plans are submitted for approval. With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure U-1, which was derived from the Downtown Specific Plan
FPEIR, and compliance with the Utilities Impact Report, potential wastewater impacts associated with
future development within the project site will be reduced to a level less than significant.
Water
Water service within the project site is provided by the Sweetwater Water Authority. Similar to
wastewater services the proposed project proposes to increase the amount of development within the
project site, which may increase the demand for water service. As discussed in the Utilities Impact
Report for the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed project along with the Downtown Specific Plan will
impact existing water services and would require the need for additional water and upgraded facilities,
which is considered a significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures U-2
and U-3, which were derived from the Downtown Specific Plan FPEIR, and compliance with the Utilities
Impact Report, potential impacts to water service will be reduced to a level less than significant.
(Sources: 1, 5, and 13)
c) Less Than Significant. As discussed above under Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality c)
through e), implementation of the proposed project will not alter existing drainage patterns of the project
site and would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
f) and g) Less Than Significant. The proposed project will allow for increase amount of development
to occur within the project site that would generate additional solid waste that would need to be taken to a
local landfill. However, local landfills that serve the City of National City have enough capacity to receive
the additional solid waste from the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
identified for this issue area.
(Sources: 1 and 5)
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure U-1: Wastewater
All development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment area shall be reviewed by the
National City Public Works Department to make sure that adequate wastewater facilities will be available
to serve the project. If the Public Works Department determines the existing wastewater facilities as not
adequate the project developer shall construct the facilities necessary to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
Mitigation Measure U-2: Water
All water utility plans shall be approved by the Sweetwater Authority to ensure that adequate water
service is provided to the development.
Mitigation Measure U-3: Water
The City shall require the incorporation of all state mandated water conservation measures. The City
shall also require the additional incorporation, as applicable, of water conservation measures including
water efficient dishwashers, water pressure reducing valves, hot water pipe insulation, and hot water on -
demand units as applicable.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 40 of 42
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
O x 0
O x 0
0
0
O 0 0 x
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is currently developed with
existing residential and industrial uses within an urbanized area. Implementation of the proposed project
would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and 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 plants or
animals or eliminate the important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. As
discussed in detail in Section IV, Biological Resources, the proposed project will not result in any
significant impacts to biological resources because there are no rare, threatened, endangered, endemic,
or sensitive plant or wildlife species within the project site. As discussed in detail in Section V, Cultural
Resources, six buildings within the project site have the potential to be historical buildings, which is
considered a significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, this
impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in detail in Section VII,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts
associated with Greenhouse Gas Emissions; however, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
GHG-1, this impact will be reduced to a level less than significant.
c) No Impact. The proposed project is located within an urbanized area and would not result in
potential impacts to the health or well-being of human beings either directly or indirectly. Therefore, no
impact is identified for this issue area.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
Initial Study - Page 41 of 42
REFERENCE SOURCES:
Reference #
Document Title
Available for Review at:
1
National City General Plan and Land Use Code
National City Planning Div. or
www.nationalcityca.gov
2
City of National City Municipal Code
National City Planning Div.
3
City of National City Design Guidelines
National City Planning Div. or
www.nationalcityca.gov..
4
National City Downtown Specific Plan dated February
2005
National City Planning Div.
5
Downtown Specific Plan Final Program Environmental
Report dated February 2005
National City Planning Div.
6
15th Street and Roosevelt Avenue Project Plans (2008-
42 Cons. Review and 2008-41 Cons. Review)
National City Planning Div.
7
Air Quality Conformity Assessment Downtown Specific
Plan Amendment, prepared by Investigative Science
and Engineering, Inc., dated January 26, 2010
National City Planning Div.
8
Cultural and Historical Resource Survey for the
National City Specific Plan Amendment, prepared by
ASM Affiliates, dated April 2, 2009
National City Planning Div.
9
Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming Risk Assessment
Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, prepared by
Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated
January 26, 2010
National City Planning Div.
10
Environmental Review National City SPA 2005-3,
prepared by Environmental Resources Management,
dated April 2009
National City Planning Div.
11
Acoustical Site Assessment Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment prepared by Investigative Science and
Engineering, Inc., dated January 27, 2010
National City Planning Div.
12
National City Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by LOS Engineering, Inc., dated
December 18, 2009
National City Planning Div.
13
Downtown Specific Plan Utilities Impact Report
prepared by Infrastructure Engineering Corporation,
dated November 2006
National City Planning Div. or
www.nationalcityca.gov.
14
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection, 2006. Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, 2006.
GIS data obtained by BRG
Consulting, Inc.
15
2007 California Building Code, Title 24 Part 2
National City Building Dept.
16
California Division of Mines & Geology, Geology of
National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa
Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area,
California, 1977
www.conservation.ca.gov
and BRG Consulting, Inc.
17
Demere, Thomas A. and Walsh, Stephen L., 1993.
Paleontological Resources of County of San Diego,
California. Department of Paleontology San Diego
Natural History Museum.
BRG Consulting, Inc.
18
SanGIS data 2009.
www.sandag.org
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
November 2010
Initial Study - Page 42 of 42
19
Historical Building Evaluation of Assessor Parcels 560-
064-01, 560-064-02, 560-064-04 and 560-064-05, for
the City of National City Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment (SP-2005-3) prepared by ASM Affiliates,
Inc., June 7, 2010.
National City Planning Div.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment November 2010
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 2 -12B - "FULL BUILDOUT SCHEME" - F.A.R. 4:1, 65' HEIGHT LIMIT
12A- F.A.R. 5:1 (NOT SHOWN), 90' HEIGHT LIMIT
T�
1< I
I'''
>\ \\
i
i
�� - I
1 KI ��
> �
�r41. - I
RI`\ee " 1 I \
.RICO *'fr I -1C�\ 1 \
\\
S \
�� ,, S�� \\Y�� 1
OJQ
C>�
vO�
ti l
OJQ
5 2
PARCEL GROUP
GROSS
AREA
APPLIED
F.A.R.
MAX. BLDG.
FLOOR AREA
D.U.S
(950 sf / d.u. ')
50% 1 BEDROOM /
50% 2 BEDROOM MIX
REQ. PARKING
Sp. PER TABLE
REQ. PARKING
AREA (180 sf/Sp.)
PARCEL GROUP 1-1
11,194 sf
2.71:1
30,325 sf
25'
PARCEL GROUP 1-2
6,752 sf
4:1
27,007 sf
28
(14) 1-BD / (14) 2-BD
31
5580 sf
PARCEL GROUP 1-3
10,410 sf
2.41:1
25,038 sf
20'
PARCEL GROUP 2
28,444 sf
4:1
113,778 sf
119
(59) 1-BD / (60) 2-BD
131
23,580 sf
PARCEL GROUP 3
28,183 sf
4:1
112,733 sf
118
(59) 1-BD / (59) 2-BD
130
23,400 sf
' 950 sf / 1 d.u. calculation does not apply
PARKING REQUIREMENT TABLE
RESIDENTIAL
1 BDRM 1
2 BDRM 1.2
NON-RESIDENTIAL
PER 1000sf 2.5
SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
B
BRG CONSULTING. INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Development Standards
Applied to Massing Models
7/20/10
FIGURE
1
F:\projects\861 Cily of Nalional City \Draft SPA MND\ gure 1 Developrnenl Standerds.ci
SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
B
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Potential Building
Massing Simulation - Northwest View
7/14/10
FIGURE
2
F:\projects\861 City of Notional City \Draft SPA MND\Figure 2 Potential Building Massing Simulation NW View.ai
SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
B
1:0. .
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Potential Building
Massing Simulation - Southeast View
7/14/10
FIGURE
3
F:\projects\861 City of National City\Draft SPA MND\Figure 3 Potential Building Massing Simulation SE View.ai
SECTION A-1
4:1 MAXIMUM F.A.R., 65' HEIGHT LIMIT, 12' FLOORS - "CASTLE" STYLE
100 —
ELEVATION,
IN FEET
50
WESINDESPECIFICPUN
Vu lit/
FLOOR
FLFL
FiREFFLOO CO
0
+0
ROOSEVELT ST.i
r w.00ms.r
i
NATIONAL CITY
BLVD.
+100
+200
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE,
IN FEET
+300
+400
FLOOR
HEIGHT (FT.)
USABLE AREA (SF)
CUMULATIVE AREA (SF)
REALIZED 4:1 F.A.R.
POTENTIAL
FOURTH FLOOR
53
7,200
80,100
70%
THIRD FLOOR
41
24,300
72,900
SECOND FLOOR
29
24,300
48,600
FIRST FLOOR
17
24,300
24,300
GARAGE LEVEL
0
26,900
PARKING
SECTION A-2
4:1 MAXIMUM F.A.R., 65' HEIGHT LIMIT, 12' FLOORS -"MODULE" STYLE
100
ELEVATION
IN FEET
50
i
— t
WESTSIDESPECIFIOPLUI
.i
.m.141,00.13 mucncx
•,0.00m9.r
FLOOR •filLOC
THROFLOOR
ROOR
RSTPLCOR
r .90.001.11,1
ROOSEVELT ST.I
L I J
NATIONAL CITY
BLVD.
+0
+100
+200
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE,
IN FEET
+300
+400
FLOOR
HEIGHT (FT.)
USABLE AREA (SF)
CUMULATIVE AREA (SF)
REALIZED 4:1 F.A.R.
POTENTIAL
FOURTH FLOOR
53
21,687
86,748
75%
THIRD FLOOR
41
21,687
65,061
SECOND FLOOR
29
21,687
43,374
FIRST FLOOR
17
21,687
21,687
GARAGE LEVEL
0
26,900
PARKING
SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
B
BRG CONSULTING. INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Cross -Sections
7/14/10
FIGURE
4
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Craft S A MND\Figure 4 Cross-SCctions.ci
SECTION B-1
4:1 MAXIMUM F.A.R., 65' HEIGHT LIMIT, 10' FLOORS - "STAGGERED" STYLE
100 —
.crux \I, i,i r HOCK LE .ETroo..wx
ELEVATION,
IN FEET
50
- I
- I
D
+0
WIN FLOOR •SEOR
,nnx. x..O PL
MOM FLOOR ...DV
ESISSINOCCEASTROCGON
AGEOCEFEL
ROOSEVELT ST.
L
.e000mrn
NATIONAL CITY I—
BLVD.
+100
+200
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE,
IN FEET
+300
+400
FLOOR
HEIGHT (FT.)
USABLE AREA (SF)
CUMULATIVE AREA (SF)
REALIZED 4:1 F.A.R.
POTENTIAL
FIFTH FLOOR
55
9,824
95,498
83%
FOURTH FLOOR
45
16,474
85,674
THIRD FLOOR
35
20,600
69,200
SECOND FLOOR
25
24,300
48,600
FIRST FLOOR
15
24,300
24,300
GARAGE LEVEL
0
26,900
PARKING
SECTION B-2
4:1 MAXIMUM F.A.R-, 65' HEIGHT LIMIT, 10' FLOORS -"COLONY" STYLE
100
ELEVATION,
IN FEET
50 EMMEL ucnox
-T 'G
— +y awmo+
I
L ASSOC.
FOURTH FL Al
ROOSEVELT ST.
ROFLOO
rASISOGRAI
L
NATIONAL CITY
BLVD.
+0
+100
+200
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE,
IN FEET
+300
+400
FLOOR
HEIGHT (FT.)
USABLE AREA (SF)
CUMULATIVE AREA (SF)
REALIZED 4:1 F.A.R.
POTENTIAL
FIFTH FLOOR
55
20,212
101,060
87%
FOURTH FLOOR
45
20,212
80,848
THIRD FLOOR
35
20,212
60,636
SECOND FLOOR
25
20,212
40,424
FIRST FLOOR
15
20,212
20,212
GARAGE LEVEL
0
26,962
PARKING
SOURCE: BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
B
BRG CONSULTING. INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Cross -Sections
7/14/10
FIGURE
5
F:\projects\861 Cily of National Cily \Croft S A NAND \Figure 5 Cro5s-Sec5ons.ci
Attachment A
Project Description
Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.
November 2010
Attachment A - Project Description
1 .0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Site Location and Description
The proposed project site is located in the City of National City, in San Diego County. National City is a
coastal city bordered to the north and east by the City of San Diego, to the south by the City of Chula
Vista, and to the west by the City of San Diego and the San Diego Bay. The project site is located
approximately 1/3 mile east of Interstate 5. Figure 1 depicts the location of the project site in a regional
perspective, as well as in the context of the local circulation system. The site is located south of Civic
Center Drive, north of 16th Street, east of Roosevelt Avenue, and west of National City Boulevard.
The project site comprises 13 parcels, consisting of three half -blocks and totaling 3.69 acres. The project site
is currently developed with light manufacturing, institutional, and residential uses. Similar uses currently
surround the site. Figure 2 provides an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses.
The project site is located immediately adjacent to the boundary of the City's Downtown Specific Plan
Area. The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City in 2005, and provides a comprehensive set of
plans, guidelines, and regulations that will guide future development in the City's Downtown Area.
1.2 Project Characteristics
The project consists of two primary components: 1) an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan; and, 2)
a proposed residential development within one half -block portion the project site.
1.2.1 Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
The Downtown Specific Plan Amendment involves two primary components as described in detail below:
1. Downtown Specific Plan Boundary Amendment. The Downtown Specific Plan boundary would be
expanded to incorporate the three half -blocks located east of Roosevelt Avenue, south of Civic Center
Drive, and north of 16th Street (the project site). Figure 3 depicts the location of the existing Downtown
Specific Plan boundary and the area that will be incorporated into the Specific Plan. The addition of the
three half -blocks to the Downtown Specific Plan boundary would add 3.69 acres to the Downtown Specific
Plan; for a total Specific Plan area of approximately 137 acres.
2. Downtown Specific Plan Development Zone 12 Amendment. The currently adopted Downtown Specific
Plan designates the area immediately east of the project site as "Development Zone 12." As part the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Development Zone 12 would be bifurcated into two distinct zones -
Development Zone 12A and Development Zone 12B. The new Development Zone 12A would simply be a
relabeling of the existing Development Zone 12 (no new regulations or modified regulations as they are
currently adopted for Development Zone 12A are proposed). The newly created Development Zone 12B
would apply to the proposed project site (new area to be incorporated into the Specific Plan boundary).
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment 1-1 November 2010
Case No 2010-23 SPA, IS
Camp
Pendleton
CARLSBAD
SOLANA BEACH
DEL MAR
Pacific Ocean
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
ENCINITAS
Project
Location
NATIONAL CITY
SOURCE: SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
�� Cl
IJ�
POWAY
SAN DIEGO /
,SANTEE__
IMP IAL
BEACH
EL GAJON
CA MESA
CHULA VISTA
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Regional Location
i E
\5{N Sty
E 65N 5\ TL
m
MEXICO
7/14/10
FIGURE
1
1-2
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Descriptio \Figure 1 Regional Location.roxd
nProject Boundary
nDowntown Specific Plan
SOURCE: SanGIS, 2009; ESRI, 2010; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2010
•
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Aerial Photo
7/14/10
FIGURE
2
1-3
F:\protects\861 City of Notional City \Draft SPA MND\Protect Descnphon\Figure 2 Aerial Photo.mxd
➢
O
a
,2SNa—
0 125250 500 750 1,000
Feet
1 \ \ '<
0
W oBSN 5S
ENS
RpR v
W ,ASN SS ym/
Sp
WS
Legend
/\/ Roads
Freeway
1_2 : Proposed Specific Plan Boundary
Existing Specific Plan Boundary
Downtown Specific Plan
Westside Specific Plan
Downtown Specific, Plan
m
2SN 5S
Westside
to*1
ecific Plan
VAS
SOURCE: SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2009
.I/
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
0
➢<
75N
RL
F
0
N5S
m
O
E \ESN gt
N
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Proposed Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment Boundary
424,6,
Re(
—74
ti 5LSH SS
7/14/10
FIGURE
3
F:\projects\BO ] City oh National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Description \Figure 3 Proposed Downtown SPA Boundary.mxd
1-4
Attachment A - Project Description
The proposed specific plan amendment area would be redesignated from its existing City-wide MLR Zone
(residential, light manufacturing) to Development Zone 12B. Figure 4 depicts the existing and proposed
zoning for the project site.
The existing MLR zone allows for the continuation and new establishment of low intensity industrial uses while
protecting existing residential and institutional uses from potentially incompatible industrial development.
The proposed Development Zone 12B would allow for mid -rise multifamily residential, street -oriented retail,
office, or hospitality. The proposed Development Zone 12B would have the attributes of the immediately
adjacent Development Zone 12; however, the maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) would be 4:1 (instead of
5:1 as allowed in Development Zone 12A), and the maximum building height would be 65 feet (instead of
90 feet as allowed in Development Zone 12B).
Development Zone 12, located on the eastern half of the three blocks, allows for mixed uses including
multi -family residential, retail, office, and hospitality. Development Zone 12 has a maximum FAR of 5:1 (.5)
and maximum building height of 90-feet. This area would be redesignated Development Zone 12A in order
to differentiate it from the proposed Development Zone 12B.
Proposed Development Zone 12B Regulations:
Development Intensity:
Floor Area Ratio: 4:1
Maximum Height: 65 feet
General Guidelines:
This zone has frontage along the east side of Roosevelt Avenue from Civic Center Drive to 16th Street and
extends one-half block to the east. This zone is adjacent to and west of Development Zone 12A, which
fronts on National City Boulevard across from Kimball Park and the National City Library. The police station
is to the north, and the Westside Specific Plan area is to the west and south. Proposed land uses in this zone
are multifamily residential, office or hotel. Retail, office or service uses may be provided at grade, but these
uses should not dilute street -level pedestrian retailing in the heart of the Downtown core.
Preferred Land Uses:
Multi -family residential, street -oriented retail, office or hospitality.
Restricted or Prohibited Land Uses:
Total retail uses should not exceed 20% of the total development.
Design Guidelines:
• Parking shall be underground, "encapsulated" within the development site or in structures adjacent to
these sites to the west. Placement of parking areas, blank walls or service areas along Roosevelt
Avenue is prohibited.
• Where full -block developments are proposed, a breakdown of building massing and significant
articulation of dwelling units should be employed to avoid a monolithic, institutional appearance.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment 1-5 November 2010
Case No 2010-23 SPA, IS
n
z
125250 500 750 1,000
Feet
"/ Roads
DwoNs� Freeway
s
°A _ _ , Project Boundary
m _
aSpecific Plan Boundary
Zoning
72 Existing MLR - Proposed Development Zone 12B
Development Zone 12 - Redesignate to Development Zone 12A
SOURCE: SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2009
•
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
piPtiP' 6�
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Existing and Proposed Zoning
r�r
7/14/10
FIGURE
4
F:\projects\86 I City of National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Description \Figure 4 Existing and Proposed Zoning.mxd
1-6
Attachment A - Project Description
1.2.2 Residential Development
The proposed project includes a specific development proposal to develop two residential apartment
buildings on one of the half -blocks that is included in the proposed Development Zone 12B. Figure 5
depicts the specific location of each proposed residential projects within the project site. Approval of this
specific development proposal would require an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (as proposed
under Development Zone 12B), and two Consistency Reviews. The proposed projects are market rate
residential apartments totaling 45 units within several low-rise (3-4 story) buildings.
Assessor Parcels 560-064-01 and 560-064-02. Construction of one new residential apartment building
consisting of one 30,325 square foot building and a total of 25 units. Figures 6 through 8 depict the
proposed site plan and elevations for this project.
Assessor Parcels 560-064-04 and 560-064-05. Construction of two new residential apartment buildings
consisting of one 11,379 square foot building and one 13,659 square foot building for a total of 20 units.
Figures 9 through 11 depict the proposed site plan and elevations for this project.
Specific Plan Amendment Total Potential Development Summary
Table 1 provides a summary of the potential development that could occur within the Specific Plan
Amendment Area (Development Zone 12B) based on the proposed development regulations. This table
summarizes existing development, existing development potential based on the existing MLR zone, and
proposed development potential based on Development Zone 12B regulations. As shown in Table 1,
approximately 341 residential units could be developed under Development Zone 12B.
1.3.1 Discretionary Actions and Approvals by the City of
National City
In conformance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of National City has
been designated the "lead agency," which is defined as, "the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." The following identifies the discretionary actions and
approvals by the City of National City for the proposed project.
1. Specific Plan Amendment. An amendment to the City's Downtown Specific Plan is proposed as
described in the preceding text, and is required to implement the specific residential apartment
component of the project.
2. Consistency Review. Pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter V Development Review
Process, projects proposed within the Downtown Specific Plan area are subject to a Consistency
Review by the Community Development Commission Board (City Council) to ensure that the
proposed project is consistent with the intent and development regulations of the Downtown
Specific Plan.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment 1-7 November 2010
Case No 2010-23 SPA, IS
Downtown Specific Plan
Westside 1
Specific Plan
51"5j�
SOURCE: SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2009
• •
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
Legend
/"/ Roads
^� Freeway
Project Boundary
aSpecific Plan Boundary
Residential Projects
20 Units
25 Units
Applicant Proposed
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Location of Residential Projects
FIGURE
5
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Description \Figure 5 Location of Residential Projects.nud
1-8
9
10
11
12
13
SOURCE: Kyle Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2009
B
III
BRG CONSULTING. INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
20-Units 16th Street and
Roosevelt Avenue Site Plan
7/14/10
FIGURE
6
F:Aprojects \861 City of Notional City VDraft SPA MNDVProject DescriptionAFigure 6 16th and Roosevelt Site Plan.oi
1-9
65' Hei
65' Hei th Limit at Flat Roof
R3
lu'
III ImmII AIM
fifi fill
II'. II[III�IIIIII1 II
R2
a5'
R1
I!51
Height Reference Datum
h Limit at Flot Roof
a5'
R3
R2
R1
ROOSEVELT AVE ELEVATION
SCALE. I/b= I•-0
fi ll
I lllllll•llllllll
16th Street
Height Reference Datum
12'
Lowest Grade Elevotion
NORTH ELEVATION
xA E _ i•-0
Roosevelt Ave
SOURCE: Kyle Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2009
B
fl
.
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
25-Units Roosevelt Ave and North Elevations
7/20/10
FIGURE
7
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Description\Figure 7 Roosevelt and North Elevations.ai
Roosevelt Ave
R3
R2
R1
Hill
III III1■'llllll' II
I6TH STREET ELEVATION
IEI
SCALE. I/8' . 1'-0
INMI
II Iillloi llUi lllll
ilnnll
ii 11IIII11111111. III
Ill IIIf.II i i irF II
u mnn ire ninismrrmmnamr
N.
i.
NE
16th Street
ALLEY ELEVATION
65' Hei.th Limit at Flat Roof
R3
R2
41'
R1
Height Reference Datum
65' Heigth Limit at Flat Roof
45'
Height Reference Datum
12'
Lowest Grade Elevation
enAi F, va• , rc•
SOURCE: Kyle Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2009
B
fl
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
25-Units 16th Street and Alley Elevations
7/14/10
FIGURE
8
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Draft SPA ;MD \Project Description \ Figure 8 16fh and Alley Elevafions.ai
•
ROOSEVELT AVENUE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1ov
i'i'i'i'i.*'•'•....'i'i
•••••• •••••
NNW�'i'�i'�'i'i'i
r►'•'i+•••••%•'►'•O.'i
ri'i'JOOb'O4'i'i
i'i'i'iO+i'i'�•'i'�Oi'i
r'i'i'i'i'i'i'i •'•'•'•'
magit
•O'iAilke'i'i
MAO
maame
17
16
15
14
(H)
13
12
11
10
m
1
UNIT 5
2BOR
•
UNIT 1
2 BDR
UNIT 2
2 BDR
7
!�
UNIT 4
2 BDR
Q: :
UNIT 3
2 BDR
tar
I00'-0"
JOA
-or
ALLEY
SITE, PARKING & FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SGALE: I/8' . 1.-01
15TH STREET
SOURCE: Kyle Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2009
B
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
25-Units 15th Street and
Roosevelt Avenue Site Plan
7/14/10
FIGURE
9
F:Aprojecls\86l Cily of NolioncI CilyVDrat' SPA MNDVProject DescriptionAFigure 9 15th and Roosevelt Sile Pla l.c
1-12
"
EMI
q l IL 1111111111
Jo
IIIII: nil 11111 II
A
gm111 gIg
65' Heigth Limit at Flat Roof
R3
R2
R1
65' Het
15th Street
h Limit at Flot Roof
41'
Height Reference Datum
ROOSEVELT AVE ELEVATION
sG.J.E, we, - I' -a
■ - ■
■ _ ■
41'
R3
R2
R1
ilnnii
-111111111'.1111111191
R®
unnli
iu mTlolilrlloli
®® ®H
fI i 1111Y 11111111111
•= te1-11 mom inni�
Nu=
ME
■
Height Reference Datum.x - RO__
10'
Lowest Grade Elevation
Alley
I5TH STREET ELEVATION
5G/iE. I,6- . I'-0-
Roosevelt Avenue
SOURCE: Kyle Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2009
B
fl
11]. ■
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
25-Units 15th Street and Roosevelt Ave Elevations
7/14/10
FIGURE
10
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Description\Figure 10 15th and Roosevelt Elevafions.ai
65' Heigth Limit of Flat Roof
III/
IIIu!li onalll
R3
NM'
R2
Roosevelt Avenue
65' Heigth Limit at Flat Roof
41'
I:lIcuniImsl R1
41'
RO Height Reference Datum
18'
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE, tle' • I'-O
innlli
IIIIIIIDWTur. I_E
RR RR
ee
IIII p1I1I IIIIIII I IR
RR
!11!11i
III.. 111111111111' III
11 ,ni1, II
!!I,
t■. ■■ �■ ■■ Atoll■. ■■ ■■ 11
ii ea morn
Height Reference Datum
18'
Lowest Grade Elevation
ALLEY ELEVATION
SCALE, 1/8= i'—o
Alley
R3
R2
R1
RO
15th Street
Lowest Grade Elevation
SOURCE: Kyle Stephens & Associates, Inc., 2009
B
fl
BRG CONSULTING, INC.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
25-Units South and Alley Elevations
7/14/10
FIGURE
11
F:\projects\861 City of National City \Draft SPA MND\Project Description\Figure 11 15th and Alley Elevations.ai
TABLE 1
NATIONAL CITY DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Development Assumptions
Block/
Size/
Use
Existing
MLR Zone
Maximum
Development
Potential'
Net Change
Existing MLR
Zone -
Existing Use2
Proposed
12B Zone Maximum Development
Potential3
(or specific use)
GROUND TO PLAN
Net Change
(Existing Use -
Proposed 12B Zone)
PLAN TO PLAN
Net Change
(Existing MLR Zone -
Proposed 12B Zone)
North Block:
0.647 ac.
LI 18,920 sq.ft.
Res = 0 du
56,366 sq. ft.
OR
5 du's
+37,446 sq.ft.
OR
5 du's
+118 du
OR
+112,733 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+94 du w/
+22,546 sq.ft. retail
(decrease LI by 18,920)
+1 18 du
OR
+112,733 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+94 du w/
+22,546 sq.ft. retail
(decrease LI by 56,366 sq.ft.)
+l 13 du
OR
+112,733 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+89 du
+22,546 sq.ft.
Central Block:
0.653 ac.
LI = 8,189 sq.ft.
Res = 3 du
56,889 sq. ft.
OR
5 du's
+48,700 sq.ft.
OR
2 du's
+119 du
OR
+113,778 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+95 du w/
+22,755 sq.ft. retail
(decrease LI by 8,189)
+1 16 du
OR
+113,778 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+92 du w/
+22,755 retail
(decrease LI by 56,889 sq.ft.)
+114 du
OR
+113,778 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+90 du
+22,755 sq.ft.
South Block:
0.651 ac.
LI = 12,560 sq.ft.
Res = 1 du
56,715 sq. ft.
OR
5 du's
+44,155 sq.ft.
OR
4 du's
Two Apartment Projects are
proposed on Block 1:
30,325 sq.ft./25 du's
25,038 sq.ft./20 du's
The remaining parcel:
0.155 ac = 27,007 sq. ft. OR
28 du's OR 22 du's and 5,401 sq.ft.
retail
(decrease LI by 12,560)
Increase:
44 du's
The remaining parcel:
0.155 ac = 27,007 sq. ft. OR
28 du's OR 22 du's and 5,401
sq.ft. retail
(decrease LI by 56,715 sq.ft.)
+114 du
OR
+113,427 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+90 du
+22,685 sq.ft.
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL:
Existing Use to Proposed Zone
(Ground to Plan)
TOTAL:
Existing Zone to Proposed Zone
(Plan to Plan)
1.951 ac.
LI = 39,669 sq.ft.
Res=4du
LI = 169,970
sq.ft.
15du's
LI = 130,310
sq.ft.
11 OR
+310 du
OR
253,518 sq.ft.
R
+21 Oduw/
+50,702 sq.ft. retail
(Decrease in LI by 39,669 sq.ft.)
Increase in DU by 303
OR
+253,518 sq.ft. sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+253 du w/
50,702 sq.ft. retail
(Decrease in LI by 169,970 sq.ft.)
Increase in DU by 341
OR
+339,938 sq.ft. office, hotel
OR
+269 du w/
+67,986 sq.ft. retail
MLR Zone. The MLR Zone allows an FAR of 2.0 or 8.7 du/ac with 5,000 sq. ft. min lot size.
2 Existing Zone - Existing Use. This column shows the change in development that could occur within the block based on the existing use of the site and the existing MLR zone regulations.
Development Zone 12B. Proposed Development Zone 12B allows an FAR of 4.0 and no limit on du/ac. Under the Zone 12B, residential, office, or hotel uses are allowed. Additionally, mixed -use, with residential
and no greater than 20% retail is allowed.
Dwelling unit assumption: (gross acreage x FAR) divided by 950 sq. ft. per unit = # of d.u.'s
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
1-15
November 2010
Attachment B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared by BRG Consulting, Inc.
November 2010
Mitigation Monitoring
and
Reporting Program
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
State Clearinghouse No. 2010071074
Lead Agency:
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Prepared by:
BRG Consulting, Inc.
304 Ivy Street
San Diego, CA 92101
November 2010
City of National City Attachment B: MMRP
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
City of National City
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS
The City of National City will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in
accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the National City
Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, which is the subject of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND),
complies with all applicable environmental mitigation requirements. The mitigation measures for the project
will be adopted by the City of National City, in conjunction with the adoption of the MND. The mitigation
measures have been integrated into this MMRP. Within this document, the approved mitigation measures
are organized and referenced by subject category and includes: (Ill) Air Quality, (V) Cultural Resources, (VI)
Geology and Soils, (VII) Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (VIII) Hazards and Hazardous Materials, (XII) Noise, (XIV)
Public Services, (XVI) Transportation/Traffic, and (XVII) Utilities and Service Systems in Attachment A. The
specific mitigation measures are identified, as well as the timing and methods of verification and the
responsible party that will ensure that each action is implemented.
The mitigation measures applicable to the project includes avoiding certain impacts altogether, minimizing
impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, and/or reducing or
eliminating impacts over time by maintenance operations during the life of the action.
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the Lead Agency, for each project that is subject to CEQA,
to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure
that implementation does, in fact, take place. The City of National City is the designated lead agency for
the MMRP. The City of National City is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions,
and document disposition. The City of National City will rely on information provided by the monitor as
accurate and up to date and will field check mitigation measure status as required.
A record of the MMRP will be maintained at the City of National City, Advance Planning Division, City Hall,
1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950. All mitigation measures contained in the MND shall be
made conditions of the project as may be further described below.
National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, Case No. 2010-23 SPA, IS & 1 November 2010
Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Table B-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the National City Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
II■
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Short -Term Construction.
If air quality impacts associated with construction of an approved
project within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment project area
exceed the significance thresholds, mitigation measures identified
below should be implemented as feasible to reduce emissions of the
project. Mitigation measures from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) are presented below and are
recommended for projects in the San Diego Air Basin, where
applicable. The following measures are recommended to reduce
pollutant emissions from construction activities. The construction
operators shall implement these measures:
• Use water trucks to keep all areas where vehicles move
damp enough to prevent dust raised when traveling on the
site;
• Wet down the site in the late morning and after work is
completed for the day;
• After construction, wet inactive areas down to reduce
windblown dust;
• Employ street sweeping, should silt be carried over to
adjacent public roadways;
• Wash off trucks leaving the site;
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through
seeding and watering on portions of the site that will not be
disturbed for lengthy periods (such as two months or more);
• Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them
tuned; and,
• Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15
miles per hour or less.
Timing: Prior to issuance of construction permits
and during construction.
Methods: Require the implementation of
recommended measures to reduce pollutant
emissions from construction activities for all future
development projects within the Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment Project Area prior to
issuing construction permits for discretionary
projects, and during construction.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent approved
by the City, of the
Applicant, Developer, or
Project Proponent.
Verification: City
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-2
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
AQ-2: Long-term.
Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits and
during operation.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant
emissions are attainable through programs, which reduce the
vehicular travel associated with the project. Support and
Methods: Require all future development projects
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
compliance with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the
within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
Qualified agent approved
basin is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The RAQS
project area to implement air pollutant emissions
by the City, of the
includes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation
reduction programs and measures prior to the
Applicant, Developer, or
of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy
conservation measures are included. None of these recommended
mitigation measures are strictly required. However, all relevant
measures should be applied to the greatest extent possible.
issuance of building permits and during operation.
Project Proponent.
Verification: City
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures:
• Schedule truck deliveries and pickups for commercial uses
during off-peak hours when feasible. This will alleviate traffic
congestion; therefore, emissions during the peak hour.
• Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to
public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides.
Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into
and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are
incalculable because more specific data is required.
• Provide on -site services. Provide incentives such as on -site
ATMs and other similar measures that address lifestyle
needs. These measures reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT), but the air quality benefit cannot be quantified
because more specific data is required.
Energy Efficient Measures and Additional Measures:
• Compliance with Title 24, Part 6, California's Energy
Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings. All buildings must comply with Title 24, Part 6.
Reducing the need to heat or cool structures by improving
thermal integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of
energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions.
• Develop operational emissions mitigation plan. Prior to
approval of each building permit for a commercial or office
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-3
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
use, the applicant shall submit to the City for approval, an
operational emissions mitigation plan. The plan shall identify
implementation procedures for each of the following
emissions reduction measures. If certain measures are
determined infeasible, an explanation thereof shall be
provided in the operational emissions mitigation plan.
• Utilize built-in energy -efficient appliances to reduce
energy consumption and emissions.
• Utilize energy -efficient and automated controls for air
conditioners and lighting to reduce electricity
consumption and associated emissions.
• Coordinate with Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) regarding
the location of bus turnouts and buses routed within the
project area.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CR-1
Prior to future project approval and issuance of any construction
permit within the project site, including but not limited to a
demolition or building permit, the applicant shall conduct an
evaluation of the five onsite buildings identified as potentially
eligible historical structures in the Cultural and Historical Resources
Survey prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. dated April 2, 2009. Thee
evaluation shall determine if these buildings are eligible for inclusion
in the state or local historical registers. The evaluation shall be
performed by a historian or architectural historian who meets the
Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Historic
Preservation Professionals. The historian/architectural historian shall
consult with knowledgeable local groups (e.g., Save Our Heritage
Organization, National City Historical Society, San Diego Historical
Society, and others) and individuals, appropriate archives, and
appropriate repositories in an effort to identify the original and
subsequent owners as well as the architect and the builder to
establish whether any of these individuals played important roles in
local or regional history (criterion B). Additionally the physical
characteristics and condition of the building or structure shall be
evaluated under criterion (C), and those judged to possess "the
Timing: Prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
Methods: Require all future development projects
within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
project area to evaluate the potential historical
eligibility of the five onsite buildings prior to
construction.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent approved
y the City, the
by
Applicant,y Developer, or
Project Proponent.
Verification: City
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-4
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
distinctive characteristic of a type, period, region, or method of
construction" shall be further assessed for integrity and context.
The results of the archival research and field assessment shall be
documented in an evaluation report. This report will explicitly state
whether the resource is eligible for either state or local historical
registers and shall also make specific recommendations as
appropriate. The historian/architectural historian shall complete the
necessary California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) site
forms (minimally Primary Record and Building/Structure/Object
record; others as required) and include as an attachment to the
report. Copies of the DPR site forms shall be submitted to the
California Historical Resource Information System via the SCIC, an
auxiliary of San Diego State University.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GS-1
A geotechnical investigation shall be approved by the City prior to
the issuance of a gradingpermit for anydevelopment project that
p p l
requires grading. The geotechnical investigation shall include
fieldwork (e.g.,subsurface exploration, sampling) and laboratoryQualifiedltorg
p p g)
analysis as directed by the City to determine the exact location and
extent of potential geologic/seismic hazards. All applicable
remedial grading measures and seismic design parameters
recommended by the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated
into the project and shown on the final grading plans and/or
incorporated into contractor specifications prior to award of
construction contracts, to the satisfaction of the City.
Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Methods: Require all future development projects
within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
project area to prepare a geotechnical
investigation and submit to the City for approval
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
andeReporting:
vg:
agent approved
by the City, eof the
A
Applicant, Developer, or
Project Proponent.
Verification: City
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MM GHG-1
Consistent with the intent of AB32, the proposed project shall
demonstrate that it has measures in place that would assist in
providing statewide reduction of CO2 as compared to `business as
usual.' The following greenhouse gas offset measures have been
shown to be effective by CARB and shall be implemented wherever
possible:
Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits and
during construction and operation.
Methods: Require all future development projects
within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
project area to implement
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, of the Applicant,
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-5
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
Diesel Equipment (Compression Ignition) Offset Strategies (40% to
greenhouse gas emission offset measures during
Developer, or Project
60% Reduction)
construction and operation of the project.
Proponent.
• Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary
diesel power generators.
Verification: City
• Construction equipment operating onsite should be
equipped with two to four degree engine timing retard or
precombustion chamber engines.
• Construction equipment used for the project should utilize
EPA Tier 2 or better technology.
Vehicular Trip (Spark Ignition) Offset Strategies (30% to 70%
Reduction)
• Encourage commute alternatives by informing construction
employees and customers about transportation options for
reaching your location (i.e., post transit schedules/routes).
• Help construction employees rideshare by posting
commuter ride sign-up sheets, employee home zip code
map, etc.
• When possible, arrange for a single construction vendor
who makes deliveries for several items.
• Purchase Carbon Offsets to compensate for miles traveled
by construction vehicles.
• Plan construction delivery routed to eliminate unnecessary
trips.
• Keep construction vehicles well maintained to prevent leaks
and minimize emissions, and encourage employees to do
the same.
• Provide car/van pool parking for construction employees.
• Sell bus or light rail passes on -site or at a discount to
construction employees.
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-6
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
On -site Energy Offset Strategies (50% to 70% Reduction)
• Complete regularly scheduled maintenance on HVAC
(heating, ventilation and air conditioning) systems.
• Use an energy management system to control lighting,
kitchen exhaust, refrigeration and HVAC.
• Install occupancy sensors for lighting in low occupancy
areas.
• Retrofit incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights.
• Install ultra efficient ballasts to dim lights to take advantage
of daylight.
• Insulate all major hot water pipes.
• Insulate refrigeration cold suction lines.
• Use weather stripping to close air gaps around doors and
windows.
• Select electrical equipment with energy saving features
(e.g., Energy Star).
• Plant native shrubs or trees near windows for shade.
• Convert hot water heaters to on -demand systems.
• Reduce the number of lamps and increase lighting
efficiency by installing optical reflectors or diffusers.
• Install ceiling fans in homes where applicable.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HM-1
Prior to the development of any property that was formerly
occupied by or adjacent to existing facilities that used or stored
hazardous materials, a detailed Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment shall be approved bythe Cityof National to evaluate
pp
the potential for soil and groundwater contamination. If warranted
by the Phase I environmental site assessment, soil and possibly
groundwater sampling shall be required.
p g q
Timing: Prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
Methods: Prior to construction, require all future
development projects within the Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment project area to submit
a detailed Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
for approval by the City of National City prior to
any development of any property that was
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoringuifidgaen Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, of the Applicant,
Developet. or Project
Proponent.
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-7
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
formerly occupied by or adjacent to existing
facilities that used or stored hazardous materials.
Verification: City
MM HM-2
Asbestos, mercury, and a lead -based paint survey of existing
buildings shall be conducted prior to any renovation or demolition
activities to the satisfaction of the City.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any grading or
building permit.
Methods: Require all future development
projects within the Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment project area to submit an asbestos,
mercury, and a lead -based paint survey to the
City, prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoringuifidgaen Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, Developer,of the Applicant,
or Project
Proponent.
Verification: City
MM HM-3
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any property where the
results of the Phase I, Phase II, and/or asbestos, mercury, or lead-
based paint evaluation indicates the presence of these materials or
the potential for hazardous materials at levels requiring mitigation,
all remedial measures identified in the studies shall be shown on the
face of the gradingplans and/or incorporated into contractor
p
specifications prior to awarding the construction contract or
issuance of a demolition permit, whichever is first. All remedial
measures required by law shall be implemented and completed
prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever is
issued first.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any grading or
building permit.
Methods: Require all future development
projects within the Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment project area to implement any
remedial measures for the presence of any
potential hazardous materials, prior to issuance
of anygradingor buildingProponent.
permits.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoringuifidgaen Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, r,f the Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Verification: City
NOISE
MM N-1
To ensure that construction activities comply with the City's Noise
Ordinance, a Construction Noise Abatement Plan shall be prepared
for each construction project and submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, whichever is
issued first. The Plan shall describe the construction activities,
equipment required for those activities, and noise level generation
characteristics of the equipment to be used. Noise levels at the
closest residential use shall be predicted. If projected noise levels
will exceed the Noise Ordinance limits, measures to reduce those
Timing: Prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
Methods: Require the preparation of a
Construction Noise Abatement Plan for any
future development within the Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment project area prior to
the issuance of any construction permits.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoringuifidgaen Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, of
r, the Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent.
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-8
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
levels to comply with the Noise Ordinance shall be described and
implemented.
Verification: City
MM N-2
The structure compliance of all future development within the
Specific Plan Amendment area would be required to demonstrate a
closed -window interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential
sensitive use areas. Office space mitigation would be at the
discretion of the City of National City. Given this, a separate
architectural acoustical assessment shall be completed for each
proposed project within the project site, prior to issuance of any
building permits for the residential aspects of any future
development projects.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any building permit.
Methods: Require the preparation of a separate
architectural acoustical assessment for any
future development within the Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment project area prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, of the Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent.
Verification: City
PUBLIC
SERVICES
MM PS-1: Police Protection.
The Police Department shall review all future development projects
for police protection impacts and ensure that additional police
personnel and/or equipment are provided to provide acceptable
level of police protection services deemed acceptable by the
National City Police Department prior to issuance of building
permits.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any building permit.
Methods: Require all future development
projects within the Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment project area to be reviewed by the
National City Police Department for police
protection impacts, prior to issuance of any
building permits.
Implementation: City and
Applicant, Developer, or
Project Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
City
Verification: City
MM PS-1: Fire Protection.
The Fire Department shall review all future development projects for
fire protection impacts and ensure that additional fire personnel
and/or equipment are provided to provide acceptable level of fire
protection services deemed acceptable by the National City Fire
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any building permit.
Methods: Require all future development
projects within the Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment project area to be reviewed by the
National City Fire Department for fire protection
impacts, prior to issuance of any building permits.
Implementation: City and
Applicant, Developer, or
Project Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
City
Verification: City
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-9
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
MM T-1: Intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB
Timing: Prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
Methods: Require the installation of a traffic
signal when warranted by future development
within the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
project area.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, of the Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent.
Verification: City
on -ramp.
As part of the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Port Access
Improvements Project for the intersection of Civic Center Drive at
Wilson Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, Caltrans has prepared a Project
Report and traffic analysis which indicates capacity improvements
and a new signal for the intersection of Civic Center Drive at Wilson
Avenue/I-5 NB on -ramp, to be constructed in the near -term.
ULTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MM U-1: Wastewater.
All development projects within the Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment area shall be reviewed by the National City Public
Works Department to make sure that adequate wastewater facilities
will be available to serve the project. If the Public Works
Department determines the existing wastewater facilities as not
adequate the project developer shall construct the facilities
necessary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of
occupancy permits.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any occupancy Implementation: City and
permits. Applicant, Developer, or
Project Proponent
Methods: Require all future development Monitoring and Reporting:
projects within the Downtown Specific Plan City
Amendment be reviewed by the City of National
City Public Works Department prior to issuance of
any occupancy permits, to ensure adequate Verification: City
wastewater facilities will be available.
MM U-2: Water.
All water utility plans shall be approved by the Sweetwater Authority
to ensure that adequate water service is provided to the
development.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any construction
permits.
Methods: Require all water utility plans for any
future development within the Downtown
Specific Plan Amendment project area be
approved by the Sweetwater Authority prior to
issuance of any construction permits to ensure
adequate water service is available.
Implementation: Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent
Monitoring and Reporting:
Qualified agent approved by
the City, of the Applicant,
Developer, or Project
Proponent.
Verification: City
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-10
City of National City
Attachment B: MMRP
Mitigation Measures
Timing and Methods
Responsible Parties
MM U-3: Water.
Timing: Prior to issuance of any building permit
Implementation: Applicant,
The City shall require the incorporation of all state mandated water
and during construction and operation.
Developer, or Project
conservation measures. The City shall also require the additional
Proponent
incorporation, as applicable, of water conservation measures
including water efficient dishwashers, water pressure reducing
Methods: Require any future development within
the Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
andeReporting:
valves, hot water pipe insulation, and hot water on -demand units as
project
area to implement water conservation measures
Qualified
Qualified agent approved by
applicable.
into building plans prior to issuance of any
building permits.
the City, Developer,of the Applicant,
or Project
Proponent.
Verification: City
National City Specific Plan Amendment
Mitigated Negative Declaration
B-1 1