National City City Council
September 5, 2023

PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT
WARRANT REGISTER # 52
6/29/2023
SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL HYDRAULIC JACK TROLLEY FY23-PW/EQM 364061 6/29/23 1,114.97 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 3/4IN CL 2 BASE FY23-PW/STREETS 364071 6/29/23 963.88 WETMORES MOP 80333 AUTO SUPPLIES-PW/EQUIPMENT FY2 364072 6/29/23 343.42 Total for Department 2,135,276.53
City Clerk
HUSSAIN REIMBURSEMENT - IIMC CERTIFICATION 364035 6/29/23 125.00 SHRED-IT RECORDS DESTRUCTION - SHRED IT 364059 6/29/23 300.00 Total for Department 425.00
A/P Total 2,256,676.13

PAYROLL
Pay period Start Date End Date Check Date
14 6/13/2023 6/26/2023 7/5/2023 1,352,054.21

SPECIAL PAYROLL
Check Date
6/26/2023 58,541.04
GRAND TOTAL 3,667,271.38

AGENDA REPORT
Department: Planning
Prepared by: Martin Reeder, AICP – Planning Manager
Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023
Approved by: Ben Martinez, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:

Consideration of Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Annexation of Two Properties Located at 3410 Valley Road (Bonita) and Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map for a 10-Lot Residential Development.

RECOMMENDATION:

Options

1. Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Annexation of Two Properties Located at 3410 Valley Road (Bonita) and the Tentative Subdivision Map for a 10-Lot Residential Development and Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination”; and Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Approving the Annexation of Two Properties Located at 3410 Valley Road (Bonita) and a Tentative Subdivision Map for a 10-Lot Residential Development”; or

2. Deny 2022-13 S, ANNEX based on findings to be determined by the City Council; or,

3. Continue the item to a later date in order to obtain additional information.

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

Not Applicable.

EXPLANATION:

Executive Summary
The application (Valley View Development Project) is for the proposed annexation of two properties (591-100-27 and 591-100-31) located in the County of San Diego’s jurisdiction, into the City of National City. The properties are located at 3410 Valley Road in the unincorporated community of Bonita and are pre-zoned as Small Lot Residential (RS-2). The Applicant is proposing to develop the property as 10 single-family residential lots with a private street connecting the development to Plaza Bonita Center Way. The property will also include a biofiltration basin on-site for stormwater management purposes.

Site Characteristics

The Proposed Project is located at 3410 Valley Road approximately one mile east of the intersection of California State Route 54 (SR-54) and Interstate 805 (I-805) within the unincorporated community of Bonita. Although the site is currently in the County of San Diego, it will be annexed into National City. The site is comprised of two parcels, totaling approximately

2.5 acres. The properties are pre-zoned1 as RS-2 and are considered Low-Medium Density Residential on the General Plan Land Use map. There is an existing single-family residence on the site, which would be demolished in order to redevelop the property (Condition of Approval).

Proposed Use
The applicant proposes to construct a 10-lot single family subdivision, which would necessitate the annexation of this site from the unincorporated community of Bonita into the City of National City. The two parcels making up the site would then be split into 13 lots and graded for development. Ten single family residences would be developed on 10 of the lots while the remaining three lots would be developed with a biofiltration basin for stormwater management, open space, and a private road connecting the development to Plaza Bonita Center Way as shown in the development plans (Attachment 4). A Homeowners Association (HOA) will be formed to maintain the biofiltration basin, private road, and open space.

Lot Number Size (square feet) Proposed Use
1 5,017 Single Family Residence
2 5,005 Single Family Residence
3 5,035 Single Family Residence
4 5,065 Single Family Residence
5 5,050 Single Family Residence
6 6,485 Single Family Residence
7 5,979 Single Family Residence
8 5,078 Single Family Residence
9 5,045 Single Family Residence
10 6,667 Single Family Residence
A 20,972 Private Street
B 5,934 Biofiltration Basin
C 6,667 Open Space (Drainage)
Total 106,782
(2.451 acres)
Analysis
The RS-2 zone typically permits one single-family residence per lot, as well as an ADU (and a Junior ADU if the property is owner-occupied). The applicant proposes to develop the new lots with one single-family residence per parcel. No architectural plans have been provided at this time, although development of the lots is not part of this discretionary action. The project would provide for 10 new homeownership opportunities.

General Plan

1 Properties within the City’s sphere of influence but not within our jurisdictional boundaries are shown on the City’s zoning map as being “pre-zoned”. If annexed, the pre-zone becomes the actual zone.

If annexed into the City, the Land Use designation for this property would be “Low-Medium Density Residential”, which allows for up to nine units per acre. In this case, the project is at a proposed density of four units per acre, less than half of that maximum. The current County of San Diego Zoning is “Rural Residential”, which has a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, twice the minimum in the RS-2 zone.

There are several General Plan Policies that are pertinent to this proposal, specifically:

Policy LU-2.3: Provide for a variety of housing types including, but not limited to, single-family attached and detached, multifamily apartments, condominiums, and mobile homes.

Policy LU 4.3: Promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.

Policy LU-7.1: Establish incentives to promote the use and development of vacant infill parcels and the intensification of land uses on underutilized parcels to realize the greatest benefit to the community.

Annexation
Since the pre-application phase of this project, staff has been in contact with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), who is charged with the authority over the establishment of spheres of influence2 and changes of organization for cities and special districts. As such, LAFCO approval would be required for annexation to the City of National City. With the understanding that the City would be proposing to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the project’s environmental review, LAFCO would assume the role of Responsible Agency under the CEQA for the associated reorganization with National City. A requirement for the applicant to complete the annexation process prior to the Final Map being recorded is included as a condition of approval.

Annexation of the affected territory would involve concurrent detachments from the following districts, as the City would assume responsibility for those services following annexation.  County Service Area No. 135 (Regional Communications)  Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District + Associated Sphere of Influence Amendment  South Bay Irrigation District
Subdivision Ordinance
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance as the splitting of the parcel conforms to NCMC §17.07.040 (C)

2 A sphere of influence is defined as a "plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local government agency as determined by the [Local Agency Formation] Commission”. Territory must be within a city or district's sphere in order to be annexed. For National City, this also includes Lincoln Acres.

1. All lots shall front on a public street, or on a private street if permitted pursuant to subsection (D) of this section.

2. The side line of lots shall be as nearly at right angles or radial to the street upon which the lots face as practicable.

3. The width and the minimum area of each residential lot shall be governed by Title 18 of this code (Zoning)

4. Lots must not be cut by a city boundary line. City boundary lines may be lot lines or centerlines of streets or alleys.

Because the property is not part of an established neighborhood within the City, there is no established lot pattern established that the proposed subdivision would conflict with.

Land Use Code
The subdivision is consistent with the Land Use Code because the parcels being created exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet. The average parcel size is approximately 5,443 square feet in size, although the properties vary in size from 5,005 to 6,667 square feet in size.

Findings for approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map
There are nine required findings for the approval of a TSM, as prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act:

1. General Plan Consistency – The proposed subdivision, at a density of four units per acre, is consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation, which specifies a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre (ADUs or SB 9 units do not count towards density calculations per state law).

2. Site physically suitable for proposed development –A residential project can be located on level building pads on the new parcels with appropriate grading (subject to a City grading permit).

3. Site physically suitable for proposed density – The subdivision can accommodate the proposed residential development and would not exceed the prescribed recommended density for the area.

4. No substantial environmental damage – The associated MND determined that the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or substantially impact biological or cultural resources with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND.

5. Would not cause public health problems – All necessary public services (sewer service, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.) will be provided, as required by approvals required for new construction.

6. No conflict with easements –There are no easements existing on the property the applicant is proposing to subdivide. The development would include appropriate new easements necessary for access, maintenance, and longevity of required elements.

7. Sewer discharge requirements – Discharge of sewerage waste will be addressed through a sewer permit, which is required as part of construction of a residential structure. The property is able to connect to the area sewer system.

8. Effect on the housing needs of the region – The project will provide for at least ten additional housing units, which will provide additional housing opportunities to meet the housing needs of the region.

9. Future passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities – All new construction proposed will be required to comply with the California Building Code, which takes such factors into consideration.

CEQA
As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National City reviewed the project to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

Based on the analyses presented in the attached CEQA checklist, it was concluded that the project: (a) would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, impact the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining 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) would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and, (c) would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No significant impacts to the environment, as a result of this project, have been identified. Approval of the project is not expected to have any significant impacts, either long-term or short-term, nor will it cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As such, it is expected that project implementation would not have a significant impact with respect to these mandatory findings of significance.

Although there were some potential short-term impacts identified in the CEQA checklist related to pre-construction activities (i.e. grading), the checklist concluded that the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or substantially impact biological or cultural resources with implementation of the mitigation measures identified below.

Mitigation Measures:

MM BIO-1: Pre-construction Avian Survey
MM BIO-2: Construction Fencing
MM BIO-3: Permanent Open Space Easement
CUL-1 Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring
CUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources

The project would implement mitigation measures to protect species through pre-construction surveys and through protection of the drainage, which supports riparian and non-wetland habitat.

In addition, the presence of a monitor during ground disturbance will reduce potential impacts to unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources.

The identified mitigation measures stated above are included in both the project Conditions of Approval and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is a required part of the MND (Appendix ‘A’ of the attached MND). The mitigation measures are as follows:

BIO 1: If construction occurs within the avian breeding season of February 1 through August 31, a qualitied Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction avian nesting survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction or grubbing. The preconstruction avian survey shall be conducted with a 300-foot buffer of all areas of disturbance. If the survey finds that there is no nesting activity within the area of potential disturbance, clearing and grading activities shall be allowed to proceed. If the survey finds an active nest, then clearing and grading shall not occur within 300 feet of the active nest until nesting activity has been determined complete by the qualified biologist.

BIO 2: The drainage shall be protected from direct and indirect impacts by providing a physical barrier between clearing, grading, and construction. A temporary silt fence shall be installed along the southern edge of Proposed Project impacts prior to clearing and grading.

BIO 3: A permanent open easement shall be recorded over the on-site drainage channel (Open Space Lot C on the Tentative Map) and shall include the following provisions. The open easement area shall be permanently fenced with a three-foot split-rail fence to discourage entry into the drainage. Maintenance of the area, including brush management for wildfires and removal of trash and debris, would be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association (HOA) and shall be reflected in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property. No vegetative removal within the drainage shall occur during the breeding season without prior consultation of a biologist. The area shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times.

CUL 1: A qualified archaeological and/or Native American monitor shall be present during construction activities that involve subsurface grading and/or excavation involving the disturbance of native soils more than 3 feet in depth. The monitor(s) would ensure that unanticipated finds are not damaged or destroyed.

CUL 2: In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during construction, construction should stop on the site until a qualified archaeologist can survey the resource and determine potential impacts and necessary preservation measures. Any archaeological resources that are found would be identified, adequately documented in the field, and/or preserved, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist.

CEQA Findings
The Environmental Checklist identified no potential significant effects on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The Lead Agency (the City) has found that there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation for this Proposed Project.

Comments
A Notice of Intent (NOI) was routed for comment prior to the MND being prepared. The NOI elicited comments from the County of San Diego, LAFCO, and Caltrans. Comments were related to the requirement to work with the County on a consistency review agreement related to a Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and to heavy vehicle transit permitting (Caltrans). LAFCO comments were related to the detachments discussed above. The former requirement is related to the fact that the property is located within the South County Subarea Plan under the MSCP. The agreement is required in order to set forth the responsibilities for ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the MSCP easement across the area.

Comments were also received from the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Cultural Resource Center in relation to the NOI. Their comments were encapsulated in the two cultural resource mitigation measure (CUL 1 and CUL 2).

Comments received in relation to the posting of the MND for comment elicited the same comments from the County and from Caltrans. These comments are addressed through conditions of approval.

Conditions of Approval
The Engineering and Fire Departments both provided comments on the project, as did Sweetwater Authority. Engineering comments were related to development and Final Map requirements. Fire comments were related to project design and permitting requirements (sprinklers, access, permits, etc.). All comments have been included as Conditions of Approval, which also include mitigation measures, agency comments (Sweetwater, County of San Diego, LAFCO, etc.).

Planning Commission
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the item at their meeting of August 7, 2023. Four community members from neighboring properties in Bonita spoke in opposition to the project. The Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval of the project to the City Council, based on attached findings and conditions.

Summary
The subject property is considerably underdeveloped with regard to properties in the City. It is also immediately adjacent to the City boundary and suitable for annexation. The subdivision would result in 10 new homeownership opportunities and would be developed at a suitably low density to avoid any impacts to adjacent communities or road networks. The proposed subdivision will meet all Land Use Code requirements and be consistent with the General Plan. Conditions of Approval will ensure that the property is appropriately developed and will meet all requirements of the Land Use Code and pertinent construction codes at the time of future construction.

Options

1. Certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve 2022-13 S, ANNEX subject to the conditions listed within, based on the attached findings or findings to be determined by the City Council;

2. Deny 2022-13 S, ANNEX based on findings to be determined by the City Council; or,

3. Continue the item to a later date in order to obtain additional information.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of approving this item. If LAFCO approves the annexation and the property is developed as described, the City will receive additional property tax revenue in an amount that is dependent upon the value of the land and improvements at the time. The incremental costs to the City for providing services to the residents of the area are expected to be minor.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Housing and Community Development
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is a project under CEQA and after Initial Study qualifies for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

CCR 15371.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Agenda Report posted within 72 hours of meeting date and time in accordance with Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable
EXHIBITS:

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution

2. Tentative Subdivision Map Resolution

3. Overhead

4. Site Photos

5. Tentative Map (Exhibit A-Revised, Case File No. 2022-13 S, ANNEX, IS, dated 4/19/2023)

6. Public Hearing Notice (Sent to 58 property owners and occupants)

7. Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3410 VALLEY ROAD (BONITA) AND THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A 10-

LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2023, and considered the staff report, written public commnets, and oral public testimony and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitiation Monitoring and Reporiting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City, California, considered said recommendation at a duly advertised public hearing held on September 5, 2023, at which time the City Council considered evidence; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report provided for Case File No. 2022-13 IS, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference; along with any other evidence presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and
WHEREAS, the action hereby taken is found to be essential for the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: That the evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held on September 5, 2023, support the following findings:

1. That the project does not 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, because mitigation measures identify remedies for potential biological and cultural impacts that may be identified during and after construction that will mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

2. That the project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, because the project is an infill development on a partially-disturbed property and is mostly surrounded by urban development. Existing improvements in the

area and the existing development pattern can accommodate the project without causing any impacts to the environment or to existing services. In addition, mitigation measures identify remedies for potential biological and cultural impacts that may be identified during and after construction that will mitigate potential impacts to a less-thansignificant level.

3. That the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project is a low-intensity residential development. As determined by the Initial Study for the project, both short and long term activities will have a less than significant impact on air quality.

4. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and, 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 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been added to the project as conditions of approval.

Section 2: That the City Council has considered the proposed Negative Declaration No. 2022-13 IS, together with any comments received during the public review process, and finds on the basis of the whole record (including the Initial Study and any comments received) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Section 3: The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reproting Program, as attached as Exhibit 7 of the staff report, and authorizes the filing of a Notice of Determination.

Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 5
th day of September, 2023.
__________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT 3
2022-13 S, ANNEX, IS – Valley View Development – Overhead

ATTACHMENT 4
2022-13-S, ANNEX, IS – Valley View Development – Site Photo

EXHIBIT A- REVISED
Case File No.: 2022-13 S, ANNEX, ISDate: 4/19/2023 Page 229 of 1838

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of National City will hold a Public Hearing after the hour of 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 5, 2023, in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA., to consider:

PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR

THE ANNEXATION OF TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
3410 VALLEY ROAD (BONITA) AND APPROVING A

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A
10-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing at their meeting of August 7, 2023 and voted by unanimous vote of members present to recommend that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended approval to the City Council of the Tentative Subdivision Map by a vote of 5 to 1 with one member absent.

Anyone interested in this matter may appear at the above time and place and be heard. The City Council will also accept written public comments regarding this matter via e-mail sent to [email protected]. Written comments from the public (limited to a maximum of three minutes) must be submitted via e-mail by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council Meeting. For information on registering to speak or on submitting written comments, please visit the City Clerk’s webpage at https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/city-clerk/public-comments.

If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice via e-mail, or through written correspondence delivered to the undersigned prior to the Public Hearing.

August 23, 2023
Shelley Chapel, Deputy City Clerk
Published in the Star News: Friday, August 25, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Annexation and Subdivision of 3410 Valley Road,
Bonita, CA
Valley View Development
Project
National City, California
ATTACHMENT 7

Draft Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Annexation and Subdivision
of 3410 Valley Road, Bonita,
CA
Valley View Development
Project
Prepared for:

National City Community Development
Department – Planning Division
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
May 2023

i
Table of Contents

1.0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ....................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Name .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 APN(s) .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................... 1

1.4 Lead Agency Staff Contact..................................................................................................... 1

1.5 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.6 Project Applicant Name and Address ..................................................................................... 1

1.7 General Plan ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.8 Zoning .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.9 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 2

1.10 Discretionary Actions ............................................................................................................. 2

1.11 Findings .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.12 Mitigation Measures included in the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects ........... 2

1.13 CEQA Compliance ................................................................................................................. 3

1.14 Impact Terminology ............................................................................................................... 4

1.15 Document Organization and Contents .................................................................................... 5

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Existing Site Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Surrounding Land Use ........................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Access/Circulation and Parking............................................................................. 6

2.1.3 Storm Water Protection ......................................................................................... 6

2.2 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Access/Circulation and Parking........................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Storm Water Protection ....................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Construction Activities and Schedule ................................................................... 10

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................................... 11

3.1 General Information ............................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................... 12

3.3 Determination ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .................................................................................. 14 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................ 14 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................... 17 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 20 IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 26 V. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 37 VI. Energy ................................................................................................................. 40 VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 42 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................. 46 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................... 49 X. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 53 XI. Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................... 57

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
ii
XII. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................... 58 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................... 59 XIV. Population and Housing ...................................................................................... 61 XV. Public Services .................................................................................................... 62 XVI. Recreation ........................................................................................................... 65 XVII. Transportation..................................................................................................... 66 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 68 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 71 XX. Wildfire ............................................................................................................... 75 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................... 77

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................................... 80

5.0 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 81

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

APPENDIX B APPLICATION MATERIALS
APPENDIX C.1 AIR MODELING: CALEEMOD RESULTS
APPENDIX C.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE LETTER REPORT FOR THE VALLEY

VIEW PROJECT
APPENDIX C.3 WATER RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
APPENDIX C.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE VALLEY VIEW

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
APPENDIX C.5 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL

SUBDIVISION SITE
APPENDIX C.6 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH

DRAINAGE STUDY
APPENDIX D AB52 CONSULT MATERIALS

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 AERIAL – VICINITY
FIGURE 2 AERIAL – PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 3 DEVELOPMENT PLANS
FIGURE 4 VEGETATION AND LAND COVER
FIGURE 5 USACE, CDFW AND RWQCB JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 PROPOSED LOTS
TABLE 2 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE

EVALUATION
TABLE 3 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE

EVALUATION
TABLE 4 SDACPD ATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
iii
TABLE 5 EXISTING LANG COVER AND IMPACTED AREAS
TABLE 6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – UNMITIGATED

CONSTRUCTION
TABLE 7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – UNMITIGATED

OPERATIONAL

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
ACM Asbestos Containing Materials
ADT Average Daily Trips
af Acre-feet
AIA Airport influence area
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATV All-Terrain vehicle
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAU Business-as-Usual
BMP Best Management Practices
BPS Best Performance Standards
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CGS California Geological Survey
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model®
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Clean Air Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFA California Department Food and Agriculture
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DOC Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
v
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Flood Hazard Severity Zone
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IS Initial Study
IpaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LBP Lead Based Paint
LED Light-emitting diode
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
MLC Mineral Land Classification
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MSCP San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program
MT Metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NOA Notice of Availability
NSD National School District
NWI National Wetland Inventory
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
O3 Ozone
OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark
OPR California Office of Planning and Research
PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Size
PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Size
PRC Public Resource Code
RMP Risk Management Planning
ROG Reactive Organic Gas
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCIC South Coastal Information Center

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
vi
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDNHM San Diego Natural History Museum
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
sf Square Foot
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SOx Oxides of Sulfur
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SUHSD Sweetwater Union High School District
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Prevention Pollution Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. EPA or
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
1 1.0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National City reviewed the Valley View Development Project (Proposed Project) described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.

1.1 Project Name
Valley View Development

1.2 APN(s)
591-100-27 and 591-100-31

1.3 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of National City
Community Development Department – Planning Division
1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950

1.4 Lead Agency Staff Contact
Martin Reeder, AICP
Planning Manager
(619) 336-4313
[email protected]

1.5 Project Location
The Proposed Project is located at 3410 Valley Road approximately one mile east of the intersection of California State Route 54 (SR-54) and Interstate 805 (I-805) within the unincorporated community of Bonita. Although the site is currently in the County of San Diego, it will be annexed into National City.

1.6 Project Applicant Name and Address
Laurence Tucker, Loan Partner
Valley View Development, LLC
2577 University Ave
San Diego, CA 92104

1.7 General Plan
Adopted: Semi-Rural Residential (SR-1)
Proposed: Low Medium Density Residential

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
2 1.8 Zoning
Adopted: Rural Residential
Proposed: Small Lot Residential (RS-2)

1.9 Project Description
The City of National City is reviewing an application (Valley View Development Project) for the proposed annexation of two properties (591-100-27 and 591-100-31) located in the County of San Diego’s jurisdiction, into the City of National City. The properties are located at 3410 Valley Road in the unincorporated community of Bonita) and are pre-zoned as Small Lot Residential (RS-2).

The Applicant (Valley View Development, LLC) is proposing to develop the property as 10 singlefamily residential lots with a private street connecting the development to Plaza Bonita Center Way. The property will also include a biofiltration basin on-site for stormwater management purposes.

1.10 Discretionary Actions
The Proposed Project will require:
 Tentative Subdivision Map Approval by National City
 Adoption of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)  Annexation approval from LAFCO and National City

1.11 Findings
The Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G) or Initial Study (IS) (see Section

3.0 Construction Activities and Schedule
Prior to ground disturbance, the existing 2,300 square-foot single-family residence on site would be demolished. Debris will be hauled offsite to a local landfill. Grading and clearing of existing vegetation on site would be completed, totaling approximately 1.888 acres. Approximately 1,565 cubic yards would be cut and backfilled with 4,230 cubic yards of fill. Site preparation would result in approximately 43,485 square feet of total new/replaced impervious area, a delta of approximately (+) 40,465 Construction would result in approximately 81,643 square feet of total disturbed area.

Environmental Checklist) identified no potentially significant effects on the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures. The Lead Agency, National City, finds that there is no substantial evidence that this Proposed Project would have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures, and therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate level of environmental documentation for this Proposed Project.

1.12 Mitigation Measures included in the Project to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included in Appendix A.

BIO-1: Pre-construction Avian Survey. If construction occurs within the avian breeding season of February 1 through August 31, a qualitied Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction avian nesting survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction or grubbing. The prePage 240 of 1838 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
3 construction avian survey shall be conducted with a 300-foot buffer of all areas of disturbance. If the survey finds that there is no nesting activity within the area of potential disturbance, clearing and grading activities shall be allowed to proceed. If the survey finds an active nest, then clearing and grading shall not occur within 300 feet of the active nest until nesting activity has been determined complete by the qualified biologist.

BIO-2: Construction Fencing. The drainage shall be protected from direct and indirect impacts by providing a physical barrier between clearing, grading, and construction.  A temporary silt fence shall be installed along the southern edge of Proposed Project impacts prior to clearing and grading.

BIO-3: Permanent Open Space Easement
A permanent open easement shall be recorded over the on-site drainage channel (Open Space Lot C on the Tentative Map) and shall include the following provisions.  The open easement area shall be permanently fenced with a three-foot split-rail fence to discourage entry into the drainage.
 Maintenance of the area, including brush management for wildfires and removal of trash and debris, would be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association (HOA) and shall be reflected in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property.
 No vegetative removal within the drainage shall occur during the breeding season without prior consultation of a biologist.
 The area shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times.

CUL-1: Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring. A qualified archaeological and/or Native American monitor shall be present during construction activities that involve subsurface grading and/or excavation involving the disturbance of native soils more than 3 feet in depth. The monitor(s) would ensure that unanticipated finds are not damaged or destroyed.

CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during construction, construction should stop on the site until a qualified archaeologist can survey the resource and determine potential impacts and necessary preservation measures. Any archaeological resources that are found would be identified, adequately documented in the field, and/or preserved, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist.

1.13 CEQA Compliance
CEQA [Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. and Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.] requires that the environmental impacts of proposed projects be evaluated and that feasible methods to reduce, avoid, or eliminate significant adverse impacts of these projects be identified and implemented. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment (Public Resources Code §21067).

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15002(a), the basic purposes of CEQA are to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project,

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
4 identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects through the use of mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, and disclose to the public the reasons why a government agency approved the project if significant environmental effects are involved.

To fulfill the purpose and intent of CEQA, this Draft IS/MND has been prepared to address the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. An IS/MND for a project subject to CEQA is prepared when an environmental analysis of the project shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. As discussed in Chapter 3.0 Construction Activities and Schedule Prior to ground disturbance, the existing 2,300 square-foot single-family residence on site would be demolished. Debris will be hauled offsite to a local landfill. Grading and clearing of existing vegetation on site would be completed, totaling approximately 1.888 acres. Approximately 1,565 cubic yards would be cut and backfilled with 4,230 cubic yards of fill. Site preparation would result in approximately 43,485 square feet of total new/replaced impervious area, a delta of approximately (+) 40,465 Construction would result in approximately 81,643 square feet of total disturbed area.

Environmental Checklist, the Proposed Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impacts with mitigation and therefore, an IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document.

Chapter 2.2.3 Construction Activities and Schedule
Prior to ground disturbance, the existing 2,300 square-foot single-family residence on site would be demolished. Debris will be hauled offsite to a local landfill. Grading and clearing of existing vegetation on site would be completed, totaling approximately 1.888 acres. Approximately 1,565 cubic yards would be cut and backfilled with 4,230 cubic yards of fill. Site preparation would result in approximately 43,485 square feet of total new/replaced impervious area, a delta of approximately (+) 40,465 Construction would result in approximately 81,643 square feet of total disturbed area.

Environmental Checklist presents the analysis and discussions for the following areas per the 2022 CEQA guidelines: aesthetics, agricultural/forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology/soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities/service systems, and wildfires. The Proposed Project was determined not to have the potential for significant impacts with incorporation of mitigation measures.

1.14 Impact Terminology
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts.  A finding of “no impact” is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect a topic area in any way.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
5  An impact is considered “less than significant” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.  An impact is considered “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant.  An impact is considered “potentially significant” if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.

1.15 Document Organization and Contents
This document has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, which outlines the required components of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The report contains the following Chapters:
 Chapter 1 – Introduction: This chapter provides a brief introduction to the project, findings, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND. It also provides an overview of CEQA requirements, and document organization.
 Chapter 2 – Project Description: This chapter describes the Proposed Project and provides details on the existing site conditions.
 Chapter 3 – Environmental Checklist: This chapter contains the evaluation of the environmental resource topics as outlined by 2022 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Each resource topic is analyzed to determine whether the Proposed Project would have an impact. If any of the evaluations results in a finding of an unavoidable and significant impact, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required.  Chapter 4 – List of Preparers: This chapter identifies the individuals who prepared the IS/MND.
 Chapter 5 – Appendices: This chapter contains supporting documentation for the preparation of this IS/MND.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The existing site is composed of two adjacent parcels (591-100-27 and 591-100-31) located adjacent to Plaza Bonita Center Way in the unincorporated community of Bonita. The site is currently unpaved with landscaping and a 2,300-square foot single family residence on site.

2.1.1 Surrounding Land Use
The site is bordered by residential development to the north and northeast; undeveloped land to the east; undeveloped land and then residential development to the southeast; undeveloped land and then Sweetwater Road to the south; and Plaza Bonita Center Way to the west. The site is abutted to the west by Plaza Bonita Center Way but is separated by a brick wall and sidewalk. Aerial photos of the project site and the vicinity are included in Figures 2 and 3.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
6 2.1.2 Access/Circulation and Parking
There is currently no direct access from the site to Plaza Bonita Center Way via driveway.

A brick wall and sidewalk separate the site from this roadway. A private, paved road maintains access to this site via Valley Road to the north. Vehicles currently park on unpaved portions of the site.

2.1.3 Storm Water Protection
There is approximately 3,020square feet of existing impervious area on site. A drainage canal runs diagonal across the site south of the existing residence. The length of the channel on-site is approximately 239 linear feet. The drainage that is subject to jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
7 Figure 1 – Aerial Vicinity

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
8 Figure 2 – Aerial Photo of Project Site

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
9 Figure 3 – Development Plans

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
10 2.2 Proposed Project
The Valley View Development, LLC (Applicant) proposes the Valley View Development project (Proposed Project), which would allow for the development of 10 single family residences. The Applicant proposes to annex this site from the unincorporated community of Bonita into the City of National City. The two parcels making up the site would then be split into 13 lots and graded for development. Ten single family residences would be developed on 10 of the lots while the remaining three lots would be developed with a biofiltration basin for stormwater management, open space, and a private road connecting the development to Plaza Bonita Center Way as shown in the development plans in Figure 3. An HOA will be formed to maintain biofiltration basin, private road, and open space.

Table 1. Proposed Lots
Lot Number Size (Square Feet) Proposed Use
1 5,017 Single Family Residence
2 5,005 Single Family Residence
3 5,035 Single Family Residence
4 5,065 Single Family Residence
5 5,050 Single Family Residence
6 6,485 Single Family Residence
7 5,979 Single Family Residence
8 5,078 Single Family Residence
9 5,045 Single Family Residence
10 6,667 Single Family Residence
A 20,972 Private Street
B 5,934 Biofiltration Basin
C 6,667 Open Space (Drainage)
Total 106,782
(2.451) acres

2.2.1 Access/Circulation and Parking
The Proposed Project proposes a private street connecting to Plaza Bonita Center Way to the west.

The private street would also connect to Plaza Bonita Center Way; however, it would be gated and intended only for fire department egress. A fire department Knox Box will be placed at the gate for emergency access.

2.2.2 Storm Water Protection
The existing drainage would not be impacted by development and would be located in Lot C. A biofiltration basin would be installed on Lot B, adjacent to the existing drainage.

2.2.3 Construction Activities and Schedule
Prior to ground disturbance, the existing 2,300 square-foot single-family residence on site would be demolished. Debris will be hauled offsite to a local landfill. Grading and clearing of existing vegetation on site would be completed, totaling approximately 1.888 acres. Approximately 1,565

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
11 cubic yards would be cut and backfilled with 4,230 cubic yards of fill. Site preparation would result in approximately 43,485 square feet of total new/replaced impervious area, a delta of approximately (+) 40,465 Construction would result in approximately 81,643 square feet of total disturbed area.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The environmental checklist provides a standard evaluation tool to identify a project’s adverse environmental impacts. This checklist identifies and evaluates potential adverse environmental impacts that may be created by the Proposed Project.

3.1 General Information
Project Title: Valley View Development
Lead Agency:

National City Community Development
Department – Planning Division
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
Contact Person and Phone Number:

Martin Reeder, AICP
Planning Manager
619.336.4313 ❘ [email protected]
Project Location: 3410 Valley Road, Bonita, CA
APN 591-100-27 and 591-100-31
Applicant:

Valley View Development, LLC
2577 University Ave
San Diego, CA 92104
Contact Person and Phone Number:

Laurence Tucker
Work: 619-988-5850
E-mail: [email protected]
General Plan Designation: Low Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: Small Lot Residential (RS-2)
Description of Project: See Chapter 2
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Single family residential communities and open
space. Plaza Bonita Center Way is located to the
west of the Project site.

Parking and Access Driveway from Plaza Bonita Center Way to culde-sac.

Electric Utility Service San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
12 3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The following environmental impact areas have been assessed to determine their potential to be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, environmental topics marked with a “” may be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. An explanation relative to the determination of impacts can be found following the checklist for each area.
☐ Aesthetics ☐
Agriculture/Forestry
Resources ☐ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ☐
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
☒ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐
Mandatory Findings of
Significance

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
13 3.3 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and that 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 significant effects in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 (EIR) is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects: 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date:

Martin Reeder, AICP
Planning Manager
National City Community Development Department – Planning Division

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
14 3.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
No topical areas on the CEQA environmental checklist were found to have unmitigated impacts exceeding applicable thresholds of significance with mitigation incorporated. All topics on the checklist were determined to have Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated or No Impacts, as discussed below.

I. Aesthetics
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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) In nonurbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact: No Impact
The Project site is located in unincorporated San Diego County within the National City Sphere of Influence (SOI). The National City General Plan (2011) identifies Gateways as public spaces with recognizable community identity, high quality appearance and/or harmony spaces between existing and new uses. No Gateways were identified within the vicinity of the project. The project site is located in an existing residential area and does not include a scenic vista.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
15 Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts to scenic vistas.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact: No Impact
There are no designated scenic highways or corridors in National City.1 Therefore, the Proposed Project is not located within a State-designated scenic highway per the Caltrans California Scenic Highway Program.2
The Proposed Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Applicant proposes the annexation of the two subject parcels from the unincorporated community of Bonita into the City of National City. The current General Plan Land Use designation of these parcels is Semi-Rural Residential (SR-1), and zoning designation is Rural Residential (RR)3 . Despite this rural zoning designation by the County, the parcels under National City jurisdiction that are adjacent to and that surround the Project site are zoned for Small Lot Residential (RS-2)4, as seen in the aerial for the vicinity (see Error! Reference source not found.). The Proposed Project proposes also to rezone the site to Small Lot Residential (RS-2). Under this zoning designation, the Proposed Project would be subject to the development regulations governing scenic quality in this area, consistent with neighboring parcels. With rezoning designation of RS-2, the Proposed Project would be in compliance with local development standards and zoning.5 Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on conflicts with applicable zoning and local regulations governing scenic quality. 1 City of National City. 2011. Comprehensive Land Use Update Draft EIR, Aesthetics. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/community/residents/iwant-to/new-advanced-components/custom-documents-images-calendar/-sortn-EName/-toggle-allpast/-sortd-asc/-folder-467. Accessed January 6, 2023.
2 Caltrans. 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed January 6, 2023. 3 San Diego County Countywide General Plan Map. 2023. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/advance/2017gpcleanup/Countywide_GPMap.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2023. 4 City of National City. Zoning Map. 2023. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=23330. Accessed January 6, 2023. 5 City of National City Municipal Code. Title 18. National City Municipal Code – Title 18 Land Use Code (nationalcityca.gov). Accessed January 10, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
16 Mitigation Measures: None
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Existing sources of light and glare in the vicinity of the Proposed Project are similar to those that would be found in any residential area, including the interior and exterior lights of buildings, streetlights, vehicle lights, and lighting visible through windows.6 The Proposed Project’s sources of light and glare would be consistent with existing sources of light and glare as a residential project and be in compliance with General Plan policies and development regulations, including lighting standards for residential developments.7 The Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on creating a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Mitigation Measures: None.
6 City of National City. 2011. Comprehensive Land Use Update Draft EIR, Aesthetics. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/community/residents/iwant-to/new-advanced-components/custom-documents-images-calendar/-sortn-EName/-toggle-allpast/-sortd-asc/-folder-467. Accessed January 6, 2023.
7 City of National City Municipal Code. Title 18. National City Municipal Code – Title 18 Land Use Code (nationalcityca.gov). Accessed January 10, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
17 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and 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 and 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 prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
   
c) Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land (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 to nonforest use?
   
e) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
18 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? Impact: No Impact
The Project site is not designated as prime, unique, or important farmland per the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).8 The Proposed Project would have no impact on conversion of agricultural resources as a residential development within an area zoned for residential uses.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impact: No Impact
The Site is not zoned for agricultural uses9 and does not have any existing Williamson Act contracts.10 Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, 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))?
Impact: No Impact
There are no forests or timberlands on the site.11 Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impacts to forestland or timberlands.

Mitigation Measures: None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Impact: No Impact
There are no forests or timberlands on the site.12 Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact on the loss or conversion of forestland.

Mitigation Measures: None
8 California Department of Conservation. 2023. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp.

Accessed January 6, 2023.
9 California Department of Conservation. 2023.California Important Farmland Finder GIS Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/app/ Accessed January 6, 2023. 10 California Department of Conservation. 2023. San Diego County Farmland Data, Williamson Act Enrollment Map. https://gis.conservation.ca.gov/portal/home/group.html?id=b1494c705cb34d01acf78f4927a75b8f#overview. Accessed January 6, 2023. 11 California Department of Conservation Maps. 2023. DOC Maps: Agriculture. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/. Accessed January 10, 2023.
12 California Department of Conservation Maps. 2023. DOC Maps: Agriculture. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/. Accessed January 10, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
19 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, 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?
Impact: No Impact
There are no agricultural lands or forestlands present on the site.13 Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact to the conversion of farmland or forestland.

Mitigation Measures: None
13 California Department of Conservation Maps. 2023. DOC Maps: Agriculture. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/agriculture/. Accessed January 10, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
20 III. Air Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
The Project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is governed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAPCD develops and administers local regulations for stationary air pollutant sources within the SDAB, and also develops plans and programs to meet attainment requirements for both federal and state ambient air quality standards (National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] and California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS], respectively). The SDAPCD and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the SDAB. The current regional air quality plan for San Diego County is SDAPCD’s 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County.14 The Attainment Plan, which would be a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP), outlines SDAPCD’s plan and control measures designed to attain the NAAQS for ozone. These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, 14 County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). 2020. Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att%20A%20(Attainment%20Plan)_ws.pdf.

Accessed January 30, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
21 including natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards. Mobile sources are regulated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the Attainment Plan and SIP.

Project Emissions Estimation
The Proposed Project operational emissions analysis was performed using the California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is the official statewide land use computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for estimating potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with land use projects under CEQA. The model quantifies direct emissions from mobile equipment and vehicle use, as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. The mobile source emission factors used in the model – published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) – include the Pavley standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The model also identifies project design features, regulatory measures, and available mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from the selected measures. As the official assessment methodology for land use projects in California, CalEEMod was relied upon for construction and operational emissions quantification, which forms the basis for the impact analysis.

To capture the most conservative total possible emissions from the Proposed Project, assumptions were inputted and modelled (i.e., assuming full construction and operations).

The Proposed Project area for CalEEMod input included 1.26 acres categorized as singlefamily residential land use type, 0.48 acres categorized as parking other asphalt surface land use type, and 0.29 acres categorized as user defined recreational land use type. This size metric of 2.03 acres was used to compute both construction and operational truck trip rates and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), along with estimated electric power usage.

Construction assumptions are included in Appendix C.1, but generally covers activities within demolition and its associated vehicle trips.

Criteria Pollutants from Project Activities
The use of gasoline or diesel fueled equipment and vehicles causes emissions of the criteria pollutants nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROGs), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and 10- and 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM10 / PM2.5). Diesel engines also emit diesel particulate matter (DPM) in the form of PM10. Use of architectural coatings (paints) and other materials such as sealants may also emit ROGs.

Results of Construction Criteria Emissions Analyses
Estimated construction emissions from on-road vehicles, clearing/grubbing, demolition of the existing residence, grading, etc. were calculated using CalEEMod, and the CalEEMod outputs are provided in Appendix C.1. Table 2 shows criteria pollutant construction emissions and evaluates these emissions against SDAPCD significance thresholds. For construction activities, the following CalEEMod input variable was calculated:
 5-month construction schedule (August 2023 through December 2023).

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
22 As shown in Table 2, unmitigated emissions of criteria pollutants from Project construction are below applicable SDAPCD significance thresholds, i.e., Less Than Significant.

Table 2. Construction Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Pollutant
Construction
Threshold
(tons/year)
Proposed Facility
(tons/year)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Nox 40 0.61 No
VOC 15 0.51 No
PM10 15 0.061 No
PM2.5 -- 0.039 No
SOx 40 1.28E-0.3 No
CO 100 0.65 No
Sources: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0,
Notes:

Tons per year are annual emissions for planned land use.

PM10/PM2.5 comprises fugitive dust plus engine exhaust.

Results of Operational Criteria Emissions Analyses
Estimated operational emissions from vehicular trips, electricity, and natural gas consumption were calculated using CalEEMod (CalEEMod outputs are provided in Appendix C.1. Table 3 shows unmitigated criteria pollutant operational emissions and evaluates these emissions against SDAPCD significance thresholds. For operations, the following CalEEMod input variables were calculated:

Table 3. Operational Emissions Summary and Significance Evaluation Pollutant
Operation
Threshold
(tons/year)
Proposed Facility
(tons/year)
Exceeds
Threshold?
Nox 40 0.20 No
VOC 15 6.5 No
PM10 15 1.2 No
PM2.5 -- 1.1 No
SOx 40 0.15 No
CO 100 8.5 No
Sources: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

Notes:

Tons per year are annual emissions for planned land use.

PM10/PM2.5 comprises fugitive dust plus engine exhaust.

Discussion:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact: Less Than Significant Impact

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
23 The SDAPCD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SDAB is in nonattainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the Attainment Plan and SIP, prepared by the SDAPCD for the region. Criteria pollutants of primary concern include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (including both respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter [PM10] and fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter [PM2.5]), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Table 4 identifies federal and state designations of attainment for each criteria pollutant.

Table 4 – SDACPD Attainment Designations
Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status
Federal State
Ozone (8-Hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (1-Hour) Attainment1 Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable2 Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment3
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified
Source: San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDACPD). Attainment Status. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html. Accessed January 30, 2023 1 The federal 1-hour standard of 12 pphm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans.
2 At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
3 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has not reclassified the region to attainment yet due to (1) incomplete data, and (2) the use of non-California Approved Samplers (CAS). While data collected does meet the requirements for designation of attainment with federal PM2.5 standards, the data completeness requirements for state PM2.5 standards substantially exceed federal requirements and mandates and have historically not been feasible for most air districts to adhere to given local resources. APCD has begun replacing most regional filter based PM2.5 monitors as they reach the end of their useful life with continuous PM2.5 air monitors to ensure collected data meets stringent completeness requirements in the future. APCD anticipates these new monitors will be approved as “CAS” monitors once CARB review the list of approved monitors, which has not been updated since 2013.

Locally, the county of San Diego has generated a Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) to maintain air quality standards by identifying methods of reducing stationary emissions with projected growth. According to RAQs, future projects that are consistent with Land Use designations and within growth models are therefore consistent with San Diego Regional Air Quality Plan. The annexation of the Project into National City would require rezoning designated as Small Lot Residential (RS-2). However, upon compliance review, the proposed project will comply with National City General Plan land use for the area and therefore would comply with Land Use designations.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and the overall impact would be less than significant.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
24 Mitigation Measures: None
b) 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?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
During construction, actions that could potentially increase criteria pollutants could include ozone, from generation of volatile organic compounds from a variety of sources including solvents, combustion of fuels, and pesticides as well as particulate matter from fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during the construction phase would be localized and temporary over the course of approximately 5 months. Operation of the project consists of residential occupancy of the site. Emissions during occupancy could source from combustion of natural gas for water heating, consumer products for cleaning, cosmetics or aerosols, landscaping with non-electric machinery and maintenance of the structures. As shown in Table 2 and 3, Construction and occupancy emissions would not exceed screening level thresholds for any criteria pollutants. Cumulatively, if projects are consistent with federal, state and local air quality plans, then emissions would be below screening-level criteria. Therefore, the project emissions impacts associated with a cumulative net increase of criteria pollutants are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
Sensitive receptors included in this discussion include schools, hospitals, day-care centers, residences, resident care facilities or any other facilities with health conditions that could adversely impact with declines to air quality. Sensitive receptors identified within 0.5-mile radius of the project site include residences directly adjacent and in the general vicinity.

During construction, the project would generate temporary emissions, in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. Diesel particulate matter is considered a primary toxic air contaminant of concern and is anticipated to be generated from construction activities that will require heavy equipment. However, reducing emissions would be accomplished by complying with City of National City Grading Ordinance and SDAPCD Rule 55.15 The project would be confined to a 5-month construction schedule and would therefore have less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
15 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2023. Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-55.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
25 Exhaust from heavy machinery use and solvent use during construction would generate odors. However, construction-related odors would be temporary and would not persist upon project completion. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
26 IV. Biological Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Wildlife 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, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
27 Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Methodology
The Biological Resource Letter Report for the Valley View Project, prepared by Athena Consulting, was used to identify and address potential impacts to sensitive biological resources.

Athena Consulting conducted literature review consisting review of the following:
 Rare and special-status plant and animal species were determined by reviewing California Natural Diversity and Data Base (CNDDB) records USGS 7.5’ quadrangle (National City) and surrounding quadrangles (La Jolla, La Mesa, El Cajon, Point Loma, Jamul Mountains, Imperial Beach, Otay Mesa)
 Plant and animal occurrence data from the CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Jepson Flora Project managed by UC Berkely and San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) publications including Amphibian and Reptile Atlas, San Diego County Bird Atlas and San Diego Plant Species in the SDNHM Herbarium Collection  Recent and historical aerial photographs of the site and surrounding areas  Soil maps and descriptions from the Web Soil Survey database managed by the United States Department of Agriculture and Soil Survey, San Diego Area California In addition to the literature review, two surveys were conducted on January 24 and September 16, 2022, to assess general biological resources, such as vegetation, land cover classification, wildlife observations, and jurisdictional waters of the site. Methodology of biological surveys is included in the Biological Resource Letter Report for the Valley View Project attached in Appendix C.2.

Existing Conditions
Vegetation and Land Cover
The Proposed Project is located on a partially developed set of parcels that currently has a paved driveway, house, and yard. A drainage channel is located towards the southern end of the Project site. A large California pepper tree and olive trees are present on site.

Figure 4 maps the six vegetation and land cover categories identified on the site. These land cover categories include the following:
 Developed Land – 0.19 acres and includes “Areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported.

Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. Areas where no natural land

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
28 is evident due to large amounts of debris or other materials being placed upon it may also be considered Urban/Developed (e.g., car recycling plant, quarry).” (Oberbauer et al. 2008). The land cover category has very low value for wildlife and special-status species.  Disturbed Land – 1.24 acres on site that has “Areas that have been physically disturbed (by previous legal human activity) and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association but continues to retain a soil substrate. Typically, vegetation, if present, is nearly exclusively composed of nonnative plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance or shows signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable natural habitat for uses other than dispersal. This land cover category has moderate value for wildlife or special-status species.
 Non-native Vegetation – 0.62 acres on site is characterized of having predominately nonnative species that was either introduced or established through human action.

Observations from the site survey indicate that this area is not artificially irrigated but receive water from runoff or precipitation.
 Eucalyptus Woodland – 0.23 acres on site has single-species eucalyptus thickets with scattered trees and well-developed shrub understory. Vegetation cover in this land class includes non-native species such as ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), petty spurge (Euphorbia peplus), and dwarf nettle. This land cover category has low to moderate value for wildlife or special-status species.
 Southern Willow Scrub – 0.12 acres on site is characterized as sandy, gravelly or rocky fringe with waters or flood channels that have 10% or less vegetation year around.

Vegetation found in this land cover include giant reed (Arundo donax), sea-fig or freeway iceplant (Carpobrotus sp.), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea var. miliacea), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Water lines are variable.  Non-vegetated Channel – 0.05 acres on site is characterized as dense, broad-leafed, winter deciduous riparian thicket that includes consists of one black willow and two arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis), with an understory of horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), castor bean (Ricinus communis), dock (Rumex sp.), and smilo grass.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
29 Figure 4. Vegetation and Land Cover
Special Status Species
A list of all potential special-status species that could occur at the Project site is located in Appendix C.2. The only sensitive special status species to have a high potential to occur on site is the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi). The Cooper’s hawk is found in open riparian, oak, eucalyptus woodland, open forested areas and has a high tolerance for urbanization. Breeding,

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
30 typically from March to mid-June, occurs in trees and lowland foothill canyons and urban areas.

No special-status species were observed during the biological surveys.

Raptors are also protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Bird nests and eggs are protected under the California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and migratory birds, and their nests are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The site has suitable habitat for foraging and nesting for raptors, non-game birds and migratory birds.

Waters of the US and Wetlands
A Water Resources Delineation Report was also prepared by Athena to delineate wetlands jurisdictional to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the State Resources Control Board as presented by its Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Appendix C.3). Methods include a desktop survey utilizing satellite imagery, US Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and the National Wetland Inventory (NWI as well as a field component to identify the potential three different jurisdictional boundaries based on field indicators. The Project site has a drainage channel located on the southern edge of the parcel.

The drainage channel is under CDFW, USACE and State Water Resources Control Board jurisdiction and is mapped in Figure 5. USACE’s jurisdiction was measured using the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) outer limit, which was observed to be 0.08 acres of non-wetland waters.

The top of bank and outer edge of riparian vegetation was used to map CDFW jurisdiction. The jurisdictional delineation reported that CDFW jurisdictional area includes 0.05 riparian vegetation and 0.16 acres of steamed totaling 0.21 acres.

Approximately 0.19 acres of non-wetland water is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB Waters of the state is a combination of the area within top of bank and portion of CDFW riparian vegetation.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
31 Figure 5 – USACE, CDFW and RWQCB Jurisdictional Features Discussion
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The only sensitive special status species to have a high potential to occur on site is the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi). The Cooper’s hawk is found in open riparian, oak, eucalyptus woodland, open forested areas and has a high tolerance for urbanization.

Approximately 0.14 acres of eucalyptus woodland will be impacted during vegetation grubbing during construction. The eucalyptus woodland land cover has low to moderate habitat value for sensitive or special status species. Eucalyptus woodland is characterized as a Tier IV land within the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
32 Plan, and under Ordinance No. 10039, which does not require mitigation.16, 17 Impacts to
this habitat type are not significant and would not result in impacts on Cooper’s hawk.

In addition, although not identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species, the Proposed Project also has suitable habitat for foraging and nesting for raptors, non-game birds and migratory birds. Removal of vegetation and noise during construction could result in impacts to nesting birds. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 addresses potential impacts to nesting birds on the project site. With implementation of MM-BIO-1, the Proposed Project would result in Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1: Pre-construction Avian Survey. If construction occurs within the avian breeding season of February 1 through August 31, a qualitied Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction avian nesting survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction or grubbing. The pre-construction avian survey shall be conducted with a 300-foot buffer of all areas of disturbance. If the survey finds that there is no nesting activity within the area of potential disturbance, clearing and grading activities shall be allowed to proceed. If the survey finds an active nest, then clearing and grading shall not occur within 300 feet of the active nest until nesting activity has been determined complete by the qualified biologist. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]?
Impact: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Table 2 Existing Land Cover and Impacted Areas
Vegetation/Land Cover
(acres)
Existing
on Site
(Acres)
Impacts
Neutral*
(Acres)
Impacted
On-Site
(Acres)
Impacted
Offsite
(Acres)
Mitigation
Ratio
(Acres)
Mitigation
Required
(Acres)
Developed Land 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.03 - 0
Disturbed Land 1.24 0.15 1.09 0.00 - 0
Eucalyptus Woodland 0.23 0.14 0.09 0.00 - 0
Non-native Vegetation 0.62 0.11 0.51 0.00 - 0
16 County of San Diego. 1997. Multiple Species Conservation Program – County of San Diego Subarea Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/MSCP_County_Subarea_Plan.pdf Accessed January 27, 2023.
17 County of San Diego. 2023. Ordinance No 10039 (N.S) –An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of Division 6 of Title 8 of the San Diego County Code Relating to the Biological Mitigation Ordinance. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/cob/ordinances/ord10039.doc Accessed January 27, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
33 Non-vegetated Channel 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 ≥2:1 0
Southern Willow Scrub 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 ≥2:1 0
TOTAL 2.45 0.57 1.88 0.03 0
Source: Athena Consulting, Valley View Development Project Biological Resource Letter Report, October 2022 *Impact Neutral applies to the drainage channel, which must be avoided, and the unusable strip of land along the southern edge of the drainage.

Direct impacts to Developed Land, Disturbed Land, Eucalyptus Woodland, and Non-native Vegetation are not significant and do not require mitigation, as shown in Table 2.

The two sensitive land cover categories, Non-vegetated Channel and Southern Willow Scrub would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

The drainage channel on site has riparian and non-wetlands under the jurisdiction of CDFW and USFWS, as shown in Figure 5. The drainage channel is characterized as Non-vegetated Channel, with gravelly or rocky fringe with waters or flood channels that have 10% or less vegetation year around. Vegetation found in this land cover include giant reed (Arundo donax), sea-fig or freeway iceplant (Carpobrotus sp.), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea var. miliacea), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). This land cover is characterized as high value, for it can be a water supply for wildlife and waterdependent plants.

No construction would occur within the drainage channel; however, during construction, it could be indirectly impacted from sediment or contaminant runoff during construction.

The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP), as identified by a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), would reduce indirect impacts. BMPs and the (SWPPP) would specifically include mandatory measures to prevent any movement of water, soils, or any material from the construction area into the drainage channel or off-site areas. These BMPs may include installation of silt fence and protective fencing between the drainage jurisdictional limits and ground disturbance during grading and construction and use of biofiltration basins to catch site runoff. All applicable construction BMPs and non-storm water discharge BMPs shall be implemented in accordance with City of National City minimum BMP requirements as included in the Municipal Code and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP). Drainage channels are also protected under National City General Plan Policy OS-2.2, which states:

Preserve the ecological integrity of creek corridors, canals, and drainage ditches that support riparian resources by working with California Department of Fish and Game to establish a plant palette that is satisfactory and providing for up to 100-foot buffers that protect against development impacts but allow for existing uses and limited future recreational uses.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been identified to comply with National City General Plan Policy OS-2.2 and to reduce indirect impacts to the drainage from construction activities.

After construction, indirect impacts to state jurisdictional non-wetland and wetland features could occur including trespassing, deposition of trash and removal of vegetation

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
34 for brush management during the breeding season. MM-BIO-3 would address indirect impacts from encroachment of residents by establishing a permanent open space easement on Open Space Lot C (the drainage area). The open space easement would prescribe the on-going maintenance responsibilities for the area within the drainage.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-2: Construction Fencing The drainage shall be protected from direct and indirect impacts by providing a physical barrier between clearing, grading, and construction.  A temporary silt fence shall be installed along the southern edge of Proposed Project impacts prior to clearing and grading.

BIO-3: Permanent Open Space Easement
A permanent open easement shall be recorded over the on-site drainage channel (Open Space Lot C on the Tentative Map) and shall include the following provisions.  The open easement area shall be permanently fenced with a three-foot split-rail fence to discourage entry into the drainage.
 Maintenance of the area, including brush management for wildfires and removal of trash and debris, would be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association (HOA) and shall be reflected in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property.
 No vegetative removal within the drainage shall occur during the breeding season without prior consultation of a biologist.
 The area shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated There are jurisdictional federal non-wetland and wetland features present on the subject property. No construction, removal of federal or state riparian or wetland habitat, or filling will be required from the Proposed Project. Direct impacts would not result from construction of the project because all development would be located outside the channel.

However, indirect impacts during construction and operation, as described above in section b, can occur. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-3 have been identified to reduce indirect impacts to construction and operation.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated.

No Impacts.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
35 Mitigation Measures:

BIO-2 Construction Fencing
BIO-3: Permanent Open Space Easement
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?
Impact: No Impact
The Project site is located in a residential area that is mostly developed and therefore could not serve as a wildlife corridor. The drainage channel could serve as a potential wildlife corridor; however, it does not provide connections to large and undisturbed blocks of habitat. The existing disturbed and developed conditions of the Project site also make it a poor candidate for a wildlife nursery. Therefore, there would be no impact to wildlife corridors and wildlife nurseries.

Mitigation Measures: None
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Ordinances regarding tree preservation on private property for National City are outlined in Chapter 18.44 in the National City Urban Forest Management Plan18. Per the section

18.44.120 Tree Preservation, “All trees over eight inches caliper shall be identified on the site plan and landscape plan with notations of trees to be preserved and trees to be removed”.

A large California pepper tree and olive trees are present on site. It is anticipated that all tress within the development area will be removed. Upon approval of the application, a landscaping plan will be submitted as part of the site plan review and will include all the requirements outlined in Landscaping Plan Ordinance 18.44.040. By conforming with local tree ordinance policies, the Proposed Project will have less than significant impact.

For trees within the open space easement, the applicant shall comply with tree preservation requirements in Section 18.44.120 of the National City Code and will include the following items:

1. All native trees within the OSE area shall be protected during construction through the use of construction fencing at or beyond the drip line of the tree or trees to be preserved, and/or silt fence and construction fence at or beyond the limit of the area to be preserved.

2. To protect and encourage the continued health and vitality of the preserved trees, the ground within the drip line shall be kept in a natural state. Storage of soils, construction equipment or other materials during or after construction within the tree dripline is prohibited.
18 National City. 2019. Draft National City Urban Forest Management Plan. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=24995. Accessed January 19, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
36 3. If non-native trees growing within the OSE area are to be removed in the future for purposes of riparian habitat enhancement, such removal must be done under supervision of a qualified biologist and after determining whether permits are required from the water resource regulatory agencies (USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB).

Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project is currently within the boundaries of unincorporated San Diego County, which is under coverage of the South County Plan of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Section 9.19 of the March 1998 MSCP Implementing Agreement (Implementing Agreement)19 addresses annexation of lands and states the following:

To the extent permitted by law, the County [County of San Diego] shall enforce the terms of the Take Authorization, Subarea Plan and this Agreement as to all persons or entities subject to its jurisdiction in the event of the de-annexation of a parcel of land located within another Jurisdiction. In all other cases, the Take Authorization shall not apply to any de-annexed lands unless and until the Take Authorization, the Subarea Plan and, if appropriate, this Agreement are amended to include the de-annexed lands. In the event land within the County’s jurisdiction is annexed to another jurisdiction, an agreement shall be reached between the County, the annexing jurisdiction, USFWS, and CDFG, as part of the annexation process, to ensure that any development of the annexed lands proceeds in accordance with the conservation goals of the MSCP (and, if the annexing jurisdiction is a Participating Local Jurisdiction, the goals of the Jurisdiction’s Subarea Plan) and sets forth the resulting responsibilities pursuant to the MSCP for ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the terms of this agreement and the MSCP as it relates to the annexed land. Amendment of the Annexing jurisdiction’s Take Authorization may be required in certain instances.

Therefore, as part of the annexation process, National City shall conduct a MSCP consistency review agreement with San Diego County, USFWS, and CDFW to identify resulting responsibilities, ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the Implementing Agreement. Upon MSCP consistency review agreement approval, no conflicts will occur to MSCP and therefore there would be less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
19 San Diego County. 2023. Multiple Species Conservation Programs - South County Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/mscp/sc/docsmaps.html#docs. Accessed January 19, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
37 V. Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Methodology
The Cultural Resources Survey for the Valley View Development Project, prepared by Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. was used determine if significant cultural resources were present within the project area to determine impacts (Appendix C.4). The archaeological survey consisted of a records search and field survey.

Records Search
A records and literature search for the Proposed Project was conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (See Appendix C.4). The records search included a one-mile radius of the Project site to provide background on the types of sites that would be expected in the region. The search indicated that the Project site has not previously been surveyed but only cursorily inspected for a cell tower placement project.

At least 49 previous cultural investigations have been documented within one mile of the Proposed Project. As a result of these studies, 28 cultural resources have been identified within a one-mile radius or the Project site, but none within the Project site itself. All but three of these are historic resources. The historic resources include 12 residences, a memorial park and associated buildings and cemetery, a commercial building, a club house, a bridge, an irrigation dam, a water guzzler, and an olive tree. The three prehistoric resources consist of a lithic and shell scatter, a shell scatter, and an isolated stone flake.

Field Survey
A field survey of the Project site was conducted on September 12, 2022, under the direction of a Project Archaeologist, accompanied by a Native American monitor. The entire Project site was surveyed in 5 to 10-meter transect intervals. Special attention was given to soil exposures. No prehistoric cultural resources were observed within the Project site. Surface

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
38 visibility was good, averaging approximately 70 percent. The cultural resources study noted that the Project site includes alluvial soil deposits where cultural resources could be buried.
a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact: No Impact
As stated above, the records and literature search of the project included a one-mile radius resulting in 28 cultural resources, with 25 of these categorized as historic resources. The records and literature search indicated that no historic structures appear within the Project site on early maps and aerial photographs. As summarized from field reconnaissance conducted in the cultural survey, areas appear to have been mechanically leveled in the past with a lack of surface historic or prehistoric material, indicating that no cultural resources are likely present in the project area. The Proposed Project would develop within the boundaries of the two lots. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the significance of a historical resource.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Although no known archaeological sites or resources are known to be located at the Project site per the cultural resource survey, alluvial soil deposits underlie the Project site, where unknown pre-historic and historic cultural resources could be buried. Therefore, project construction has the potential to result in impacts to unknown sub-surface resources.

Archaeological and Native American construction monitoring is required during all earth disturbing activities (MM-CUL-1). 20 In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during construction, construction should stop on the site until a qualified archaeologist can survey the resource and determine potential impacts and necessary preservation measures (MM-CUL-2).

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated on the significance of an archeological resource.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring. A qualified archaeological and/or Native American monitor shall be present during construction activities that involve subsurface grading and/or excavation involving the disturbance of native soils more than 3 feet in depth. The monitor(s) would ensure that unanticipated finds are not damaged or destroyed.

CUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during construction, construction should stop on the site until a qualified archaeologist can survey the resource and determine 20 Laguna Mountain Environmental, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resource Survey for the Valley View Development Project, Bonita, San Diego County, California.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
39 potential impacts and necessary preservation measures. Any archaeological resources that are found would be identified, adequately documented in the field, and/or preserved, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project is not located on or near any known burial sites. Per the cultural resource survey, the Project site includes alluvial soil deposits, where unknown pre-historic and historic cultural resources could be buried, including a potential for unknown human remains.21 Archaeological and Native American construction monitoring is recommended during ground disturbance activities (MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2).

In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions set forth in Public Resource Code (PRC) section 5097.98 and State Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 would be implemented in consultation with the assigned Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No further construction activities would be permitted until the coroner is contacted, as well as any applicable Native American tribes. The City is required to comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2001), the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), and AB 52 early consultation requirements. As regulations are in place to treat any inadvertent uncovering of human remains during grading, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1: Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources 21 San Diego State University South Coastal Information Center. 2022. National City Cultural Resources Records Search.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
40 VI. Energy
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project will utilize standard consumption of energy resources for residential development during project construction and operation. Project energy consumption will comply with the City’s General Design and Development Regulations (Municipal Code Title 18 Division 4)22 and mandatory energy requirements such as CALGreen23 and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR) 24 , along with applicable GHG reduction measures in the City’s Climate Action Plan25, which collectively contain energy efficiency requirements for all new developments.

The Proposed Project would therefore result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
22 National City Municipal Code. 2023. Title 18 Division 4. https://library.municode.com/ca/national_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT18ZO_DIV4GEDEDERE. Accessed January 23, 2023.
23 California Green Building Standards Code – Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations – CalGreen. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen. Accessed January 23, 2023. 24 California Energy Commission, California Energy Code – Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards. Accessed January 23, 2023. 25 City of National City Climate Action Plan. 2011. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23170/637120864517930000.

Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
41 Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Project energy consumption will comply with the City’s General Design and Development Regulations (Municipal Code Title 18 Division 4)26 and mandatory energy requirements such as CALGreen27 and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR)28, along with applicable GHG reduction measures in the City’s Climate Action Plan29 , which collectively contain energy efficiency requirements for all new developments.

The Proposed Project would therefore result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
26 National City Municipal Code. 2023. Title 18 Division 4. https://library.municode.com/ca/national_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT18ZO_DIV4GEDEDERE. Accessed January 23, 2023.
27 California Green Building Standards Code – Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations – CalGreen. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen. Accessed January 23, 2023. 28 California Energy Commission, California Energy Code – Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards. Accessed January 23, 2023. 29 City of National City Climate Action Plan. 2011. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/23170/637120864517930000.

Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
42 VII. Geology and Soils
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause
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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
43 Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Methodology
The Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Subdivision Site (“Geotechnical Investigation”) prepared by Allied Earth Technology was used to identify potential impacts of the Proposed Project on existing subsurface geotechnical conditions. An exploratory phase was performed on September 17, 2022, by Allied Earth Technology, which included reconnaissance and excavation of five exploratory trenches with Case 580 backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. Soils were visually and texturally classified by field technician and laboratory samples were collected to evaluate engineering characteristics.

The full Geotechnical Investigation is included in AppendixC.5.

Existing Conditions
The region is within the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by Mesozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks in the mountainous terrain to the east and late Cretaceous low-laying coastal terraces to the west. The Project site is underlain by late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial flood-plain deposits, likely in the San Diego Formation30, which were encountered to be dense to very dense dark brown clayey sands in the exploratory trenches. The formation is well known for its rich fossil beds that have yielded extremely diverse assemblages of marine species and rare remains of terrestrial mammals, and therefore has been assigned a high paleontological sensitivity.31 Exploratory trenches were made to a maximum depth of 8 feet below ground surface. No groundwater was encountered. In general, the City is characterized with a series of active and potentially active Quaternary-age faults zones that are in the northerly to northwesterly direction.

However, no evidence of faulting was observed during surface reconnaissance nor referenced in geologic literature for the Project site. a) Directly or indirectly cause 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 AlquistPriolo 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?
30 Mira Costa College. 2017. National City, CA 7.5’ Quadrangle. https://gotbooks.miracosta.edu/fieldtrips/san_diego_maps/san_diego_maps/maps_geology/national_city.html. Accessed January 30. 2023. 31 San Diego Natural History Museum. 2013. Appendix M Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Old Town San Diego and MidwayPacific Highway Corridor Community Plan Updates. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/appendix_m_paleontological_resource_assessment_0.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
44 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The following conclusions of the Geotechnical Investigation are as follows:
i) The nearest faults to the Project site are the Rose Canyon and NewportInglewood Faults, located approximately 6.4 miles away. The Project site is not located in a known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone area. 32 The
Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects as it relates to faults as no evidence of faults were observed at the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts.
ii) Conformance with project-specific geotechnical recommendations (as noted in the Geotechnical Investigation, Appendix C.5), along with local building code requirements would minimize impacts from future potential ground shaking on residents. Impacts would be less than significant impact. iii) Due to the soil types encountered during the geotechnical investigation and distance of groundwater from active faults, there is a low potential for soil liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant impact. iv) The Proposed Project is located on generally flat terrain and would not change slopes in a way that would result in landslides. Geotechnical literature did not indicate evidence of historical landslides in the area.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
The construction of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil as this infill development would take place on an existing developed lot. Earthwork would be accomplished in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and the current edition of the California Building Code. BMPs as noted in the Stormwater Quality Management Plan (Appendix C.6) and Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C.5), would be implemented to reduce erosion potential. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
32 State of California Department of Conservation. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed January 20, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
45 The Proposed Project is not located on an unstable geologic unit that could cause lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, nor is it located on a geologic unit that could become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Impact: Less than Significant Impact
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the soils encountered at the Project site have high expansion potential, with an expansion index of 95. Earthwork and design recommendations to address expansive soils is included in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C.5). Therefore, conformance with the geotechnical project-specific recommendations would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project would connect to existing municipal wastewater services and therefore would not require the installation of septic tanks or alternative disposal systems.

Therefore, no impacts would result relative to wastewater disposal.

Mitigation Measures: None
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Any proposed ground-disturbing activities that extend into previously undisturbed native soils have the potential to cause impacts to unknown paleontological resources. As discussed in the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site was underlain with late to middle Pleistocene old alluvial flood-plain deposits consistently two feet and below for all exploratory borings. According to Draft National City Final General Plan Update (FGPU), the Pleistocene-age deposits are determined to be low paleontological sensitivity 33.

Excavation into native soils is unlikely to unearth paleontological resources.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
33 City of National City. 2023. Draft Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report for the National City Focused General Plan Update. https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/ui/core/index.html?mode=public&shareto=#expltabl./SHARED/!2yAGd7IE9m3FHVvx86BTN/cJdt8Im0dD0Rrz4E. Accessed May 11, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
46 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Construction and Operation GHGs – primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), collectively reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) – are directly emitted from stationary source combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters, boilers, process heaters, and furnaces. Operational GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on-road vehicles and off-road equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emissions result from electric power generated elsewhere (i.e., power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and utilities at a facility. Also included in GHG quantification is electric power used to pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pipelines) and disposal and decomposition of municipal waste in landfills34.

Using CalEEMod, direct on-site and off-site GHG emissions were estimated for project construction and operation, and indirect off-site GHG emissions were estimated to account for electric power used by the Proposed Project, water conveyance, and solid waste disposal.

Results of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Using CalEEMod, direct on-site and off-site GHG emissions were estimated for project construction and operation, and indirect off-site GHG emissions were estimated to account for electric power used by the Proposed Project, water conveyance, and solid waste disposal.

Table 3 shows GHG emissions from construction. Table 4 shows GHG emissions from operations.
34 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm). Accessed October 14, 2020.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
47 Table 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated Construction Project Construction
(MT/year)
CO2e 110.6
Sources: SCAQMD, CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

Notes:

Comprises annual construction emissions (non-zero).

Table 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Unmitigated Operational Project Operations
(MT/year)
CO2e 309.4
Sources: SCAQMD, CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

Notes:

Comprises annual operational emissions (non-zero).
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Currently, San Diego County does not have screening criteria for greenhouse gases. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) thresholds published in April 2020 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds report was used to determine significance. The report determined that projects estimated to generate less than 1,100 MT CO2e per year would not result in a significant, cumulative impact35. This threshold was developed to demonstrate compliance with the statewide reduction targets in 2030 (SB 32) and the threshold was determined by SMAQMD to capture 98 percent of total GHG emissions. The project GHG emissions from land development was calculated using the CalEEMod. Results from the CalEEMod indicate that construction and operation are estimated to be 420 (MT/year).

Therefore, due to GHG emissions being below thresholds for air quality, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
35 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2020. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds for Sacramento County. https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/SMAQMDGHGThresholds2020-03-04v2.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
48 Several policies and plans have been adopted to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts from development including (1) Title 24 California Building Code, Part 6 establishes California Energy Efficiency Standards for residential and non-residential buildings to reduce energy consumption, (2) Title 24, Part 11 California Green Building Standards, (3) Senate Bill 375 which requires local agencies to adopt planning strategies for GHG, and (4) City of National City Final Climate Action Plan (CAP) As stated above in section a, the project will not result in significant cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The project has design features to reduce impacts associated with GHGs and will meet the following standards:
 California Code of Regulations 2019 Title 24, Part 6 California energy efficiency standards
 The project is consistent with compound annual growth rates for residential uses established through the City of National City CAP. As such the project will be consistent with City of National City goals and comply with New Construction Community-Wide Measures.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
49 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code §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 or
excessive noise for people residing
or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
50 a) Create significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
There is no expectation of the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the Proposed Project above and beyond hazardous materials typical of a residential household. Management of hazardous wastes and materials associated with standard residential construction would be in compliance with local and State regulations. 36 Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project would not 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. According to a desktop search of the California Waterboard’s GeoTracker database37 no active and open cleanup sites are located within 1 mile of the Project site, nor is the Project site a listed site.

It is noted that since the residence on site was built in 196438 the presence of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) and Lead-Based Paint (LBP) may be disturbed during demolition of the residence. Federal regulations did not prohibit the use of ACMs and LBPs until 1978, and thus, structures built during and prior to that era are likely to contain these materials.

Management of hazardous wastes and materials associated with standard residential demolition and construction would be in compliance with local and State regulations. All debris from demolition would be exported and disposed of off-site.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in creating a significant hazard to the public or environment.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact: No Impact
There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact.
36 Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2023. Official California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. Official California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5 | Department of Toxic Substances Control. Accessed January 11, 2023. 37 California State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed January 11, 2023. 38 Zillow. 2023. 3410 Valley Road, Bonita CA 91902 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3410-Valley-Rd-Bonita-CA-91902/17137231_zpid/.

Accessed January 1, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
51 Mitigation Measures: None
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Impact: No Impact
According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, the Project site is not listed on the Cortese list.39 Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact: No Impact
The Project site is not located within the airport influence area (AIA) for San Diego International Airport, Brown Field Municipal Airport, or Naval Air Station North Island, per the San Diego County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans.40 Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project is a residential infill project on an existing residential lot. The Proposed Project would add a new ingress/egress to the site from Plaza Bonita Center Way and therefore improve access to the site. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with local emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.

Mitigation Measures: None
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Wildland fire is an overarching term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation and natural fuels. Risk factors throughout the site include pockets of vegetation between developed areas and in the hills within the eastern areas of the Project site. The 39 State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control.2023. Site Mitigation and Restoration Program. https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-corteselist/#:~:text=The%20Hazardous%20Waste%20and%20Substances,of%20hazardous%20materials%20release%20sites, Accessed January 30, 2023
40 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (ALCUP). 2023. ALCUP Mapping Tool. https://sdcraaaluc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=945b3a6b12a34b158d8c9022251542e3. Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
52 Project site is located within an existing residential area which is within a high wildfire hazard risk.41
The Proposed Project is subject to review by the Fire Department for consistency with Title 15, Chapter 15.28 California Fire Code prior to issuance of development permits. The project has been determined to meet all Fire Code requirements. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with Title 9, Chapter 12 of City’s municipal code regarding weed abatement of any flammable material/brush.

In addition, the National City Safety Element includes goals and policies concerning fire safety and evacuation, including policies that were intended to reduce risks from structural fire, fire-related emergencies, and maintaining sufficient fire response coverage and resources.42
As the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Fire Code and comply with City code for brush management plan, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
41 National City, Safety Element Update, Figure SE-8 Wildfire Risk Map, March 2023: https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/url/EIRfinal 42 National City, Safety Element Update, March 2023: https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/url/EIRfinal

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
53 X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i) result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) 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; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Methodology

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
54 The County of San Diego Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) with an attached TM Drainage Study has been produced by REC Consultants was used to supplement the Hydrology and Water Section contained herein (Appendix C.6). The purpose of the SWQMP was to identify stormwater runoff handling that complies with the County of San Diego. The TM Drainage study, used to supplement the SWQMP, analyzes existing and developed condition 100-year peak discharge. Existing conditions consist of single point of discharge into the drainage channel. An existing culvert is located beneath Plaza Bonita Way, west of the site.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project is a residential infill development on an existing a residential lot.

According to the TM Drainage Study, runoff from the site drains to a single point of discharge to the existing drainage channel. Ground disturbance during construction has the potential to expose underlying loose soils that could cause erosion or loss of topsoil during rain or high wind events to drain to this creek. Under MM-BIO-2, the drainage shall be protected from direct and indirect impacts by providing a physical barrier between clearing, grading, and construction.

More than an acre of ground disturbance is anticipated; therefore, the Proposed Project is required to comply with conditions of the State Resources Control Board Construction General Permit. A construction SWPPP shall be prepared and maintained for the duration of the Proposed Project. All applicable construction BMPs and non-storm water discharge BMPs shall be implemented in accordance with City of National City minimum BMP requirements as included in the Municipal Code and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP). 43
According to the National City Sewer Management Plan, the Proposed Project is already served by National City sewer and municipal water infrastructure. 44 The storm drain system for the entire project is designed to route and convey all resulting runoff from developed conditions to existing point of discharge. All runoff will receive water quality treatment in accordance with the site-specific Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP).

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on violating water quality standards of waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Mitigation Measures: None
43 National City. 2023. Development and Redevelopment Requirements. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/engineering-publicworks/engineering-division/storm-water-program/development-redevelopment-requirements. Accessed January 13, 2023 44 National City. 2023. Sewer & Wastewater. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/engineering-public-works/public-works/sewer-wastewater. Accessed January 13, 2023

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
55 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is already serviced by National City infrastructure. National City receives potable water from the San Diego Water Authority (SWA). A water supply assessment was conducted for the Adopted General Plan which includes multiple areas such as National City, Lincoln Acres, and Paradise Village all of which are under SWA jurisdiction45. The water supply assessment concluded that water supplies under the scenarios of normal, single and multi-dry years meet the projected demands of the Adopted General Plan and planned development projects within the SWA service area through 2030. Since the Proposed Project is in conformance with the Adopted General Plan through the pre-zoning assigned, it is accounted for in this WSA and therefore would not impact groundwater supplies.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on groundwater supplies.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in a substantial erosion or situation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. 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; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
As detailed in threshold (a) above, BMPs would be implemented to reduce substantial erosion and therefore would not result in substantial erosion of situation on- or off- site.

With existing conditions, runoff from the site drains to the drainage channel located on Project site. An existing culvert is located beneath Plaza Bonita Way, west of the site.

According to the Drainage Study prepared for the Proposed Project, runoff from the Project site would drain to one receiving biofiltration basin, and then discharge to the adjacent drainage channel. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not alter the course of the drainage and therefore, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems, or impede flood flows. 45 Sweetwater Authority, Draft Water Supply Assessment, City of National City General Plan Update. December 2010. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4445/636090627169130000. Accessed January 13, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
56 Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Project site is within a high-risk dam inundation area in the event of failure of the Sweetwater Main Dam, however, the National City Safety Element contains policies meant to reduce significance of impacts in the event of flooding. These include:

Policy S-2.2: Ensure that new development adequately provides for on- and off-site mitigation of potential flood hazards and drainage problems.

Policy S-2.8: Promote the use of bioswales, tree wells, green roofs, and other infiltration mechanisms to reduce of the volume of stormwater runoff.

The Proposed Project is consistent with these policies.

In addition, review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mapping Service determined that Project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard zone.46 National City is not within a Tsunami Hazard Area as identified by the California Department of Conservation.47 According to the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance for Hydrology, no projects within the unincorporated County, where the Proposed Project is currently a part of, are likely to be inundated by tsunami or seiche.48 Therefore impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
As detailed above in threshold (a) and (b), the Proposed Project would implement BMPs per a SWPPP and SWQMP and would not impact groundwater supplies or recharge.

Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None
46 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed January 12, 2023.
47 California Department of Conservation. 2023. San Diego County Tsunami Hazard Areas. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-diego. Accessed January 12, 2023. 48 County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance – Hydrology. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dplu/docs/Hydrology_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
57 XI. Land Use and Planning
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Physically divide an established community?
Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project is an infill residential development on an existing residential site and would not introduce infrastructure that would physically divide the community.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
After annexation of the Project site into National City, the parcels would be rezoned to Small Lot Residential (RS-2), in compliance with the National City General Plan land use map for the area.

The Proposed Project would be reviewed for compliance with local design standards and ordinances, as well as General Plan policies related to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
58 XII. Mineral Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
a 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project is within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is characterized as being an area where significant mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data (California Department of Conservation, 1982). The closest likely significant mineral deposits, mapped as MRZ-2, to the project area is a small pocket from Willow Drive Bridge to approximately 0.5 miles from Sweetwater Reservoir. The Proposed Project is an infill development on an existing residential site and would not have any impacts on mineral resources.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
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? Impact: No Impact
No known locally important mineral resource was identified in the National City Adopted General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
59 XIII. Noise
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact: Less than Significant Impact
As a relatively small infill development, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Construction would be in compliance with the requirements of the City Noise Control Ordinance.49 In addition, as the Proposed Project is in conformance with adopted land use and zoning, there would not be an increase in ambient noise above and beyond typical noise levels for this type of land use.

Mitigation Measures: None
49 City of National City Municipal Code of Ordinances. 2023. Title 12 – Noise Control. https://library.municode.com/ca/national_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT12NOCO https://library.municode.com/ca/national_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT12NOCO#:~:text=The%20ordinance%20codifie d%20in%20this%20title%20shall%20be,2001%29%2012.02.040%20-%20Declaration%20of%20findings%20and%20policy. Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
60 b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project would be built on an existing developed residential pad, requiring minor earthwork during construction. The Proposed Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels as construction would be compliance with the City Noise Control Ordinance.50. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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 level?
Impact: No Impact
The Project site is not located within the airport influence area (AIA) for San Diego International Airport, Brown Field Municipal Airport, or Naval Air Station North Island, per the San Diego County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. 51 Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on exposing people residing of working in the project area to excessive noise level.

Mitigation Measures: None
51 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (ALCUP). 2023. ALCUP Mapping Tool. https://sdcraaaluc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=945b3a6b12a34b158d8c9022251542e3. Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
61 XIV. Population and Housing
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
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 people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed project is a small-scale infill project on an existing residential lot and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area directly or indirectly. The Proposed Project proposes 10 single-family residences. Since the Proposed Project would be consistent with local land use and zoning regulations, population generated by the Proposed Project would be within projected regional population estimates and local Housing Element estimates.52
Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project would increase the density of residential development on an existing residential lot. The existing residence on site is not occupied. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the displacement of existing people or housing.

Mitigation Measures: None
52 National City, Housing Element 2021-2019, Chapter 2. Community Profile, August 2021.

SANDAG, Series 14: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. https://www.sandag.org/data-and-research/socioeconomics/estimates-and-forecasts. https://www.sandag.org/data-and-research/socioeconomics/estimates-and-forecasts Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
62 XV. Public Services
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services. Would the project:
a) 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) 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?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
Fire Protection
The Project site is within the unincorporated community of Bonita, where fire protection and emergency medical services are provided primarily by the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District, with support from the Chula Vista Fire Department, San Diego Fire

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
63 and Rescue, and National City Fire Department. 53 The Project site is proposed to be annexed into the City of National City. National City’s Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency medical services in the City, and the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District covers the unincorporated area of Lincoln Acres.54 Service to this Project site would continue to be covered by the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District until such a time as their fire plans are updated to accommodate the change in service boundaries. As the Proposed Project is consistent with adopted zoning and general plan land use, the population induced by the Proposed Project is within projections that have been used for service planning. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the provision of a new or physically altered fire stations to maintain acceptable service and would result in less than significant impacts.

Police Protection
The unincorporated community of Bonita is provided police services by the Imperial Beach Substation of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.55 The applicant will propose that Project site be annexed into the City of National City.

Service to this Project site would continue to be covered by San Diego County Sheriff’s Department until such a time as their service plans are updated to accommodate the change in service boundaries. As the Proposed Project is consistent with adopted zoning and general plan land use, the population induced by the Proposed Project is within projections that have been used for service planning. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the provision of a new or physically altered Sheriff departments to maintain acceptable service and would result in less than significant impacts.

Schools
The unincorporated community of Bonita are served by three public school districts:

National School District (NSD) 56 , Chula Vista Elementary School District 57 , and Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD). 58 The site would be annexed into the City of National City. The City of National City is also served by NSD and SUHSD, as well as the Southwestern Community College District and the South County Regional, San Diego County Office of Education.59
As the Proposed Project is consistent with adopted zoning and general plan land use, the population induced by the Proposed Project is within projections that have been used for 53 Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District. 2023. About Us. . Accessed January 12, 2023. 54 National City Fire Department. 2023.Welcome to the National City Fire Department. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/fire.

Accessed January 12, 2023.
55 San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. 2023. Imperial Beach Substation. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/20/34. Accessed January 12, 2023. 56 National School District. 2023. Schools Directory. https://www.nsd.us/domain/84. Accessed January 12, 2023 57 Chula Vista Elementary School District. 2023. School Directory. https://www.cvesd.org/schools/school-directory. January 12, 2023. 58 Sweetwater Union High School District. 2023. About Us. https://www.sweetwaterschools.org/about-suhsd/. https://www.sweetwaterschools.org/about-suhsd/ January 12, 2023. 59 City of National City.2023. School & Colleges. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/community/schools-colleges. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/community/schools-colleges Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
64 service planning. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the provision of a new or physically altered schools to maintain acceptable service and would result in less than significant impacts.

Parks
The unincorporated community of Bonita is served by the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation.60 The National City Community Services department provides Facilities & Amenities including Parks & Fields, Programs, Senior Services, and Events.61
As the Proposed Project is consistent with adopted zoning and general plan land use, the population induced by the Proposed Project is within projections that have been used for service planning. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the provision of a new or physically altered parks to maintain acceptable service and would result in less than significant impacts.

Other Public Facilities
As the Proposed Project is consistent with adopted zoning and general plan land use, the population induced by the Proposed Project is within projections that have been used for service planning. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not warrant the expansion or alteration of other public facilities, such as libraries or community centers. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
60 County of San Diego Parks and Recreation. 2023. Home. https://www.sdparks.org/content/sdparks/en/home.html. https://www.sdparks.org/content/sdparks/en/home.htmlAccessed January 12, 2023. 61 City of National City. 2023. Community Services Department. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/community-services https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/community-services. Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
65 XVI. Recreation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
As the Proposed Project is consistent with adopted zoning and general plan land use, the population induced by the Proposed Project is within projections that have been used for service planning. In addition, the increase in population induced by the Proposed Project is not significant enough to warrant substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project is a residential infill project and does not include recreational facilities. As noted in Section XV Public Services under Parks, the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
66 XVII. Transportation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines §15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Proposed Project would introduce a private road and ingress/egress to Plaza Bonita Center Way in compliance with local roadway standards, replacing an existing unpaved private driveway. No existing or planned bike trails were identified within the project area or along Plaza Bonita Center way62. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts from conflicts with a local program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? According to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, “Many local agencies have developed screening thresholds to indicate when detailed analysis is needed. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects 62 National City. 2023. Draft Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report for the National City Focused General Plan Update. https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/ui/core/index.html?mode=public&shareto=#expltabl./SHARED/!2yAGd7IE9m3FHVvx86BTN/cJdt8Im0dD0Rrz4E. Accessed May 9, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
67 that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day (i.e. average daily trips [ADT]) generally may be assumed to cause a less-than significant transportation impact.” Based on ITE trip generation rates, this project is estimated to generate approximately 100 ADT (the total number of trips estimated for each single family detached units equals to 10 trips per dwelling unit multiplied by 10 units).63 This would be less than the < 110 ADT threshold, and therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts.

Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The Proposed Project is an infill residential project on a lot with an existing residential use, and therefore would not introduce incompatible uses. The Proposed Project would replace access from an existing private drive with a paved road with ingress/egress to Plaza Bonita Center Way, where there is currently none. To comply with National City emergency access / egress requirements, the private road would second egress point that is gated with a fire department Knox box. The emergency access gated egress will allow fire department to exit out into Plaza Bonita Center Way without conducting a U-turn. This would not significantly increase hazards due to this new intersection, as across from this Project site is an existing roadway into a separate residential development. The Proposed Project would effectively create an unsignalized, 4-way intersection at this location. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts in substantially increasing hazards due to a geometric design feature.

Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As noted above in (a) and (c) the new driveway to the Project site would increase accessibility to the site from existing conditions. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts to emergency access.

Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures: None
63 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018.Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
68 XVIII.Tribal Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.
a) Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code §21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code §5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
69 ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated No reservations exist within the City of National City. Local tribes identified by the NAHC to have traditional and cultural affiliation with the geographic area of National City were contacted for consultation by the City via letter in early January 2023 (see Appendix D).

Two responses, one from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (“Viejas Band”), was received via email on January 19, 2023, and one from Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Cultural Resource Center on April 4, 2023.

The Viejas Band noted that cultural resources of import to the tribe are within or located in proximity to the Project site. The Viejas Band request that a Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities and to be informed of any new developments such as inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human remains.

The Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Cultural Resource Center identified that the project is not within the boundaries of the recognized Sycuan Indian Reservation however it is within the Kumeyaay Nation’s traditional territory. As detailed in the April 4 letter, additional materials and requests to contact the Kumeyaay Tribes have been conducted by the City of National City and is included in Appendix D.

The Proposed Project would comply with all relevant sections of the Public Resources Code (PRC) as it relates to Tribal Cultural Resources.

Section 5097.5 of the PRC states that “No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.”
Section 5097.9 of the PRC specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burial falls within the jurisdiction of NAHC.

Section 5097.98 further defines the standards for handling Native American human remains. Section 5097.993 sets requirements for the unlawful and malicious excavation, removal, destruction, injury, or defacing of a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, which is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

In addition, Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation halt in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
70 those of a Native American. If determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.

With a monitor present during ground disturbance and with compliance with the regulatory context identified above, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
71 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The existing residence on the Project site is served by several utility services including potable water, sewer, communication, electric and natural gas. The site is connected to a 1-inch service lateral connected to a 12-inch water main on Plaza Bonita Center Way. A sewer mainline located under Plaza Bonita Center Way also services the existing residence. a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
72 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact:

The Proposed Project would connect to existing infrastructure for electrical, natural gas, water, wastewater, storm drain and telecommunication facilities. Since the Proposed Project would increase density on site from one residence to ten, it would require the following easements from service providers to expand utilities to adequately serve the additional residences:
 10-foot telephone/communication easement to Pacific Telephone  10-foot SDG&E easement for poles, wires and appurtenances  30-foot SDG&E easement for electrical and communication facilities  20-foot wide sewer easement
Each of these easements would be located in existing disturbed areas (i.e., roadway and on site) and would not require additional disturbance beyond what is accounted for in the development of the project. Therefore, no additional construction impacts would result from the installation of utilities.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less then significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Impact:

The Sweetwater Authority responded to the Applicant via letter on July 5, 2022, to the request for annexation of the two parcels including the subject property. Parcel 591-100- 31 is already serviced by Sweetwater Authority and parcel 591-100-27 will only require lateral connections for service. As noted above in Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, a WSA was completed for the Adopted General Plan area, which includes the area Project site is located within64. The WSA concluded that water supplies under the scenarios of normal, single and multi-dry years were adequate to meet the projected demands planned development projects within the SWA service area through 2030. Therefore, the Sweetwater Authority has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Proposed Project and the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on insufficient water supplies.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) 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?
64 Sweetwater Authority. 2010. Draft Water Supply Assessment City of National City General Plan Update. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4445/636090627169130000. Accessed January 13, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
73 Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project would connect the proposed residential development to the National City operated sewer main located under Plaza Bonita Center Way. The Wastewater Master Plan, which used SANDAG population projections through 2027 to assess future wastewater volume demand, noted that the general area has not been identified as a major contributor to wastewater volumes.65 Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the Adopted General Plan, and therefore assessed in the Wastewater Master Plan per SANDAG projections, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed National City’s wastewater capacities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction debris from demolition of the existing residence and excavation would not generate solid waste in excess state and local standards. Under Municipal Code Section

15.80.050 through 15.80.100, All construction would be required to divert waste from construction and demolition or have their deposit forfeited.

Operational residential solid waste generation would not exceed the capacity of local infrastructure as it is a relatively low-density development. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-8.1 describes the requirement that new development, including infill projects, provide fair share contributions toward the costs of the public facilities, services, and infrastructure necessary to serve the development, including solid waste. As noted in the 2011 EIR for the Adopted General Plan, local landfills have adequate capacity to serve the community through 2030.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on solid waste capacities and the impairment of solid waste reduction goals.

Mitigation Measures: None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact: Less Than Significant Impact
National City has adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element, a Household Hazardous Waste Element, and a Non-Disposal Facility Element in compliance with Assembly Bill 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. As noted above in threshold (d), construction of the Proposed Project would be in compliance with disposal regulations. The Proposed Project would not conflict with state or local regulations on waste reduction and therefore would have less than significant impacts. 65 National City. 2023. Sewer and Wastewater. https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/engineering-public-works/public-works/sewer-wastewater. Accessed January 12, 2023.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
74 Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
75 XX. Wildfire
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project proposes infill residential development on an existing residential site and would increase accessibility to the site with the construction of a road with access to Plaza Bonita Center Way. It would not interfere or impair existing emergency response or evacuation plans.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
76 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
As stated in Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Proposed Project is subject to review by the Fire Department for consistency with Title 15, Chapter 15.28 California Fire Code prior to issuance of development permits. The project has been determined to meet all Fire Code requirements. The Proposed Project proposes infill residential developments on an existing residential site and would not exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project proposes the construction of a private street connecting the residential development to Plaza Bonita Center Way. However, the installation and maintenance of this roadway and ingress/egress would not exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment as this is located within an existing urbanized community.

Mitigation Measures: None
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project proposes infill residential developments on an existing residential site and would not substantially change runoff or drainage on site in a way that would increase these risks. Surface runoff would discharge to the existing discharge points and would therefore not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
77 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential
to substantially 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 selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially 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 would
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
78 The Proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or substantially impact biological or cultural resources with implementation of the mitigation measures identified below. The Proposed Project would implement mitigation measures to protect species through pre-construction surveys and through protection of the drainage, which supports riparian and non-wetland habitat. In addition, the presence of a monitor during ground disturbance will reduce potential impacts to unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measures:

MM BIO-1: Pre-construction Avian Survey
MM BIO-2: Construction Fencing
MM BIO-3: Permanent Open Space Easement
CUL-1 Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring
CUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources 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.) Impact: Less than Significant Impact
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.

As described in the impact analyses in the sections above, a majority of potential impacts to resources are less than significant and would not require mitigation measures to reduce impacts. To biological and cultural resources, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project would not contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.).

All other pending, approved, and completed projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Project would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the National City Municipal Code, mitigate for project-specific impacts, and provide appropriate engineering to ensure the development meets all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and codes. As currently designed, and by complying with applicable codes and regulations, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact.

Thus, the cumulative impacts of pending, approved, and completed projects would be less than cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
79 Mitigation Measures: None
c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The analyses of environmental issues contained in this IS/MND indicate that the Proposed Project is not expected to have probable or substantial impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and would therefore have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: None

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
80 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

WSP USA
Stephanie Whitmore
Annie Lee, AICP
Elizabeth Diaz
Alexa Kerr

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
81 5.0 APPENDICES

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project

APPENDIX A - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Measure
No. Description Responsibility Timing Date Initial
BIO-1
Pre-construction Avian Survey. If
construction occurs within the avian
breeding season of February 1
through August 31, a qualitied
Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction avian nesting survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of
construction or grubbing. The preconstruction avian survey shall be conducted with a 300-foot buffer of
all areas of disturbance. If the survey
finds that there is no nesting activity
within the area of potential
disturbance, clearing and grading
activities shall be allowed to proceed.

If the survey finds an active nest, then
clearing and grading shall not occur
within 300 feet of the active nest until
nesting activity has been determined
complete by the qualified biologist.

Planning
Department Prior to construction
BIO-2
Construction Fencing. The drainage
shall be protected from direct and
indirect impacts by providing a
Planning
Department Prior to construction

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
Measure
No. Description Responsibility Timing Date Initial
physical barrier between clearing,
grading, and construction.

A temporary silt fence shall be
installed along the southern edge of
Proposed Project impacts prior to
clearing and grading.

BIO-3
Permanent Open Space Easement
A permanent open easement shall be
recorded over the on-site drainage
channel (Open Space Lot C on the
Tentative Map) and shall include the
following provisions.

The open easement area shall be
permanently fenced with a three-foot
split-rail fence to discourage entry
into the drainage.

Maintenance of the area, including
brush management for wildfires and
removal of trash and debris, would
be the responsibility of the
homeowners’ association (HOA)
and shall be reflected in the
Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the
property.

Planning
Department Prior to construction

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
Measure
No. Description Responsibility Timing Date Initial
No vegetative removal within the
drainage shall occur during the
breeding season without prior
consultation of a biologist.

The area shall be kept free of trash
and debris at all times.

CUL-1
Archaeological and/or Native
American Monitoring. A qualified
archaeological and/or Native
American monitor shall be present
during construction activities that
involve subsurface grading and/or
excavation involving the disturbance
of native soils more than 3 feet in
depth. The monitor(s) would ensure
that unanticipated finds are not
damaged or destroyed.

Planning
Department Prior to construction
CUL-2
Unanticipated Discovery of
Archaeological Resources. In the
event of an unanticipated discovery
of archaeological resources during
construction, construction should
stop on the site until a qualified
archaeologist can survey the resource
and determine potential impacts and
Planning
Department During Construction

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
Measure
No. Description Responsibility Timing Date Initial
necessary preservation measures.

Any archaeological resources that are
found would be identified,
adequately documented in the field,
and/or preserved, as recommended
by a qualified archaeologist.

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX B -– APPLICATION MATERIALS

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C – TECHNICAL STUDIES

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C.1 -–AIR MODELING: CALEEMOD RESULTS

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C.2 –BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE LETTER REPORT FOR THE

VALLEY VIEW PROJECT

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C.3 – WATER RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE VALLEY

VIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C.5 – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SITE

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX C.6 – STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH

DRAINAGE STUDY

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Valley View Development Project
APPENDIX D – AB52 CONSULTATION LETTER AND RESPONSES

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3410 VALLEY ROAD (BONITA) AND A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WHEREAS, application was made for the annexation of two properties at 3410 Valley Road (Bonita) and a Tentative Subdivision Map for a 10-lot residential development lots at property generally described as:

See attached EXHIBIT “A”
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2023, and recommended that the City Council approve the Tentative Subdivision Map for a 10-lot residential development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City, California, considered said applications at a duly advertised public hearing held on September 5, 2023, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report provided for Case File No. 2022-13 S, ANNEX, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference; along with any other evidence presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and
WHEREAS, the action hereby taken is found to be essential for the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section1: That the evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held on September 5, 2023, support the following findings:

1. The proposed map is consistent with the National City General Plan because the proposed subdivision, at a density of four units per acre, is consistent with the LowMedium Density Residential land use designation, which specifies a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre.

2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development because a residential project can be located on level building pads on the new parcels with appropriate grading (subject to a City grading permit).

3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the new parcel can accommodate the proposed residential development and would not exceed the prescribed recommended density for the area.

4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) determined that the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or substantially impact biological or cultural resources with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND.

5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed/required improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because all necessary public services (sewer service, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.) will be provided, as required by approvals required for new construction.

6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed/required improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision because there are no easements existing on the property the applicant is proposing to subdivide and the development would include appropriate new easements necessary for access, maintenance, and longevity of required elements.

7. The discharge of sewerage waste from the subdivision into the City of National City sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code, as specified by Government Code Section 66474.6 because discharge of sewerage waste will be addressed through a sewer permit, which is required as part of construction of a residential development.

8. The subdivision has been considered by the Planning Commission with regard to its effect on the housing needs of the region, and these needs are balanced by the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources because the project will provide for at least ten additional housing units, which will provide additional housing opportunities to meet the housing needs of the region.

9. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, based on consideration of local climate, topography, property configuration and other design and improvement requirements without requiring reduction in allowable density or lot coverage because all new construction proposed in the future will be in compliance with the California Building Code, which takes such factors in to consideration.

Section 2: That the application for the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved subject to the following conditions:

General

1. This Tentative Subdivision Map authorizes a thirteen lot subdivision for 10 residential parcels, one parcel comprised of a private street, on parcel comprised of common open space, and one parcel comprising a permanent open space easement (basin) at property located at 3410 Valley Road. Except as required by Conditions of Approval, all plans submitted for permits associated with the project shall conform with Exhibit A-Revised, Case File No. 2022-13 S, ANNEX, IS, dated 4/19/23.

2. This Tentative Subdivision Map shall not become effective until the Mitigation Negative Declaration associated with the project has been certified and the Notice of Determination filed.

3. This Tentative Subdivision Map shall not become effective until the post-entitlement annexation process with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has been completed.

4. Before this Tentative Subdivision Map shall become effective, the applicant and/or property owner shall sign and have notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Department, acknowledging and accepting all conditions imposed upon the approval of this permit. Failure to return the signed and notarized Acceptance Form within 30 days of its receipt shall automatically terminate the Tentative Parcel Map. The applicant shall also submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that a Notice of Restriction on Real Property is recorded with the County Recorder. The applicant shall pay necessary recording fees to the County. The Notice of Restriction shall provide information that conditions imposed by approval of the Tentative Parcel Map are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. The Notice of Restriction shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and signed by the Community Development Director prior to recordation.

5. Approval of the tentative map expires two (2) years after adoption of the resolution of approval at 6:00 p.m. unless prior to that date a request for a time extension not exceeding three (3) years has been filed as provided by National City Municipal Code §17.04.070.

6. Within four (4) days of approval, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 711.4 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5, the applicant shall pay all necessary environmental filing fees for the San Diego County Clerk. Checks shall be made payable to the County Clerk. The current fee to record the Notice of Determination for a Mitigated Negative Declaration is $2,764 plus associated fees, but may be subject to change.

Building

7. Plans submitted for demolition and construction improvements shall comply with the 2022 edition of the California Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Accessibility, Green, Energy and Fire Codes.

Engineering

8. A Hydrology study (100 year flood) is required for the new project. The study should consider the proposed project area to the closest municipal storm drain collection point.

The study should consider the adequacy of the existing storm drain system to convey any additional run off. All Hydrology study findings and recommendations are part of Engineering Department requirements.

9. The Storm Water BMP Requirements Applicability Form I-1 and if required I-2 checklist for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is required to be completed and submitted to the Engineering Department. The checklist will be required when a project site is submitted for review of the City Departments. The checklist is available at the Engineering Division web site (http://www.nationalcityca.gov/citygovernment/engineering-public-works/engineering-division/online-services-forms-fees).

If it is determined that the project is subject to the “Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements” and the City of National City Storm Water Best Management Practices of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) approved Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) documentation will be required prior to issuance of an applicable engineering permit. The SUSMP shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.

10. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the maintenance of the proposed construction shall be undertaken in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations which may require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. An approved SWPPP will be required prior to issuing of a construction permit

11. All surface run-off shall be treated with an approved Standard Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) Best Management Practice (BMP) for all Priority SUSMP projects. No runoff will be permitted to flow over the sidewalk. Adjacent properties shall be protected from surface run-off resulting from this development.

12. All existing and proposed curb inlet on property shall be provided with a “No Dumping” signage in accordance with the NPDES program.

13. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for discharges of storm water runoff associated with construction greater than 1 acre activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in a land disturbance. A construction storm water permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of shall be given to the City of National City Engineering Department prior to any work beginning on the project.

14. A Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

15. A hydromodification plan or a letter sealed and signed by the Engineer of Work explaining why the project is exempt from hydromodification requirements shall be submitted.

16. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted showing all of the proposed and existing on-site and off-site improvements. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s standard requirements by a Registered Civil Engineer. All necessary measures for

prevention of storm water pollution and hazardous material run-off to the public storm drain system from the proposed parking lot or development shall be implemented with the design of the grading. This shall include the provision of such devices as storm drain interceptors, clarifiers, or filters. Best Management Practices for the maintenance of the parking lot, including sampling, monitoring, and cleaning of private catch basins and storm drains, shall be undertaken in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. A private storm water treatment maintenance agreement shall be signed and recorded. A check list for preparation of the grading plan/drainage plan is available at the Engineering Department.

17. A sewer permit will be required. The method of sewage collection and disposal shall be shown on the grading/drainage plan. Any new sewer lateral in the City right-of-way shall be 6 inch in size with a clean out. A sewer stamp “S” shall be provided on the curb to mark the location of the lateral.

18. Separate street and sewer plans prepared by Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted showing all of the existing and proposed improvements. The plans shall be in accordance with City requirements.

19. A soils engineering report shall be submitted for the Engineering Department’s review, after Planning Commission approval. The report shall address the stability of all of the existing and proposed slopes on the property. It shall also address the adequacy of the building pads, the criteria for any new retaining wall design, the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure and the required pavement structural sections for the proposed streets, the parking areas, and the driveways. As a minimum, the parking lot pavement sections shall be 2 inch A.C. over 4 inch Class II aggregate base. The street pavement sections shall be in accordance with National City modified Standard Drawing G-34. All soils report findings and recommendations shall be part of the Engineering Department requirements.

20. A title report shall be submitted to the Engineering Department, after the Planning Commission approval, for review of all existing easements and the ownership at the property.

21. All NEW dwellings are subject to Development Impact Fee according to the current fee schedule at the time of Permit issuance. This includes new homes, condos and apartments.

22. A cost estimate for all of the proposed grading, drainage, street improvements, landscaping and retaining wall work shall be submitted with the plans. A performance bond equal to the approved cost estimate shall be posted. Three percent (3%) of the estimated cost shall also be deposited with the City as an initial cost for plan checking and inspection services at the time the plans are submitted. The deposit is subject to adjustment according to actual worked hours and consultant services.

23. The property owner, or its successors and assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, or reconstruction of all irrigation and landscaping improvements installed within the public right-of-way. Sprinkler heads shall be adjusted so as to prevent overspray upon the public sidewalk or the street. The proposed sprinkler heads shall be installed behind the sidewalk, and the irrigation mainline upon private property

only, as required by the City. The property owner or, its successors or assigns, shall be remove and relocate all irrigation items from the public right-of-way at no cost to the City, and within a reasonable time frame upon a written notification by the City Engineer.

24. Metallic identification tape shall be placed between the bottom layer of the finished surface and the top of all irrigation lines in the public right-of-way.

25. No building encroachment will be allowed within any existing or proposed easements.

The easements shall be shown on the plans.

26. The deteriorated portions of the existing street improvements along the property frontages shall be removed and replaced. Specifically Those portions of the sidewalk, curb and gutter as marked out in the field.

27. Street pavement repair will be required in the form of a two-inch asphalt cap over the easterly half of Plaza Bonita Center Way from the street center line to the gutter edge extending from the northerly property line to the southerly property line as extended through the right of way. Full depth restorations of the street shall be required at those locations as marked out in the field.

28. The existing street improvements along the property frontage(s) shall be kept free from weed growth by the use of special weed killers, or other approved methods.

29. All existing survey monuments, including any benchmark, within the boundaries of the project shall be shown on the plans. If disturbed, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall restore them after completion of the work. A Corner Record shall be filed with the County of San Diego Recorder. A copy of the documents filed shall be given to the City of National City Engineering Department as soon as filed.

30. A permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department for all improvement work within the public right-of-way, and any grading construction on private property as shown in the grading and improvement plans.

31. Street improvements shall be in accordance with the City Standards. All missing street improvements shall be constructed. Abandoned driveway aprons shall be replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalks.

32. The curb returns at the corners of Private Street “A” and Plaza Bonita Center Way shall be provided with new pedestrian ramps and shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings. A separate street improvement plan will be required for the improvement work. The plan shall show the relocation of all existing improvements, such as fire hydrant, utility boxes, poles etc. in conflict with the work.

33. NO PARKING zone(s) (red curbing) shall be provided along the entire Private Street “A” including the street knuckle and cul-de-sac areas.

34. The existing wall along the property frontage adjacent to Plaza Bonita Center Way shall be repaired, replaced or removed due to the existing damage.

35. All electrical, telephone and similar distribution service wires for the new structure(s) shall be placed underground.

36. The final parcel map shall meet all of the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, and the City of National City Municipal Codes including certification, acknowledgement, complete boundary information and monumentation.

37. The developer shall submit to the Fire Department a letter from Sweetwater Authority stating existing fire flow. If determined by the Fire Department that additional improvements are needed, the developer shall enter into an agreement for the water improvements with the Sweetwater Authority prior to obtaining the final map approval.

38. Separate water and sewer laterals shall be provided to each lot/parcel.

39. The developer shall bond for the monumentation, the public improvements and the onsite grading, drainage, landscaping, and other improvements through a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City prior to the approval of the final map.

40. SUSMP documentation must be submitted and approved.

41. All utilities distribution facilities within the boundaries of the subdivision, and within the half street abutting the new subdivision, shall be placed underground.

42. The final map shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit.

43. All new property line survey monuments shall be set on private property, unless otherwise approved.

Fire

44. Plans submitted for improvements must comply with the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current editions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

45. Fire alarms and fire sprinklers shall be evaluated and installed for the intended use per code requirements.

46. Fire apparatus access roads shall comply with the requirements of Section 5 CFC 2013 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus

47. The required width of emergency fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. All access roads shall be no less than 20 feet wide, no less than 14 feet high and shall have an all-weather road with the ability to support 75,000 pounds or greater. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. A 28 foot turning radius is required for fire department access through site. All fire department access roads shall be painted and signed to prevent parking in these required designated emergency areas.

48. Parking shall not impact requirements of any required turn-around provision or roadway at any time.

49. Approved signs or other approved notices or markings (Red Curb) that include “NO PARKING – FIRE LANE” shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are

designed shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility.

50. The Fire Code Official shall have the authority to require or permit modifications to the required access widths where they are inadequate for fire rescue operations or where necessary to meet the public safety objectives of the jurisdiction.

51. The Fire Code Official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus access road based on the potential for impairment of a single road by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. (CFC 2022 Edition - Section 503.1.2)

52. Grades of any required fire apparatus road shall be within the limits established (15% Grade) by the Fire Code Official based on Fire Department’s apparatus.

53. If entrance/exit gates are used, they shall be equipped with Knox Box and Emergency Strobes so as to provide emergency vehicle access and egress. A Knox Key Switch shall be required in conjunction with strobe for emergency access, and shall be placed at front of property. Please contact the National City Fire Department for exact field location.

54. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height measured vertically from the centerline of the street adjacent to the project above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway.

55. Every building four stories or more shall be provided with not less than one standpipe for use during construction. Such standpipes shall be installed when the progress of construction is not more than 35 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department access. Such standpipes shall be provided with fire department hose connections at accessible locations adjacent to such useable stairs and the standpipe outlets shall be located adjacent to such useable stairs. Such standpipe systems shall be extended as construction progresses to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. On each floor there shall be provided a 2 ½ -inch valve outlet for fire department use

56. Where the roof has a slope less than four units vertical in 12 unit’s horizontal, a hose connection shall be located to serve the roof of at the highest landing of a stairway with stair access to the roof provided in accordance with the current code.

57. Fire hydrants that may be located throughout the project as not to have a separation distance greater than 300 feet. Fire hydrants to be located within 300 feet of all locations which are roadway accessible. (Measurement starts from nearest public fire hydrant to project)

58. The following items pertain to fire hydrants:
a. Size and location, including size and number of outlets and whether outlets are to be equipped with independent gate valves.
b. Fire hydrant to be of three outlet design

59. Provide calculation confirming flow availability to meet fire flow demands and supply large diameter hose (4 inch)

60. Fire hydrants to be marked by use of blue reflective marker in the roadway

61. Upon submittal for an underground permit, the following shall be included:
 Data sheet for Back-Flows
 Data sheets for Private and Commercial Hydrants
 Data sheets for Post Indicator Valves

62. An approved water supply for fire protection, either temporary or permanent, shall be made available as soon as combustible material arrives on the site.

63. Approved vehicle access for firefighting shall be provided to all construction and demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be provided by either temporary or permanent roads, capable of supporting vehicle loading under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until permanent fire apparatus access roads are available

64. Where there is conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in a specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

65. Should any plan corrections be required, the contractor must correct the plan and resubmit to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.

Planning

66. The developer shall provide a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, running with the land, clearly setting forth the privileges and responsibilities, including maintenance, payment of taxes, etc. involved in the common ownership of parking areas, walks, buildings, utilities and open spaces prior to approval of the final map. Said CC&R’s shall be subject to approval as to content and form by the City Attorney. The CC&R’s shall allow the City the authority but not the obligation to assume maintenance of the property and assess the full cost including overhead costs therefore as a lien against the property if said property is not adequately maintained per the agreement. The CC&R’s shall include a determination that the funds provided by the maintenance provisions will be sufficient to cover all contemplated costs.

67. A corporation, association, property owners’ group, or similar entity shall be formed with the right to assess all the properties which are jointly owned with interests in the common areas and facilities in the entire development to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded conditions, covenants, and restrictions approved by the City Attorney as to form and content, which shall include compulsory membership of all owners and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs and services.

68. All required private or common ownership landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the project.

69. The existing single-family home and all accessory structures on the property shall be demolished prior to issuance of the Final Map.

Mitigation measures

70. Pre-construction Avian Survey (BIO 1): If construction occurs within the avian breeding season of February 1 through August 31, a qualitied Biologist shall conduct a preconstruction avian nesting survey no more than 3 days prior to the start of construction or grubbing. The preconstruction avian survey shall be conducted with a 300-foot buffer of all areas of disturbance. If the survey finds that there is no nesting activity within the area of potential disturbance, clearing and grading activities shall be allowed to proceed. If the survey finds an active nest, then clearing and grading shall not occur within 300 feet of the active nest until nesting activity has been determined complete by the qualified biologist.

71. Construction Fencing (BIO 2): The drainage shall be protected from direct and indirect impacts by providing a physical barrier between clearing, grading, and construction. A temporary silt fence shall be installed along the southern edge of Proposed Project impacts prior to clearing and grading.

72. Permanent Open Space Easement (BIO 3): A permanent open easement shall be recorded over the on-site drainage channel (Open Space Lot C on the Tentative Map) and shall include the following provisions. The open easement area shall be permanently fenced with a three-foot split-rail fence to discourage entry into the drainage. Maintenance of the area, including brush management for wildfires and removal of trash and debris, would be the responsibility of the homeowners’ association (HOA) and shall be reflected in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property. No vegetative removal within the drainage shall occur during the breeding season without prior consultation of a biologist. The area shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times.

73. Archaeological and/or Native American Monitoring (CUL 1): A qualified archaeological and/or Native American monitor shall be present during construction activities that involve subsurface grading and/or excavation involving the disturbance of native soils more than 3 feet in depth. The monitor(s) would ensure that unanticipated finds are not damaged or destroyed.

74. Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources (CUL 2): In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during construction, construction should stop on the site until a qualified archaeologist can survey the resource and determine potential impacts and necessary preservation measures. Any archaeological resources that are found would be identified, adequately documented in the field, and/or preserved, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist.

County of San Diego

75. Prior to any hearing before the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), a Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) consistency review

agreement between the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), County of San Diego (County), and City of National City shall be executed to ensure that any development of the annexed lands proceeds in accordance with the conservation goals of the MSCP. The MSCP consistency review agreement will set forth the resulting responsibilities pursuant to the MSCP for ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the terms of the County’s Implementing Agreement by and between USFWS and CDFW, and the MSCP, as they relate to the annexed land.

76. If any of the County-maintained roads are trenched and/or cut within three years after the road is resurfaced, the developer will be required under the County’s Cut Policy to resurface the full width of the road with the same treatment. Please coordinate with Lawrence Hirsch, Utility Coordinator, for any updates or questions at (858) 694-2215 or at [email protected].

77. The County of San Diego Vector Control Program (VCP) has the authority pursuant to state law and County Code to order the abatement of any mosquito breeding that does occur either during construction or after the project is completed that is determined to be a vector breeding public nuisance. The VCP will exert that authority as necessary to protect public health if the project is not designed and constructed to prevent such breeding.

78. The project shall be designed and constructed in a manner to minimize address potential impacts from possible mosquito breeding sources. Specifically, the developer shall ensure construction-related depressions created by grading activities, vehicle tires, and excavation do not result in depressions that will hold standing water. In addition, drains, BMPs, stormwater capture systems, and other structures shall not create a potential mosquito breeding source. Any area that is capable of accumulating and holding at least ½ inch of water for more than 96 hours can support mosquito breeding and development. Design for any habitat remediation shall be consistent with guidelines for preventing mosquito habitat creation.

79. For your information, the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance for Vectors can be accessed on the County of San Diego website by navigating to htttp://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/docs/vector_guidelines.pdf and the California Department of Public Health Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control in California is also available on the County of San Diego website at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/MosquitoesandMosquitoBorneDis eases.aspx#
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)

80. The annexation of the affected territory to the City of National City would necessitate consideration of several concurrent jurisdictional changes and/or sphere of influence amendments. These concurrent actions should be documented in the application materials and involve all of the following:
a. Detachment from County Service Area No. 135
b. Detachment from Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District + Associated Sphere of Influence Amendment

c. Detachment from South Bay Irrigation District

81. Should the annexation of the affected territory to the City of National City be requested and approved by LAFCO, no changes to the general plan designation or zoning may be allowed for the next two-year period unless otherwise authorized under Government Code Section 56375(e).

Caltrans

82. Caltrans has discretionary authority with respect to highways under its jurisdiction an may, upon application and if good cause appears, issue a special permit to operate or move a vehicle or combination of vehicles or special mobile equipment of a size or weight of vehicle or load exceeding the maximum limitations specified in the California Vehicle Code. The Caltrans Transportation Permits Issuance Branch is responsible for the issuance of these special transportation permits for oversize/overweight vehicles on the State Highway network. Additional information is provided online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/permits/index.html
Sweetwater Authority

83. Any future development or material changes to these sites will require the owner to apply to the Authority for water service and could also require a request for an easement quitclaim. The Authority's Design and Standard Specifications of Construction of Water Facilities can be found at: www.sweetwater.org.

Section 3: That the City Council hereby approves the Tentative Subdivision Map for a 10-lot residential development located at 3410 Valley Road subject to the above Conditions of Approval.

Section 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 5
th day of September 2023.
__________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Barry J. Schultz
City Attorney

AGENDA REPORT
Department: Housing Authority
Prepared by: Carlos Aguirre, Acting Deputy City Manager & Director of Housing Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023
Approved by: Ben Martinez, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:

Certification of the Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report for the Focused General Plan Update
RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a Public Hearing and Adopt the Resolution Entitled: “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Certifying the Final Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (SPEIR) with the Selection of the Alternate Project Location Alternative, and Adopting Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of National City Focused General Plan Update.” BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

On August 21, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report with the selection of the Alternate Project Location Alternative (Resolution No. 2023-15).

EXPLANATION:

BACKGROUND
One environmental document, a Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (SPEIR), was prepared to analyze the Focused General Plan Update (FGPU) and related documents. The SPEIR includes the adoption of the Housing Element, the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Safety Element, Zoning Map, and Climate Action Plan have been updated. The Downtown Specific Plan, Westside Specific Plan, and Municipal Code have been updated for consistency, as well. Additionally, new Objective Design Standards Floor Area Ratio Bonus Regulations have been created to comply with State legislation and streamline the housing approval process.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final SPEIR) The City of National City, as lead agency, has prepared a Draft and Final Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) to provide information to the public, agencies and policy makers about the potential environmental effects that could occur with implementation of the Focused General Plan Update (FGPU). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a process through which agencies and the public can evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the FGPU (the “project”), understand the potential scale of

any environmental impacts to the degree feasible, and develop measures to reduce these impacts.

Impacts identified in the Final SPEIR (which incorporates the Draft PEIR) will be mitigated through application of federal, State, and local laws and regulations; through the application of General Plan policies and programs; and through application of the mitigation framework during project level environmental review and that reflects the implementation of General Plan goals, policies, and actions.

In accordance with California Code Regulations Title 14 §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR describes two (2) reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and might avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. As documented in FSPEIR Section 3.4 (Alternatives Analysis) of the FSPEIR, three alternatives to the proposed FGPU were evaluated in accordance with California Code Regulations Title 14 §15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Alternate Project Location (Environmentally Superior) Alternative To fully evaluate the environmental effects of projects, CEQA mandates that alternatives to the project be analyzed. The Environmentally Superior Alternative (ESA) includes the same components as the Project. The sole difference pertains to the exclusion of the 24th Street Transit Station Focus Area. This alternative replaces the 24th Street Transit Station Focus Area with the 27th Street Focus Area, a set of three (3) parcels located between A Avenue, E 26th Street, E 27th Street, and D Avenue.

Table 2: Environmentally Superior Alternative Focus Area Proposed Rezonings Focus Area Acres Current Adopted
Zoning
du/ac Proposed Zoning du/ac
18th Street 2.2 Small Lot Residential
(RS-2)
9 Mixed Use Transition
(MXT)
24 Very High Density
Multi-Unit Residential
(RM-3)
75 Open Space (OS) 0
4th Street 16.6 Small Lot Residential
(RS-2)
9 Medium Density MultiUnit Residential (RM-1)23
D Avenue 17.4 Small Lot Residential
(RS-2)
9 Medium Density MultiUnit Residential (RM-1)23
Hospital Area 38.6 Small Lot Residential
(RS-2)
9 Minor Mixed-Use
Corridor (MXC-1)
48 Medium-Low Density
Multi-Unit Residential
(RS-3)
15 Institutional (I) 0
16th Street 12.3 Multi-Use
CommercialResidential (MCR-1)
24 Mixed-Use Overlay 24
Limited Commercial
(CL)
0 Service Commercial
(CS)
0 27th Street 3.2 Service Commercial
(CS)
0 High Density Multi-Unit
Residential (RM-2)
48

The current adopted use in the 27th Street Focus Area is Service Commercial (CS), which does not allow residential uses. The current maximum height in the area is three (3) stories or 50 feet.

Under this alternative, these parcels are proposed to be rezoned to High Density Multi-Unit Residential (RM-2), to allow the production of higher-density residential development with a maximum density of 48 du/ac and a maximum height of six (6) stories or 65 feet. This alternative would relocate density from the 24th Street Transit Station, which would remain zoned as Limited Commercial (CL).

The 27th Street Focus Area was selected as a replacement for the 24th Street Transit Station Focus Area to reduce potential air quality and noise impacts on residential uses near the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor. Additionally, this site is surrounded by medium- and high-density residential uses and is located near a school, major transportation corridors, 24th Street Transit Station, and is in a Transit Priority Area. This Focus Area is located approximately 2,400 feet (0.4 miles) from the I-5 corridor, as compared to the 24th Street Transit Station Focus Area, which is approximately less than 200 feet from the edge of the parcel to the nearest off-ramp. The SPEIR determined this rezoning alternative to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would result in fewer impacts and would still meet the FGPU’s objectives.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – Located on the City website (https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/ui/core/index.html?mode=public&shareto=#expltabl./SHARED/!2cAmdTIY983DHlv78OB34/D28QfINrxPmNKjel) FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

Not Applicable
RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Housing and Community Development
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is a project under CEQA and requires full environmental review and the preparation of an environmental impact report. California Code Regulations 15362.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Agenda Report posted within 72 hours of meeting date and time in accordance with Brown Act.

Published in The Star News, on City Website and Posted on Bulletin Boards at City Hall.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable
EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A - Resolution
Exhibit B – CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit D - PowerPoint Presentation
Exhibit E – Public Notice

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA,

CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT (SPEIR) WITH THE SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION

ALTERNATIVE, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR

THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, the City of National City (City) has prepared the Focused General Plan Update (FGPU, Project), which includes updates to General Plan policies and supporting updates to the Municipal Code (Title 18), Zoning Map, Downtown Specific Plan, and Westside Specific Plans. Policy updates will be reflected in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, and Safety Element. The FGPU is inclusive of the Climate Action Plan update, Housing Strategic Plan, House National City Program and Bicycle Master Plan update; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq., the City is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of the Draft SPEIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other interested parties on March 19, 2022, for a 30-day public comment period. Various agencies and other interested parties responded to the NOP. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on April 6, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Draft SPEIR for the proposed project was then prepared and after completing the Draft SPEIR (SCH No. 2010051009), the City released the document for public review for a 45-day public comment period, beginning February 17, 2023, and ending on April 3, 2023, by filing a Notice of Availability in the Star News on February 17, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City received comments concerning the Draft SPEIR from public agencies, organizations, and individuals, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared responses to all written comments received on the Draft SPEIR, which raised environmental issues; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that the comments received on the Draft SPEIR did not contain any significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and therefore, recirculation of the Draft SPEIR is not required; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final SPEIR, which contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including the Draft SPEIR, the technical appendices and referenced documents, revisions and additions to those documents, public and agency comments on the Draft SPEIR and the City’s responses to comments, which was sent out for a 10-day public notice period on May 17, 2023, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2023, and considered the staff report, written public comments, and oral public testimony regarding a the Final SPEIR, Findings of Fact Statements of Overriding Consideration, and MMRP; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-15 recommending that City Council certify the Final SPEIR with the Alternate Project Location Alternative, adopt the Findings of Fact Statements of Overriding Consideration, and approve the MMRP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided a Notice of City Council Public Hearing to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing on August 25, 2023, in the Star News; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City, fully considered the environmental impacts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, appropriate mitigation measures found in the SPEIR, and hereby makes findings, certifies the SPEIR and adopts the MMRP at a duly advertised public hearing held on September 5, 2023, at which time the City Council has considered substantial evidence to support the certification of the SPEIR and adoption of the MMRP; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the City Council considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives identified in the Final SPEIR and found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and
WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an SPEIR has been completed that identifies one or more

significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes certain written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that where an agency approves a project that would allow the occurrence of significant environmental effects, which are identified in an SPEIR, but are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, the agency state in writing the specific reasons supporting its action based on the Final SPEIR and/or other information in the record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, 15093, and 15097, the City has prepared Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which have been filed with the City of National City (Exhibits B and C of the staff report); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in making its recommendation on this Project as necessary to serve the existing and future needs of the City, has analyzed the information submitted by staff and considered any written and oral comments received at the public hearing, including all factors relating to the Project (Case File No. 2021-14 GP, A, IS), and has determined that any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by specific economic, legal, social, or other benefits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing before the City Council considered the staff report provided for Case File No. 2021-14 GP, A, IS, which is maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference, along with any other evidence presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and consistent with City ordinances and regulations; and WHEREAS, the action hereby taken is found to be essential for the preservation of the public health, safety, protection of the environment, and general welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Findings.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections, the City is the “Lead Agency” for the project. 1) The Final SPEIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA statute and Guidelines. 2) The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final SPEIR, considered all substantial evidence, public comments, public testimony, responses to public comments, and

the City’s analysis of the SPEIR, MMRP, and related documents reflect the independent judgment of the City.
3) The City has determined that the proposed FGPU project is approved despite the existence of certain significant environmental effects identified in the Final SPEIR and, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. The City Council makes and adopts the findings with respect to each significant environmental effect as set forth in the Findings of Fact, appended to the staff report as Exhibit B, which are hereby incorporated herein fully by this reference and made a part of the City’s administrative record herein and declares that it considered all relevant and substantial evidence described in connection with each such findings.
4) An MMRP has been prepared by skilled and independent professionals for the project. The City Council adopts the mitigation measures. The MMRP is incorporated by reference attached as Exhibit C of the staff report and is considered part of the Record of Proceedings for the Project.
5) The MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of mitigation measures. The City will serve as the MMRP Coordinator for those mitigation measures applicable to the City’s jurisdiction.
6) In determining whether the Project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15901(b) and all other relevant provisions of CEQA. 7) The impacts of the Project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the Final SPEIR.
8) The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the Project prior to certification of the Final SPEIR, nor has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the Project. 9) The City Council finds that pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a) that adverse changes to the environment have been fully mitigated or have been determined to have overriding benefits to the City that outweigh those impacts. 10) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Draft SPEIR and/or Final SPEIR are and have been available upon request at all times to any member of the public at the offices of the City, custodian of record for such documents or other materials. 11) Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the administrative record, the City Council conditions the Project and approves the Project consistent with the Findings herein.

Section 2: That the City Council hereby certifies the Final SPEIR with the selection of the Alternate Project Location Alternative and adopts the Findings of Fact, Statements of Overriding Consideration, and approves the MMRP for mitigation measures applicable to the City’s portions of the Project.

Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolution.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of September 2023.
_____________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Barry J. Shultz, City Attorney

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2010051009)

CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
June 2023
Attachment 1

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .......... 1 (SCH #2010051009) ..................................................................................................... 1

CANDIDATE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 A. California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................... 1 B. Project Background .................................................................................................... 2 C. Record of Proceedings ................................................................................................ 2 D. Custodian and Location of Records ........................................................................... 3 II. PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 3 A. Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3 B. Project Description ..................................................................................................... 3 C. Statement of Objectives ............................................................................................. 6 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................. 6 A. Notice of Preparation ................................................................................................. 6 B. Public Review of Draft SPEIR ................................................................................... 6 C. Decision Making Process ........................................................................................... 7 IV. GENERAL FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 7 V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ............................................................. 8 A. Legal Effects of Findings ........................................................................................... 9 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................. 10 VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ................................................................................ 10 VIII. FINDINGS RELATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ....... 11 IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ....................... 12 A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) ............................................................................... 12 B. Impacts that can only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by Another Jurisdiction: Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) ......... 21 C. Impacts that would remain Significant and Unavoidable Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) .................................................................... 21 X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ............................................. 27 A. Finding ..................................................................................................................... 29 XI. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............. 29 A. Growth Inducement ................................................................................................. 29

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .................................................. 29 XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 29

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

I. INTRODUCTION
A. California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the environmental impacts of a project or program be examined before a project is approved. In addition, CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain findings be made before project approval. It is the exclusive discretion of the decision-maker certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to determine the adequacy of the proposed candidate findings. It is the role of staff to independently evaluate the proposed candidate findings and to make a recommendation to the decision-maker regarding their legal adequacy.

Specifically, CEQA Section 15091(a) states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project or program for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved or carried out, unless such public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment; (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency; or (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines be supported by substantial evidence in the record (Section 15091(b) of the CEQA Guidelines). Under CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence must include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines).

When making the findings required in CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects, if any have been identified. These measures, if included, must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

The following Candidate Findings of Fact (Findings) have been submitted to the City Council of the City of National City (City Council), as the decision-making body, to be approved for the above-referenced project pursuant to CEQA. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final Supplemental Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of National City Focused General Plan Update (FGPU), State Clearinghouse No. 2010051009 (Final SPEIR),

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

as well as all other information in the Record of Proceedings (as defined below) on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City of National City (City) in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency. These Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the program.

B. Project Background
The City prepared a SPEIR as defined in Section 15168(a) [Program EIR] and Section15163 [Supplement to an EIR] of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA, this SPEIR examines the environmental impacts of future buildout of the city as allowed under the FGPU and focuses on the physical changes in the environment that would result from buildout of the FGPU as compared to existing adopted plans.

These Findings are made relative to the specific conclusions of the Final SPEIR prepared for the project.

C. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project;
 Comments received on the NOP;
 The Draft SPEIR for the FGPU;
 All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SPEIR;
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review and comment period for the Draft SPEIR;  The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference or cited to in the Draft SPEIR and the Final SPEIR;
 All supplemental documents prepared for the SPEIR and submitted to the City Council prior to this hearing;
 Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings;
 City staff report prepared for this hearing related to the FGPU and any exhibits thereto;
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by CEQA section 21167.6(e).

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

The Draft SPEIR and related technical studies were made available for review during the public review period on the City’s website at:
https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/community-development/planning/focusedgeneral-plan-update D. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the FGPU, as detailed above, are at the offices of the City’s Planning Division, located at 1243 National City Boulevard, 1st Floor, National City, CA 91950. The Planning Division is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the Record of Proceedings, are available upon request at the offices of the Planning Division. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e).

II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The proposed Focused General Plan Update (FGPU) is effective citywide and geographically includes the annexation of three parcels within the Lincoln Acres unincorporated community in 2019 into the City boundaries.

Additional details regarding the environmental setting are provided in Chapter 2.0 of the Draft SPEIR.

B. Project Description
To address changes in State legislation, a changing regional context and forecasted future growth, National City is conducting a FGPU. The FGPU will include updates to policies and supporting updates to codes, ordinances, and development standards. Policy updates will be reflected in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Safety Element, and Climate Action Plan (CAP), which were last updated in 2011. The FGPU takes into account separate recent planning documents, including the 24th Street Transit Oriented Development Overlay (TODO) study. Recommendations from this predecessor planning study have been carried forward to all components of the FGPU per City Council direction. In addition, the General Plan will be expanded to include the annexation of approximately 50 acres of the unincorporated community of Lincoln Acres into the City of National City, which was completed in 2020.

General Plan - Element Updates
The goals, policies, and actions in the General Plan will guide development and conservation in National City through the horizon year in 2050. These documents will supersede the current City of National City General Plan, which was last updated in 2011, and portions of the current Municipal Code.

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

The Land Use Element is required by State law (Government Code Section 65302). The Element designates the general distribution, location, and extent of uses of land for housing, businesses, industry, open space, etc. It is implemented through the Land Use Code (Municipal Code Title 18 Zoning), which establishes regulations for the use and development of land. The Land Use Element will be updated to reflect the City’s vision for managing the region’s growth.

The Transportation Element guides the City's decision making related to transportation for the future. The update will build on the focused studies and plans that were completed since the last 2011 General Plan update, including integrating findings from the Safe, Multimodal, Accessible Routes To (SMART) Foundation Plan (2014), Downtown Specific Plan (2017), INTRAConnect (2020), Homefront to Waterfront Connectivity Study (2020), Bicycle Master Plan, Parking Plan, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Master Plan. It will also include new modelling to encompass anticipated growth in the region.

The Safety Element addresses the potential short and long-term risks of fires, floods, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, hazards, emergency services and disaster response, and other locally relevant safety issues. Due to updates in state legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 379, which requires safety element updates to include climate adaptation and resilience strategies, and SB 1035, which requires that the Safety Element be revised no less than every eight years, the Safety Element must be updated to reflect these new requirements.

Climate Action Plan
The CAP addresses the major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in National City and sets forth a detailed and long-term strategy that the City and community can implement to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets. It provides an updated 2018 emissions inventory and guides the City in its efforts to reduce its GHG emissions through proposing reduction targets, policies, and measures.

House National City
House National City is a new program to incentivize affordable and mixed income housing in strategic areas across the city. In exchange for affordable housing, qualifying projects receive a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus.

The City also proposes to adopt updates to the zoning code, specific plan amendments, and objective design standards as a means to implement the FGPU.

Zoning Code Updates
Updates to regulations and development standards in National City’s zoning code to accelerate housing production in all income categories in a manner consistent with the goals of National City’s Housing Element and recent State legislation. This includes updates and revisions to floor-area ratios, maximum allowable heights, and parking requirements, as well as, updated density bonus regulations, and other incentives to increase housing production.

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

Objective Design Standards
Objective design standards developed to provide architectural and design requirements aimed at streamlining the approval process for qualifying multi-unit residential developments based on zoning, general plan land use designations, and percentages of residential use designated square footages. These standards will serve as the minimum requirements and will be mandatory for any eligible project for which a streamlined approval process is requested under state law provisions that reference objective design standards.

The objective design standards will be incorporated into the municipal code.

Housing Strategic Plan
Four-year Housing Strategic Plan to guide the investment of the National City Housing Authority’s resources and assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Strategic Plan provides recommendations to direct the agency's financial and real estate assets towards housing production. The plan identifies resources to fund the construction for 650 to 750 new units and establishes property-specific guidelines to inform future requests for proposals (RFPs) for development. The Strategic Plan creates an implementation roadmap and quantifiable metrics for the National City Housing Authority to accelerate housing production within the first four years of the 6th Housing Element Cycle.

Specific Plan Amendments
Amending the Downtown Specific Plan and Westside Specific Plan policies, including development zones (allowed uses, densities, FARs, heights, and other development standards), design guidelines, and parking requirements to encourage housing production.

The policies aim to streamline housing production for all income categories and align with updates to the Zoning Code and General Plan. Amendments to these Specific Plans center on specific conformance with recently adopted plans and those being concurrently revised through the updates to the General Plan, and do not serve to create new plans.

Bicycle Master Plan Update
Updates to the Bicycle Master Plan to incorporate new changes to the General Plan and other recently competed planning documents, such as the Harbor Drive Corridor Study, the INTRAConnect plan, and the 24th Street TODO study. This update revises the Citywide bicycle network to guide the City in planning for a more connected, safe, and accessible network. Design guidelines will be updated to align with current best practices and City plans. The plan will identify priority projects for implementation and will update recommendations for programs for education, bicycling encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. Estimated network costs and resources to fund construction will be identified.

Additional details regarding the project description are provided in Chapter 3.0 of the Final SPEIR.

CEQA Findings of Fact an Statement of Overriding Considerations

C. Statement of Objectives
As described in Section 3.6 of the Draft SPEIR, the following primary objectives are identified for the FGPU:
 Update the City’s General Plan to integrate new State legislation and other regional and local regulatory changes into the City’s policies and programs.  Encourage smart growth that is consistent with statewide and regional transportation and planning goals.
 Create a framework for a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, employment, service, agricultural, open space, and recreational uses that accommodate the needs of persons from all income groups and age levels.  Encourage the development of complete neighborhoods that meet the community’s needs for sustainable and high-quality living environments.  Develop effective plans, codes, resolutions, ordinances, and zoning to implement the General Plan.
 Establish a universally accessible, safe, comprehensive, and integrated pedestrian and bicycle system.
 Develop a comprehensive circulation system that is safe and efficient for all modes of travel that is coordinated with the regional system.
 Provide and manage parking in a way that balances economic development, livable neighborhoods, environmental health, and public safety with a compact, multimodal environment.
 Develop a safe and efficient system for the movement of goods that supports commerce while enhancing the livability of the community.
 Reduce GHG emissions resulting from local government and community-wide activities within the City.

The City has considered the statement of objectives sought by the FGPU and hereby adopts these objectives as part of the FGPU.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Notice of Preparation
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SPEIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The NOP was circulated for public comment from March 19, 2022, to April 18, 2022. Comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in the Draft SPEIR in Appendix 13.A.

B. Public Review of Draft SPEIR
The Draft SPEIR for the FGPU was prepared and circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a public review period that began on February 17, 2023 and concluded on April 3, 2023. A Notice of Completion of the Draft SPEIR was sent to