HomeMy WebLinkAboutCEQA ChecklistCALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Planning Department
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
1. PROJECT TITLE/PROJECT #: Municipal Code Amendment to amend sections 18.30.360 of
Title 18 (Land Use Code) related to fast food restaurant locational requirements.
2. LEAD AGENCY:
Contact:
Phone:
City of National City
Planning Department
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Martin Reeder, AICP - Principal Planner
(619) 336-4310
3. PROJECT LOCATION: All properties in the Major Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC-2) and
Major Mixed -Use District (MXD-2) zones that are within 300 feet of a residential zoned property
(approximately 408 parcels).
4. PROJECT PROPONENT: The Focus Holding Company, LLC.
5. ZONING DESIGNATION: Major Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC-2) & Major Mixed -Use
District (MXD-2) zones.
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is an amendment to the National City
Land Use Code, specifically Section 18.30.360 — Fast food eating places. This section currently
prohibits fast food eating places from locating less than three hundred feet from any residential zoned
property. The applicant is proposing to amend the Municipal Code to allow fast food outlets in the
MXC-2 and MXD-2 zones to be located within three hundred feet of residential zoned properties.
7. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The MXC-2 (Major Mixed -Use Corridor) and
MXD-2 (Major Mixed -Use District) zones are both areas of high -intensity commercial use. The MXC-2
zone includes Highland Avenue south of Plaza Blvd. and East r Street from Downtown to Interstate 805.
The MXD-2 zones are located at the intersection of Plaza and Highland, east of Paradise Valley Hospital,
along Sweetwater Road, and at Westfield Plaza Bonita.
8. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED (AND PERMITS
NEEDED): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Initial Study - Page 2 of 15
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
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Geological Problems
❑ Land Use / Planning
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities & Service Systems
❑ Agriculture
❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
❑ Noise
❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial Evaluation:
❑ Air Quality
❑ Energy & Mineral Resources
❑ Hydrology /Water Quality
❑ Population / Housing
❑ Transportation/Circulation
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 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.
X
o
o
o
Signature
Date
Printed Name: Martin Reeder, AICP
Title: Principal Planner
Initial Study - Page 3 of 15
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.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address 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.
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).
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.
Initial Study - Page 4 of 15
ISSUES with Supporting Documentation & Sources
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1,
2, 3)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime Views in the area? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
Projects subject to this amendment would still follow the National City Municipal Code and Land Use Code with
regard to building design, aesthetics, and glare limitations. The Code addresses site design and includes
requirements for the aesthetic treatment of commercial buildings. Any discretionary project would be required to
be reviewed under CEQA as appropriate. Thus, the amendment would avoid or result in less than significant
aesthetic impacts with the implementation of the City's design review policies.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural 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.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
Initial Study - Page 5 of 15
The City of National City does not contain farmland or agricultural resources, nor any land zoned for agricultural
use. As such, adopting this amendment will have no impact on such lands or resources.
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
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)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
The County of San Diego and National City are in attainment for all California Clean Air Act (CCAA) pollutants
with the exception of ozone. Adopting this amendment will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the
San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) to manage air quality in our region. The proposed
amendment does not permit a specific development, but rather allows for the potential of additional fast food
outlets in areas already designated in the General Plan for commercial use. No impacts are expected above what
has already been analyzed in the most recent General Plan EIR. Furthermore, each project will also be required to
undergo the appropriate CEQA review at the time of project approval.
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 (CDBG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Sources: 1)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
Initial Study - Page 6 of 15
plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Sources: 1)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Sources: 1)
t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1)
X
X
X
X
The City of National City is considered an urbanized region, with little habitat area for special status or sensitive
plants and animals. While there are sites in the City that may contain biological resources, the proposed
amendment does not permit a specific development, but rather allows for the potential of additional fast food
outlets in areas already designated in the General Plan for commercial use. As such, it will not result in increased
impacts to such resources. In addition, all projects subject to the amendment will also be required to follow the
requirements of CEQA, including all appropriate reviews.
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? (Sources: 1)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Sources: 1)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
The proposed amendment would not increase the developable areas within the City. There are no known sites or
areas within the City with archaeological or paleontological resources outside of historic or current riverine areas.
Although there are some sites identified in the City's Historic Properties List, none are specifically identified for
development under the amendment. Also, each development under the amendment would undergo CEQA review,
as required under State law.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Initial Study - Page 7 of 15
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. (Sources: 1)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Sources: 1)
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
The Rose Canyon Fault (a concealed fault) lies 2-3 kilometers to the north of the City. This amendment will not
expose people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, or similar hazards to any extent
greater than any existing ordinance for commercial development would allow. The Flood Map identifies 100 year
flood zones (Zones A, AE, and AO) within portions of the City adjacent to Paradise Creek and the Sweetwater
River. These are areas include 100 year floods at various depths. However, the majority of the city is in Zone X,
which is identified as a 500 year floodplain. The proposed amendment does not permit a specific project, but
rather updates the regulations when dealing with fast food restaurants. Also, all projects would be required to
comply National City Code requirements as well as undergo the appropriate CEQA review.
VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
Initial Study - Page 8 of 15
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
g)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1)
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?
(Sources: 1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The proposed amendment will not result in a release of hazardous materials or other hazardous conditions. It will
also not result in exposure to wildfire risk. While there are sites within the City that are within 1/4 mile of a school
or listed on the State Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list, this amendment will not result in increased
exposure to such hazards. All projects subject to the amendment will follow the requirements of CEQA, including
appropriate review.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
(Sources: 1)
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)? (Sources: 1)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
Initial Study - Page 9 of 15
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? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1)
X
The amendment would not prevent any projects from complying with Code requirements for drainage and surface
runoff concerns. There are areas within the City that are within the 100 year floodplain, but these sites would be
required to undergo the appropriate CEQA review before development that might be subject to this amendment.
The majority of the City is Zone X, which is identified as a 500 year floodplain. Construction of any and all
commercial buildings are required to meet applicable building codes for construction and seismic safety and for
construction within flood hazard areas.
IX. LAND USE & PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
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? (Sources: 1, 2,
3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w! Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
The proposed amendment would not physically divide an established community nor conflict with any established
land use plans. The proposed amendment does not permit a specific project, but rather updates the regulations
when dealing with fast food restaurants. The amendment allows for fast food outlets in areas which already permit
commercial development. Also, all projects would be required to comply National City Code requirements as well
Initial Study - Page 10 of 15
as undergo the appropriate CEQA review.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
The proposed amendment will not cause an unavailability loss of mineral resources, as no mineral resources are
known to exist within the city. In addition, any development subject to the amendment would be required to
undergo the appropriate CEQA review before development.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome
vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
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? (Sources: 1, 2,
3)
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? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adoption and implementation of the proposed amendment would not expose people to noise levels in excess of
established codes. Construction of any new fast food outlets would be required to meet standards required by the
City's Noise Ordinance (Title 12 of the Municipal Code). All projects would be subject to the National City
Municipal Code, which control design guidelines for drive -through restaurants, and would ensure a design that
would not impact adjacent uses (e.g., related to noise, glare, and traffic flow) and would undergo the appropriate
environmental review prior to approval and the start of construction. In addition, there are no areas within the city
that are within two miles of an airport.
Initial Study - Page 11 of 15
XII. 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)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2,
3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
Seeing as the amendment only affects the type of commercial uses permitted in commercial zones, no population
growth is expected either directly or indirectly. The areas affected are already commercial in nature; therefore, no
housing would be otherwise eliminated or people displaced.
XIII. 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:
Fire protection? (Sources: 1)
Police protection? (Sources: 1)
Schools? (Sources: 1)
Parks? (Sources: 1)
Other public facilities? (Sources: 1)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
This amendment will result in a wider set of allowable commercial uses in existing commercial -zoned properties.
Therefore, no addition impacts to services would be created above what existing or potential commercial uses on
the affected parcels would generate. Each project will also be subject to National City Municipal Code and any
applicable state codes with regard to the payment of the development's fair share of impact fees.
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Initial Study - Page 12 of 15
XIV. 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? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
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? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
The amendment will not impact recreational facilities as the amendment only affects commercial properties,
which would not increase the number of residents, and would not require additional recreational facilities or
associated impact fees.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,
the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
g) Conflict with adopted policies plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The amendment will not affect circulation patterns or impede the City in meeting its level of service goals. The
amendment will not result in unanticipated development, but rather will allow fast food outlets to locate within
300 feet of residential zoned properties in areas already zoned for commercial use. In addition, development
proposed subject to the amendment would be subject to the National City Municipal Code and would undergo the
appropriate environmental review prior to approval and construction. Since the City is considered built -out,
generally development that occurs pursuant to this amendment would be infill or redevelopment. Redevelopment
Initial Study - Page 13 of 15
would essentially replace existing structures with new commercial development and would not substantially
increase traffic or change traffic patterns above what has already been analyzed in the most recent General Plan
EIR.
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
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? (Sources: 1)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 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? (Sources: 1)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
(Sources: 1)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (Sources: 1)
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The amendment will not produce significant increases in demand for wastewater or stormwater infrastructure of
facilities above what has already been analyzed in the most recent General Plan EIR. Any projects subject to the
amendment will follow the appropriate CEQA review, including a review to determine adequate service
availability of appropriate fees to accommodate such services.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS of SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
Initial Study - Page 14 of 15
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? (Sources: 1)
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)? (Sources: 1)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? (Sources: 1)
X
X
X
No significant impacts to the environment as a result of this project have been identified. Adopting or
implementing this amendment will not have an affect on animal or plant life, eliminate examples of California
history, or have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Cumulative impacts of
additional fast food restaurants would not be over and above the same properties being developed with currently
permitted commercial uses. Any changes to the existing land use framework have been considered in the City's
General Plan and the City is prepared to accept the development anticipated.
Initial Study - Page 15 of 15
REFERENCE SOURCES:
Reference # Document Title
1 National City General Plan
2 City of National City Municipal Code
3 Environmental Assessment Form for project
Available for Review at:
National City Planning Departmen
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
National City Planning Division
National City Planning Division