Agenda packet, second session — National City City Council, December 10, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA
Consolidated Special Agenda
City Council Chamber - 1243 National City
Boulevard, National City, CA
Ron Morrison, Mayor
Ditas Yamane, Vice-Mayor – District 3 Benjamin A. Martinez, City Manager Marcus Bush, Councilmember Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney Luz Molina, Councilmember – District 1 Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember R. Mitchel Beauchamp, City Treasurer

_______________________________________________________________________

The City Council also sits as the City of National City Community Development Commission, Housing Authority, Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission as the National City Redevelopment Agency
Thank you for participating in local government and the City of National City Council Meetings.

Meetings: Regular City Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Special Closed Session Meetings and Workshops may be same day, the start time is based on needs. Check Special Agendas for times.

Location: Regular City Council Meetings are held in the Council Chamber located at City Hall, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950, the meetings are open to the public.

Agendas and Material: Agendas and Agenda Packet for items listed are available on the City website, and distributed to the City Council no less than 72 hours before the City Council Meeting.

Public Participation: Encouraged in a number of ways as described b elow. Members of the public may attend the City Council Meeting in person, watch the City Council Meeting via live web stream, or participate remotely via Zoom. Recording of Meetings are archived and available for viewing on the City’s website.

Public Comment: Persons wishing to address the City Council on matters not on the agenda may do so under Public Comments. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. Please submit a Speaker’s Slip to the City Clerk before the meeting or immediately following the announcement of the item. All comments will be limited up to three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer shall have the authority to reduce the time allotted to accommodate for a large number of speakers.
(City Council Policy 104)
If you wish to submit a written comment email to the City Clerk’s Office at least 1 hour before the City Council Meeting to allow time for distribution to the City Council.

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023
All Contributions to Candidates and Current Elected Officials are required to self -report a Declaration of Campaign Contribution to a Councilmember of more than $250 within the past year (effective Jan 1, 2023). This report may be included on the Public Comment Speaker Slip to be completed before the City Council Meeting .

Spanish Interpretation Services: Spanish Interpretation Services are available ; please contact the City Clerk before the start of the meeting for assistance.

American Disabilities Act Title II: In compliance with the American Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Title II. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office (619) 336-4228 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

AGENDA
Consolidated Special Meeting
City Council Chamber - 1243 National City
Boulevard, National City, CA
Ron Morrison, Mayor
Ditas Yamane, Vice-Mayor – District 3 Benjamin A. Martinez, City Manager Marcus Bush, Councilmember Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney Luz Molina, Councilmember – District 1 Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk Jose Rodriguez, Councilmember R. Mitchel Beauchamp, City Treasurer _______________________________________________________________________

The City Council also sits as the City of National City Community Development Commission, Housing Authority, Joint Powers Financing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission as the National City Redevelopment Agency
Gracias por participar en las reuniones del gobierno local y del Consejo de la Ciudad de National City.

Reuniones: Las reuniones regulares del Consejo Municipal se llevan a cabo el primer y tercer martes del mes a las 6:00 p.m. La reunión especial de sesión privada y los talleres pueden ser el mismo día, la hora de inicio se basa en las necesidades. Consulte las agendas especiales para conocer los horarios.

Ubicación: Las reuniones regulares del Concej o Municipal se llevan a cabo en la Cámara del Consejo ubicada en el Ayuntamiento, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950, las reuniones están abiertas al público.

Agendas y Material: Las Agendas y el Paquete de Agenda para los temas enumerados están disponibles en el sitio web de la Ciudad y se distribuyen al Concejo Municipal no menos de 72 horas antes de la Reunión del Concejo Municipal. Regístrese para recibir notificaciones electrónicas cuando se publiquen artículos.

Participación pública: Se fomenta de varias maneras como se describe a continuación. Los miembros del público pueden asistir a la Reunión del Concejo Municipal en persona, ver la Reunión del Concejo Municipal a través de la transmisión web en vivo o participar de forma remota a través de Zoom. Las grabaciones de las reuniones están archivadas y disponibles para su visualización en el sitio web de la Ciudad.

Comentario Público: Las personas que deseen dirigirse al Concejo Municipal sobre asuntos que no están en la agenda pueden hacerlo bajo Comentarios públicos. Quienes deseen hacer uso de la palabra sobre los temas del programa podrán hacerlo cuando se esté examinando el tema.

Por favor, envíe una solicitud del orador al Secretario de la Ciudad antes de la reunión o inmediatamente después del anuncio del artículo. Todos los comentarios estarán limitados a tres (3) minutos. El Presidente tendrá la autoridad para reducir el tiempo asignado para dar cabida a un gran número de oradores. (Política del Concejo Municipal 104) Si desea enviar comentarios por escrito, envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad al menos 1 hora antes de la Reunión del Consejo Municipal para dar tiempo a la distribución al Consejo Municipal.

A PARTIR DEL 1 DE ENERO DE 2023

Todas las contribuciones a los candidatos y funcionarios electos actuales deben autoinformar una Declaración de contribución de campaña a un concejal de más de $ 250 en el último año (a partir del 1 de enero de 2023). Este informe puede incluirse en el Recibo del orador de comentarios públicos que se completará antes de la reunión del Concejo Municipal Servicios de interpretación en español: Los servicios de interpretación en español están disponibles, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad antes de l inicio de la reunión para obtener ayuda.

Título II de la Ley de Discapacidades Americanas: En cumplimiento con la Ley de Discapacidades Americanas de 1990, las personas con discapacidad pueden solicitar una agenda en formatos alternativos apropiados segú n lo requerido por el Título II. Cualquier persona con una discapacidad que requiera un modificación o adaptación para participar en una reunión debe dirigir dicha solicitud a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad (619) 336 -4228 al menos 24 horas antes de la reunión.

AGENDA
Special Meeting

Tuesday, December 10, 2024, 5:00 p.m.

City Council Chamber - 1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA
Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. INVOCATION

5. PROCLAMATION
Proclamation - Ruble "Mitch" Beauchamp, City Treasurer

6. STAFF REPORT

6.1 Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election held Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Declaring Results.
4 Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election Conducted on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, and Declaring the Results and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law.”

7. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE

8. RECESS FOR RECEPTION

9. CALL TO ORDER

10. ROLL CALL

11. PUBLIC COMMENT

12. NEWLY ELECTED COMMENTS

13. CONSENT CALENDAR

13.1 Notice of Decision – Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Zone Variance (ZV) for a New Gasoline Service Station Development to be Located on a Vacant Property at Sweetwater Road and Orange Street
26 Recommendation:

Staff Recommended Approval of the Proposed Development Requesting a New Gasoline Service Station, Convenience Store with Off-Sale Alcohol (ABC Type-21), Drive-Through Car Wash, Drive-Through Eating Place, and Five Residential Units, Subject to the Recommended Conditions in the Draft Resolution and a Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA. The Requested Uses are Conditionally Allowed within the Major Mixed-Use District (MXD-2) and the Project can be Found Consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Code with the Approval of the Requested Zone Variance.

13.2 Purchase of Thirty-Three (33) Axon Fleet 3 Video Solutions (“FLEET”) Cameras for Police Department Vehicles.
182
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City Of National City, California, 1) Waiving The Formal Bid Process Pursuant to National City Municipal Code Section 2.60.110(B) Regarding Exceptions to Formal Competitive Bidding and Authorizing the Purchase of Thirty-Three Axon Fleet 3 In-Car Video Solutions and Supporting Information, Services and Training from Axon Enterprise, Inc. in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $279,248.78; and 2) Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. for the Purchase and Related Services.”

13.3 San Diego Dispatch Agreement 199
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement Between the City of San Diego and the City of National City to Provide Fire and Emergency Medical Dispatch Services to the City of National City for a Term of 5 Years Effective July 1, 2024 and Ending June 30, 2029.”

Page 2 of 232 ends

14. STAFF REPORTS

14.1 Appointments of City Councilmembers to Regional Boards and Committees for Outside Agencies
221
Recommendation:

Mayor to Appoint with City Council Consensus to Certain Regional Boards and Committees by Adoption of Resolution:
(1) Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Appointing Members of the City Council to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors;
(2) Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Appointing Members of the City Council to the SANDAG Shoreline Working Group; and,
(3) Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Appointing Members of the City Council to the Various Regional Committee Assignments; and
(4) Resolution San Diego County Water Authority Board of Directors.

14.2 Selection of a Vice-Mayor for 2025. 230
Recommendation:

Selection of a Vice-Mayor for 2025 in accordance with the Policy.

15. ADJOURNMENT

Page 3 of 232 ends

AGENDA REPORT

Department: City Clerk's Office
Prepared by: Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Approved by: Benjamin A. Martinez, City Manager

SUBJECT:

Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election held Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Declaring Results.

RECOMMENDATION:

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

Not Applicable.

EXPLANATION:

The canvass of the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election has been completed by County of San Diego Registrar of Voters. The City of National City’s General Municipal Election, which was consolidated with the County of San Diego’s General Election, was to elect City Councilmember District 2, and City Councilmember District 4, each for a term of four -years. In addition, and one measure on the ballot:

Ballot Measure R:

There were 28,255 registered voters in the City of National City at the time of the election.

Based on the official canvas of the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters, it is appropriate to adopt a resolution reciting the election results. The City Clerk will then administer the Oaths of Office and present Certificates of Election to the newly elected and re-elected Members of the City Council.

Page 4 of 232 ends

The Candidate for City Councilmember for District 2 receiving the highest number of votes was Jose Rodriguez, with 2,578 votes.

The Candidate for City Councilmember for District 4 receiving the highest number of votes was Marcus Bush, with 1,736 votes.

The City Measure R – Special Parcel Tax for Streets and Parks Failed with 10,145 “No” votes.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

The preliminary election costs estimate from the San Diego County Registrar of Voters was $125,000. A deposit of $98,000 was paid to the Registrar of Voters in advance of the Election , with a final bill to follow. Funds are available in the FY 2024-2025 Election Account to cover the cost of consolidating the election with the Registrar and other costs associated with legal advertising and translations as required by Election law. A full accounting and final invoice should be received from the Registrar of Voter by March 2025.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is not a project under CEQA and is therefore not subject to environmental review. CCR15378; PRC 21065.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

The Agenda Report was posted within 72 hours of the meeting date and time in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A - Resolution
Exhibit B – Certification of Results

Page 5 of 232 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -

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

RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION CONDUCTED ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024, AND DECLARING THE RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election was held and conducted in the City of National City, California on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, as required by law; and WHEREAS, Notice of the Election was given in the time, form and manner as provided by law; voting precincts were properly established; election officers were appointed and in all respects the election was held and conducted and the votes were casts, received and canvassed and the returns made and declared in time, form and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in general law cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2024 -50, adopted on May 21, 2024, the San Diego County Registrar of Voters canvassed the returns of the election and has certified the results to this City Council, the results are received, attached and made a part of hereof as “Exhibit A”; and
WHEREAS, California Elections Code Section 10264 requires the governing body enter the following statements onto its record: the whole number of votes cast in the city, the names of the persons voted for, the measures voted upon, for what office each person was voted for, and the number of votes give n at each precinct to each person and for and against each measure, and the number of votes given in the city to each person and for and against each measure.

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

SECTION 1: That the whole number of ballots cast in the City for Council Member District 2 was 3,516 that the whole number of ballots cast in the City for Council Member District 4 was 3,966 that the whole number of ballots cast in the City for Measure R was 15,337 and that the whole number of ballots cast in the City was 15,337. The total number of registered voters in the City for this election was 28,255.

SECTION 2: That the names of persons voted for at the election for City Councilmember District 2, and the number of votes received for each, are as follows:

1. JOSE RODRIGUEZ 2,578

2. RANDI CASTLE-SALGADO 938

SECTION 3: That the names of persons voted for at the election for City Councilmember District 4, and the number of votes received for each, are as follows:

1. MARCUS BUSH 1,736

2. VICTOR M. ARREOLA 1,509

3. DANIEL PEREZ 721

Page 6 of 232 ends

SECTION 4: That the following ballot measure, Measure “R”, placed on the ballot at this election, and the number of votes received for and against the measure, are as follows:

Measure R -- Shall the measure adding a special parcel tax in the City of National City to be used for street and park purposes, with rates based on the character of the property and exempting certain types of properties, to be collected beginning in 2025, and continuing until repealed by the voters, with an oversight committee, generating an estimated $1.7 million dollars annually, be adopted?

NO 10,145
YES 5,192
SECTION 5: That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of the persons above named for the respective offices of which the persons were candidates were listed in “Exhibit A,” attached.

SECTION 6: That the number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to the ballot measure above named were listed in “Exhibit A,” attached.

SECTION 7: That the City Council does declare and determine that:

 Jose Rodriguez was elected as a member of the City Council District 2 for the full term of four (4) years.

 Marcus Bush was elected as a member of the City Council D istrict 4 for the full term of four (4) years.

 Measure R, entitled National City Special Parcel Tax for Streets and Parks, failed by virtue of having received a higher number of “NO” votes.

SECTION 8: That the City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City, a statement of results of the election showing:

a. The whole number of votes cast in the City;
b. The names of the persons voted for;
c. The measures voted upon;
d. For what office each person was voted for;
e. The number of votes given at each precinct to each person and for and against the measure; and
f. The total number of votes given in the City to each person and for and against the measure.

SECTION 9: That the City Clerk shall immediately make and deliver to each of the persons so elected a Certificate of Election signed by the City Clerk and authenticated; that the City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected the Oath of Office prescribed in the Constitution of the State of California, and shall have them subscribe to it and file it in the Office of the City Clerk. Each and all of the persons so elected shall then be inducted into the respective office to which they have been elected.

SECTION 10: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

Page 7 of 232 ends

PASSED and ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 2024.

Ron Morrison, Mayor

ATTEST:

Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney

Page 8 of 232 ends

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
County Operations Center Campus
5600 Overland Avenue, Suite 100, San Diego, California 92123- 1278 Telephone: (858) 565-5800 Toll-free: 1 (800) 696-0136 TTY / TDD: (800) 735-2929 Facsimile: (858) 505-7294 Web Address: www.sdvote.com

CYNTHIA L. PAES
Registrar of Voters
SHAWN K. BROM
Assistant Registrar of Voters

December 3, 2024

TO: Andrew Potter
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

FROM: Cynthia L. Paes
Registrar of Voters

STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 5, 2024, CERTIFICATION

Enclosed are the certified results for the following election:

Jurisdiction: Statewide General Election

Election Date: November 5, 2024

Please contact my staff at (858) 505-7210 if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Enclosure: Election Results

c: Supervisor Nora Vargas, Chair
Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer, Vice Chair
Supervisor Joel Anderson
Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe
Supervisor Jim Desmond
Ebony N. Shelton, Chief Administrative Officer
Caroline Smith, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Brian Albright, Deputy CAO, Finance & General Government Group County Board of Education
LUEG, Community Groups

Page 9 of 232 ends

Continued:

Incorporated Cities:

Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Vista
Community College Districts:

Grossmont-Cuyamaca
MiraCosta
Palomar
San Diego
Southwestern
Unified School Districts:

Bonsall
Borrego Springs
Carlsbad
Coronado
Oceanside
Poway
Ramona
San Diego
San Marcos
Valley Center-Pauma
Vista
Warner
High School Districts:

Escondido
Fallbrook
Grossmont
Julian
San Dieguito
Sweetwater

Union/Elementary School Districts:

Alpine
Cajon Valley
Cardiff
Chula Vista
Del Mar
Dehesa
Encinitas
Escondido
Fallbrook
Lakeside
Lemon Grove
National
Rancho Santa Fe
San Ysidro
Santee
South Bay
Special Districts:

Borrego Water
Canebrake County Water
Fallbrook Community Planning Group
Grossmont Healthcare
Helix Water
Lakeside Fire Protection
Lakeside Water
Morro Hills Community Services
North County Fire Protection
Olivenhain Municipal Water
Otay Water
Padre Dam Municipal Water
Palomar Health
Pauma Valley Community Services
Rainbow Municipal Water
Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection
South Bay Water
Sweetwater Community Planning Group
Tri-City Healthcare
Vallecitos Water
Valley Center Community Planning Group
Vista Fire Protection
Vista Irrigation

Page 10 of 232 ends

Page 11 of 232 ends

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
DEM - KAMALA D. HARRIS / TIM WALZ 841,372 56.93%
REP - DONALD J. TRUMP / JD VANCE 593,270 40.14%
AI - ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. / NICOLE

SHANAHAN
16,387 1.11%
GRN - JILL STEIN / RUDOLPH WARE 14,207 0.96%
LIB - CHASE OLIVER / MIKE TER MAAT 7,487 0.51%

PF - CLAUDIA DE LA CRUZ / KARINA
GARCIA
5,063 0.34%
Peter Sonski / Lauren Onak 242 0.02%
Total 1,478,028
UNITED STATES SENATOR (Full Term)
DEM - ADAM B. SCHIFF 817,805 56.68%
REP - STEVE GARVEY 625,129 43.32%
Total 1,442,934
UNITED STATES SENATOR (Partial/Unexpired Term)
DEM - ADAM B. SCHIFF 797,127 56.61%
REP - STEVE GARVEY 610,883 43.39%
Total 1,408,010
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 48TH DISTRICT
(SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
REP - DARRELL E. ISSA 142,476 59.09%
DEM - STEPHEN HOULAHAN 98,637 40.91%
Total 241,113
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 49TH DISTRICT
(SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
DEM - MIKE LEVIN 137,469 56.36%
REP - MATT GUNDERSON 106,438 43.64%
Total 243,907
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 50TH DISTRICT
DEM - SCOTT PETERS 231,836 64.27%
REP - PETER J. BONO 128,859 35.73%
Total 360,695
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 51ST DISTRICT
DEM - SARA JACOBS 198,835 60.70%
REP - BILL WELLS 128,749 39.30%
Total 327,584
Registered
Voters
Turnout
Total Registration and Turnout 1,983,767 1,503,018
Mail 1,275,304
Vote Centers 227,714
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 52ND DISTRICT
DEM - JUAN VARGAS 172,217 66.31%
REP - JUSTIN LEE 87,501 33.69%
Total 259,718
STATE SENATOR 39TH DISTRICT
DEM - AKILAH WEBER 266,830 63.01%
REP - BOB DIVINE 156,616 36.99%
Total 423,446
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 74TH DISTRICT
(SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
DEM - CHRIS DUNCAN 65,972 54.78%
REP - LAURIE DAVIES 54,457 45.22%
Total 120,429
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 75TH DISTRICT
REP - CARL DEMAIO 121,167 57.02%
REP - ANDREW HAYES 91,337 42.98%
Total 212,504
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 76TH DISTRICT
DEM - DARSHANA PATEL 113,242 54.03%
REP - KRISTIE BRUCE-LANE 96,358 45.97%
Total 209,600
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 77TH DISTRICT
DEM - TASHA BOERNER 154,202 60.43%
REP - JAMES BROWNE 100,954 39.57%
Total 255,156
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 78TH DISTRICT
DEM - CHRIS WARD 175,178 100.00%
Total 175,178
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 79TH DISTRICT
DEM - LASHAE SHARP-COLLINS 79,215 54.03%
DEM - COLIN PARENT 67,390 45.97%
Total 146,605
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 80TH DISTRICT
DEM - DAVID A. ALVAREZ 113,768 60.97%
REP - MICHAEL W. WILLIAMS 72,836 39.03%
Total 186,604
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 1ST DISTRICT
GREGG ROBINSON 198,977 100.00%
Total 198,977
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 1 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 12 of 232 ends

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 2ND DISTRICT
GUADALUPE GONZÁLEZ 167,698 100.00%
Total 167,698
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 4TH DISTRICT
ERIN EVANS 174,253 68.29%
SARAH SONG 80,916 31.71%
Total 255,169

GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA 4
ELENA ADAMS 22,448 50.67%
LEE QUINN 21,851 49.33%
Total 44,299

MIRACOSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 ANN CROSBIE 16,353 66.34%
ALEXANDER THOMAS WELLS III 8,297 33.66%
Total 24,650

PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 YVETTE MARIE ACOSTA 22,512 52.68%
EDWARD POHLERT 20,221 47.32%
Total 42,733

PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 HOLLY M. HAMILTON-BLEAKLEY 40,092 57.88%
MICHELLE RAINS 19,798 28.58%
AMI ADMIRE 9,376 13.54%
Total 69,266

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

MEMBER, BOARD OF TRUSTEES DISTRICT D
MARIAH JAMESON 50,032 74.93%
ANDREW GOMEZ II 16,740 25.07%
Total 66,772

SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 KRISTINE "KRIS" GALICIA BROWN 17,966 59.48%
ERIKA LOWERY 12,239 40.52%
Total 30,205

BONSALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA E
ERIC ORTEGA 798 54.88%
LINDSAY JONES 656 45.12%
Total 1,454

BORREGO SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
MARTHA DEICHLER 1,084 41.36%
STEVE DUNN 529 20.18%
STEVE RIEHLE 511 19.50%
PETER KELLNER 497 18.96%
Total 2,621

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 ALISON EMERY 4,780 62.80%
JEN BELNAP 2,832 37.20%
Total 7,612

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 LAURA SIAOSI 4,556 52.89%
EJEHAN TURKER 4,058 47.11%
Total 8,614

CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
RENEE CAVANAUGH 4,339 30.97%
FITZHUGH "FITZ" LEE 4,137 29.53%
BILL SANDKE 3,096 22.10%
SHAWNEE BARTON MERRIMAN 2,438 17.40%
Total 14,010

OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 ELEANOR EVANS 6,178 51.51%
EMILY ORTIZ WICHMANN 5,815 48.49%
Total 11,993

OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 MIKE BLESSING 6,354 53.44%
ROSIE HIGUERA 5,536 46.56%
Total 11,890
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 2 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 13 of 232 ends

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA A
TIM DOUGHERTY 10,063 55.09%
DEVESH VASHISHTHA 8,205 44.91%
Total 18,268

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA E
DAVID CHENG 6,528 38.34%
CRAIG POND 6,386 37.51%
CINDY SYTSMA 4,111 24.15%
Total 17,025

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 3
DAWN PERFECT 2,141 60.89%
STEPHANIE COOTER 1,375 39.11%
Total 3,516

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 4
DARYN DRUM 2,423 63.53%
JOHN RAJCIC 1,391 36.47%
Total 3,814

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT A
SABRINA BAZZO 40,289 50.93%
CRYSTAL TRULL 38,818 49.07%
Total 79,107

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT D
RICHARD BARRERA 64,671 100.00%
Total 64,671

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT E
SHARON D. WHITEHURST-PAYNE 49,166 100.00%
Total 49,166

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA A
HEIDI HERRICK 7,047 56.04%
CARLOS ULLOA 5,527 43.96%
Total 12,574

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA B
SARAH AHMAD 7,096 58.98%
BRITTANY BOWER 4,935 41.02%
Total 12,031

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA D
LENA LAUER MEUM 5,949 58.77%
JAIME CHAMBERLIN 4,174 41.23%
Total 10,123

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 1
MIKE MARKOV 6,728 51.91%
AMANDA "MANDY" REMMEN 6,234 48.09%
Total 12,962

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 4
CIPRIANO VARGAS 3,371 39.06%
FRANK NUNEZ 3,075 35.63%
ZULEMA GOMEZ 2,184 25.31%
Total 8,630

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 5
SUE MARTIN 9,540 60.39%
ANTHONY "TJ" CROSSMAN 6,258 39.61%
Total 15,798

WARNER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
MELISSA KROGH 603 27.41%
MELODY SEES 544 24.73%
GENE DOXEY 533 24.23%
DEBORAH CASTEEL 520 23.64%
Total 2,200

ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 CHRISTI KNIGHT 7,538 65.36%
CLAY BROWN 3,995 34.64%
Total 11,533
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 3 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 14 of 232 ends

ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 RYAN S. WILLIAMS 7,848 64.66%
DARA CZERWONKA 4,289 35.34%
Total 12,137

FALLBROOK UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 OSCAR CARALAMPIO 1,721 60.07%
JOSHUA TILLER 1,144 39.93%
Total 2,865

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 CHRIS FITE 13,923 43.30%
RANDALL DEAR 10,485 32.61%
DEBRA HARRINGTON 4,614 14.35%
AZURE CHRISAWN 3,132 9.74%
Total 32,154

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 SCOTT ECKERT 14,768 36.64%
JAY STEIGER 13,645 33.85%
JIM STIERINGER 7,980 19.80%
MARSHA J. CHRISTMAN 3,914 9.71%
Total 40,307

JULIAN UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
BRITNI A MUSHET 986 30.37%
MIKE CHARLONNE 738 22.73%
ERIK FLEET 612 18.85%
CAROL M. FRAUSTO 581 17.89%
ADRYENN CANTOR 330 10.16%
Total 3,247

SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 JODIE WILLIAMS 10,126 51.22%
KELLY FRIIS 9,643 48.78%
Total 19,769

SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 MICHAEL ALLMAN 8,990 51.12%
KEVIN SABELLICO 8,595 48.88%
Total 17,585

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA 2
ADRIAN E. ARANCIBIA 21,226 56.72%
ANGELICA S. MARTINEZ 16,195 43.28%
Total 37,421

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA 4
RODOLFO "RUDY" LOPEZ 19,192 62.68%
OLGA ESPINOZA 11,426 37.32%
Total 30,618

ALPINE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
ERIKA SIMMONS 5,814 38.34%
TRAVIS LYON 5,355 35.31%
CEE GOULD 2,313 15.25%
JOSEPH PERRICONE 1,682 11.09%
Total 15,164

CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 (Short Term)
EMILY "LILY" SCHWORM 3,895 59.66%
DINA POLUS 2,634 40.34%
Total 6,529

CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 JIM MILLER 6,888 47.02%
ODAY YOUSIF 4,355 29.73%
ALEX WELLING 3,407 23.26%
Total 14,650

CARDIFF SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
MEMBER
Vote For 2
RHEA STEWART 2,997 33.69%
RICHARD BROCCHINI 2,958 33.25%
NANCY ORR 2,941 33.06%
Total 8,896

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER SEAT NO. 2
LUCY UGARTE 80,824 69.85%
SHARMANE ESTOLANO 34,885 30.15%
Total 115,709
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 4 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 15 of 232 ends

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER SEAT NO. 4
FRANCISCO TAMAYO 34,227 29.61%
KATE BISHOP 27,681 23.94%
TANYA WILLIAMS 26,232 22.69%
JESUS F. PARTIDA 15,977 13.82%
ZENITH KHAN 11,491 9.94%
Total 115,608

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
GEE WAH MOK 10,885 33.88%
BILL PORTER 9,445 29.40%
DANIELLE ROYBAL 6,700 20.85%
HELEN DOYLE 5,101 15.88%
Total 32,131

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER (Short Term)
ALAN SCOTT KHOLOS 12,805 66.98%
GENEVIEVE OKADA GOLDSTONE 6,312 33.02%
Total 19,117

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
MONICA LEE 19,951 35.22%
MARLON TAYLOR 18,466 32.60%
JILLIAN COCAYNE 18,232 32.18%
Total 56,649

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER (Short Term)
TOM MORTON 19,053 51.36%
AIMEE SPROUL 18,042 48.64%
Total 37,095

ESCONDIDO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 3
MARK OLSON 6,563 53.16%
JUAN MANUEL VARGAS 5,783 46.84%
Total 12,346

FALLBROOK UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA NO. 2
LIEF HANSEN 1,481 69.30%
LESLIE SOMMERS 656 30.70%
Total 2,137

FALLBROOK UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA NO. 4 (Short Term)
MARIA G. MORAN 3,228 50.56%
CONSTANCE FISH 3,156 49.44%
Total 6,384

LAKESIDE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 2
AUTUMN ELLENSON 2,957 75.24%
TWILA GODLEY 973 24.76%
Total 3,930

NATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
MEMBER
Vote For 2
CINDY LOPEZ 6,400 30.46%
MICHELLE GATES 5,841 27.80%
MARIA MIRANDA 4,544 21.63%
ROCINA LIZARRAGA 4,223 20.10%
Total 21,008

RANCHO SANTA FE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
KAREN "KATE" BUTLER 1,511 21.62%
KERRY VINCI 1,395 19.96%
ANNETTE ROSS 1,230 17.60%
MARIA LUONI 742 10.62%
VICTORIA GAMBLE 737 10.55%
JANICE LEE HOLOWKA 720 10.30%
KAREN ESCHRICH 653 9.34%
Total 6,988

SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
ANTONIO MARTINEZ 6,444 37.95%
KENIA PERAZA 3,555 20.94%
JOSE MANUEL DIRCIO 2,319 13.66%
YVETTE OLEA 1,834 10.80%
MARTIN ARIAS 1,646 9.69%
ROSALEAH PALLASIGUE 1,183 6.97%
Total 16,981

SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
MEMBER SEAT NO. 4
TRACIE THILL 16,446 59.94%
MONIQUE SILVER 10,992 40.06%
Total 27,438
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 5 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 16 of 232 ends

SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 4 (Short Term)
MANUEL "MANNY" ESPARZA 2,448 57.84%
LIZBETH BECERRA 1,784 42.16%
Total 4,232
MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT NO.
1 NORA VARGAS 127,708 62.46%
ALEJANDRO GALICIA 76,761 37.54%
Total 204,469
MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT NO.
2 JOEL ANDERSON 155,232 59.81%
GINA JACOBS 104,326 40.19%
Total 259,558
MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT NO.
3 TERRA LAWSON-REMER 178,781 56.98%
KEVIN L. FAULCONER 134,991 43.02%
Total 313,772

CITY OF CARLSBAD MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
KEVIN SHIN 8,414 58.14%
TYLER COLLINS 6,057 41.86%
Total 14,471

CITY OF CARLSBAD MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
TERESA ACOSTA 9,380 55.53%
GREG DAY 7,511 44.47%
Total 16,891
CITY OF CARLSBAD TREASURER (Short Term)
CHRISTIAN PEACOX 14,877 28.16%
THOMAS KROUSE, JR. 13,506 25.56%
GREGORIO KAHN 12,931 24.47%
MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS 11,521 21.81%
Total 52,835

CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
MICHAEL INZUNZA 18,508 68.58%
LETICIA MUNGUIA 8,478 31.42%
Total 26,986

CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
CESAR FERNANDEZ 13,401 60.75%
RUDY RAMIREZ 8,659 39.25%
Total 22,060

CITY OF CORONADO MAYOR
JOHN DUNCAN 4,124 45.50%
CASEY TANAKA 3,819 42.13%
MIKE DONOVAN 1,121 12.37%
Total 9,064

CITY OF CORONADO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
MARK FLEMING 3,524 22.57%
AMY STEWARD 3,093 19.81%
LAURA WILKINSON SINTON 3,013 19.30%
MARK WARNER 2,555 16.37%
CHRISTINE MOTT 2,187 14.01%
ANDREW GADE 1,240 7.94%
Total 15,612

CITY OF DEL MAR MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 3
TRACY MARTINEZ 1,633 39.56%
JOHN W. SPELICH 1,380 33.43%
DANIEL QUIRK 1,115 27.01%
Total 4,128

CITY OF EL CAJON MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
MICHELLE METSCHEL 4,636 100.00%
Total 4,636

CITY OF EL CAJON MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
STEVE GOBLE 5,754 66.95%
COURTNEY HALL 2,840 33.05%
Total 8,594

CITY OF EL CAJON MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
PHIL ORTIZ 4,823 100.00%
Total 4,823

CITY OF ENCINITAS MAYOR
BRUCE EHLERS 18,311 52.39%
TONY KRANZ 16,638 47.61%
Total 34,949
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 6 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 17 of 232 ends

CITY OF ENCINITAS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
LUKE SHAFFER 5,329 57.00%
ALLISON BLACKWELL 4,020 43.00%
Total 9,349

CITY OF ENCINITAS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
JIM O'HARA 4,109 55.47%
DESTINY PRESTON 3,298 44.53%
Total 7,407

CITY OF ESCONDIDO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
CHRISTIAN GARCIA 5,594 60.94%
VERONICA CIGARROA 2,513 27.37%
CHRISTINE SPENCER 1,073 11.69%
Total 9,180

CITY OF ESCONDIDO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
JUDY FITZGERALD 10,190 68.42%
RODERICK "ROD" HOWELL 4,704 31.58%
Total 14,894

CITY OF ESCONDIDO TREASURER
DOUGLAS W. SHULTZ 40,680 100.00%
Total 40,680

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
JOHN "JACK" FISHER 1,076 42.56%
MARTIN "MARTY" MATTES 799 31.61%
BEN SWEARINGEN 653 25.83%
Total 2,528

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
MATTHEW LEYBA-GONZALEZ 1,061 68.28%
LINDA KAYE 493 31.72%
Total 1,554

CITY OF LA MESA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
LAUREN CAZARES 12,587 32.22%
GENEVIEVE SUZUKI 11,984 30.68%
KRISTINE C. ALESSIO 11,238 28.77%
SHAWN TOWNSEND 3,253 8.33%
Total 39,062

CITY OF LEMON GROVE MAYOR
ALYSSON SNOW 4,059 39.77%
LIANA LEBARON 3,087 30.25%
RACQUEL VASQUEZ 3,059 29.98%
Total 10,205

CITY OF LEMON GROVE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
JESSYKA HEREDIA 4,494 29.13%
SITIVI "STEVE" FAIAI 4,051 26.26%
GEORGE GASTIL 3,757 24.35%
SETH SMITH 3,127 20.27%
Total 15,429

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
JOSE RODRIGUEZ 2,578 73.32%
RANDI CASTLE-SALGADO 938 26.68%
Total 3,516

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
MARCUS BUSH 1,736 43.77%
VICTOR M. ARREOLA 1,509 38.05%
DANIEL PEREZ 721 18.18%
Total 3,966

CITY OF OCEANSIDE MAYOR
ESTHER SANCHEZ 39,100 50.15%
RYAN KEIM 38,868 49.85%
Total 77,968

CITY OF OCEANSIDE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
JIMMY FIGUEROA 10,250 47.53%
LAURA BASSETT 8,804 40.82%
TOM DEMOOY 1,679 7.79%
AUSTIN SORENSEN 833 3.86%
Total 21,566

CITY OF OCEANSIDE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
PETER WEISS 8,995 45.15%
AMBER KAE NIUATOA 5,810 29.16%
OMAR HASHIMI 5,119 25.69%
Total 19,924

CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY CLERK
ZEB NAVARRO 62,004 100.00%
Total 62,004
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 7 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 18 of 232 ends

CITY OF OCEANSIDE TREASURER
PHYLLIS DOMINGUEZ 24,843 35.32%
VICTOR ROY 23,849 33.90%
JACK FERNANDES 21,654 30.78%
Total 70,346

CITY OF POWAY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 2
TONY BLAIN 2,783 37.84%
VANESSA SPRINGETT 2,515 34.19%
JARED WILSON 2,057 27.97%
Total 7,355

CITY OF POWAY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 4
JENNY C. MAEDA 2,463 50.12%
CAYLIN FRANK 2,451 49.88%
Total 4,914

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MAYOR
TODD GLORIA 317,015 55.35%
LARRY TURNER 255,782 44.65%
Total 572,797

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
STEPHEN WHITBURN 38,344 57.53%
COLEEN CUSACK 28,303 42.47%
Total 66,647

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 9
SEAN ELO-RIVERA 28,106 60.71%
TERRY HOSKINS 18,189 39.29%
Total 46,295

CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY
HEATHER FERBERT 282,912 56.83%
BRIAN MAIENSCHEIN 214,872 43.17%
Total 497,784

CITY OF SAN MARCOS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
DANIELLE LEBLANG 5,552 57.09%
ALAN GERACI 4,173 42.91%
Total 9,725

CITY OF SAN MARCOS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
ED MUSGROVE 6,846 64.49%
NATASHA ZANDER HILMES 3,769 35.51%
Total 10,615

CITY OF SANTEE MAYOR
JOHN W. MINTO 20,733 77.80%
KELLI L. O'BRIEN 5,917 22.20%
Total 26,650

CITY OF SANTEE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
LAURA KOVAL 5,317 100.00%
Total 5,317

CITY OF SANTEE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
DUSTIN TROTTER 4,342 62.36%
AUGIE SCALZITTI 2,621 37.64%
Total 6,963

CITY OF VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 2
JEFF FOX 6,047 62.35%
ANTHONY WHITE 3,651 37.65%
Total 9,698

CITY OF VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 3
KATIE MELENDEZ 4,323 55.32%
DENISSE BARRAGAN 3,492 44.68%
Total 7,815

BORREGO WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF

DIRECTORS
Vote For 2
MARTHA DEICHLER 738 37.98%
TAMMY BAKER 505 25.99%
DIANE E. JOHNSON 418 21.51%
PETER KELLNER 282 14.51%
Total 1,943

CANEBRAKE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 2
CHRISTOPHER MACDONALD 14 43.75%
MARSHA CAMPBELL 12 37.50%
JERALD BUCHEIT 6 18.75%
Total 32
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 8 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 19 of 232 ends

FALLBROOK COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP

MEMBER, PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 8
ALDO ALVIDRES 11,590 12.14%
ROSS PIKE 11,305 11.84%
THOMAS GERALD HARRINGTON IV 11,146 11.68%
ROY MOOSA 10,448 10.95%
STEPHANI BAXTER 9,922 10.40%
KATHLEEN "KATHIE" MORRIS 9,413 9.86%
LEE J. DE MEO 9,068 9.50%
JIM LOGE 8,786 9.21%
MARK MERVICH 7,946 8.33%
MARK HOYE 5,818 6.10%
Total 95,442

GROSSMONT HEALTHCARE DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 3
NADIA FARJOOD 23,515 55.69%
BRENDA MILLER 18,711 44.31%
Total 42,226

HELIX WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
MARK A. GRACYK 12,434 65.25%
JEANETTE ERICKSON 6,622 34.75%
Total 19,056

LAKESIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
JAMES BINGHAM 5,217 83.82%
SANDRA DEAKINS 1,007 16.18%
Total 6,224

LAKESIDE WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
STEVE ROBAK 1,609 67.98%
JEANNE SWARINGEN 758 32.02%
Total 2,367

MORRO HILLS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 3
JEFF WALKER 354 28.80%
THOMAS HARRINGTON III 278 22.62%
JEANINE ROSKOS 228 18.55%
BILL WEBER 189 15.38%
CHARLENE WEBER 180 14.65%
Total 1,229

NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 1
ROSS PIKE 1,559 73.43%
JEANETTE BARRAGAN 564 26.57%
Total 2,123

NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
JEFF EGKAN 4,801 74.03%
JOHN VAN DOORN 1,684 25.97%
Total 6,485

NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
MARK BARTHOLOMEW 4,684 80.23%
SHEILA A. LANCASTER 1,154 19.77%
Total 5,838

OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
SCOTT MALONI 4,481 58.31%
ERIC K. ARMSTRONG 1,752 22.80%
GREG BARTH 865 11.26%
ERIC T. ANDERSON 587 7.64%
Total 7,685

OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
NEAL MEYERS 3,968 54.48%
CHRIS CIEPLEY 3,315 45.52%
Total 7,283

OTAY WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
DELFINA GONZALEZ 9,537 58.08%
RYAN KEYES 6,883 41.92%
Total 16,420

OTAY WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
MARK ROBAK 12,161 58.36%
GREGORY J MARTINEZ 8,676 41.64%
Total 20,837

PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
SUZANNE TILL 6,447 61.56%
ROBERT "BOB" T. LLOYD SR. 4,026 38.44%
Total 10,473
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 9 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 20 of 232 ends

PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
KIM HALES 5,708 55.75%
IVAN ANDUJAR 4,530 44.25%
Total 10,238

PALOMAR HEALTH MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
ABBI L. JAHAASKI 10,051 65.31%
LAURA BARRY 5,339 34.69%
Total 15,390

PALOMAR HEALTH MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 6
JEFF GRIFFITH 17,683 61.65%
JOE MUGA 9,524 33.20%
GAURAV DHIMAN 1,477 5.15%
Total 28,684

PAUMA VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Short Term)
Vote For 2
LOLO LEVY 271 43.57%
MICHAEL ESPARZA 202 32.48%
BILL COLLIER 149 23.95%
Total 622

RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 1
LISA HOFFMAN 1,136 52.40%
JULIE JOHNSON 1,032 47.60%
Total 2,168

RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3 (Short Term)
GREG IRVINE 1,585 57.24%
CARI DALE 1,184 42.76%
Total 2,769

RANCHO SANTA FE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 3
NANCY C. HILLGREN 8,089 21.23%
JAMES H. ASHCRAFT 6,826 17.91%
KEVIN BARNARD 6,617 17.36%
ANDREW KRYNEN 5,538 14.53%
RANDALL MALIN 5,528 14.51%
DOUGLAS DILL 5,511 14.46%
Total 38,109

SOUTH BAY WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
ELIZABETH COX 5,105 52.95%
JOSIE CALDERON - SCOTT 4,537 47.05%
Total 9,642

SWEETWATER COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP

MEMBER, PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 8
PATTY O'MARA 3,367 15.27%
JUDITH A. TIEBER 2,607 11.82%
MICHAEL GARROD 2,487 11.28%
FELIX M. FELIX 2,433 11.03%
ELIZABETH LEE STONEHOUSE 2,359 10.70%
PENNI WILSON-NEELY 2,308 10.46%
MARK KUKUCHEK 2,288 10.37%
UWE WERNER 2,178 9.88%
STEPHEN STONEHOUSE 2,028 9.20%
Total 22,055

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 1
ADELA IRMA SANCHEZ 16,538 65.77%
ALLEN L NEWSOME 8,609 34.23%
Total 25,147

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 5
SHEILA BROWN 15,263 62.12%
AARON J. BYZAK 9,307 37.88%
Total 24,570

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 7
NINA CHAYA 16,840 62.63%
VALERIE MITCHELL 10,046 37.37%
Total 26,886

VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
JENNIFER KERSCHBAUM 6,354 58.53%
ERIK A. GROSET 4,502 41.47%
Total 10,856

VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
TIFFANY BOYD-HODGSON 6,065 61.19%
HENRY "WALLY" SIMPSON 3,846 38.81%
Total 9,911
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 10 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 21 of 232 ends

VALLEY CENTER COMMUNITY PLANNING GROUP

MEMBER, PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 8
DELORES CHAVEZ HARMES 5,495 11.35%
DORI RATTRAY 4,639 9.58%
KAREN A. LIEBER 4,514 9.32%
BOB LITTLEJOHN 4,494 9.28%
S. MICHELLE BOTHOF 4,430 9.15%
MARY HOPE L. HODSON 4,268 8.81%
CHRISTOPHER "CHRIS" BARBER 4,025 8.31%
TOM J. STINSON 4,012 8.29%
LISA ADAMS 3,568 7.37%
RANDY LIUAG 3,266 6.75%
PATRICK MALLOY 2,955 6.10%
ANDREW NOLL 2,752 5.68%
Total 48,418

VISTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION B
ROB FOUGNER 1,496 75.98%
RICHARD TILCH 473 24.02%
Total 1,969

VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
BYRON L. OLSON 4,856 70.86%
KAREN M. WILCOX 1,997 29.14%
Total 6,853

VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
JO MACKENZIE 5,983 65.98%
BILL HARD 3,085 34.02%
Total 9,068
PROP 2 - PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY
COLLEGE FACILITIES BONDS - Majority-Required to
pass
YES 783,150 55.63%
NO 624,625 44.37%
Total 1,407,775
PROP 3 - RIGHT TO MARRIAGE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT - Majority-Required to pass
YES 929,477 65.57%
NO 488,011 34.43%
Total 1,417,488
PROP 4 - SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION AND CLIMATE RISK BONDS - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 811,585 57.27%
NO 605,458 42.73%
Total 1,417,043
PROP 5 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS - 55% Required to pass
NO 806,241 57.58%
YES 594,029 42.42%
Total 1,400,270
PROP 6 - ELIMINATES INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS - Majority-Required to
pass
NO 756,244 54.64%
YES 627,728 45.36%
Total 1,383,972
PROP 32 - RAISES MINIMUM WAGE - Majority-
Required to pass
NO 761,603 53.51%
YES 661,731 46.49%
Total 1,423,334
PROP 33 - EXPANDS LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT
RENT CONTROL - Majority-Required to pass
NO 835,944 59.98%
YES 557,730 40.02%
Total 1,393,674
PROP 34 - RESTRICTS SPENDING OF

PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS - Majority-Required to
pass
YES 736,187 55.00%
NO 602,270 45.00%
Total 1,338,457
PROP 35 - PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES - Majority-Required to pass
YES 908,009 65.77%
NO 472,535 34.23%
Total 1,380,544
PROP 36 - ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND

INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN CRIMES -
Majority-Required to pass
YES 912,939 65.27%
NO 485,821 34.73%
Total 1,398,760
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 11 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 22 of 232 ends

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - MEASURE G - Majority-
Required to pass
NO 701,639 50.46%
YES 688,922 49.54%
Total 1,390,561
CITY OF CARLSBAD - MEASURE B - Majority-Required
to pass
YES 32,759 53.06%
NO 28,981 46.94%
Total 61,740
CITY OF CHULA VISTA - MEASURE P - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 81,009 73.40%
NO 29,361 26.60%
Total 110,370
CITY OF DEL MAR - MEASURE M - Majority-Required
to pass
YES 1,866 71.52%
NO 743 28.48%
Total 2,609
CITY OF DEL MAR - MEASURE A - Majority-Required to
pass
YES 1,652 66.24%
NO 842 33.76%
Total 2,494
CITY OF EL CAJON - MEASURE J - Majority-Required
to pass
YES 22,631 67.97%
NO 10,663 32.03%
Total 33,294
CITY OF ENCINITAS - MEASURE K - Majority-Required
to pass
NO 18,884 51.91%
YES 17,492 48.09%
Total 36,376
CITY OF ESCONDIDO - MEASURE I - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 32,802 61.12%
NO 20,863 38.88%
Total 53,665
CITY OF LA MESA - MEASURE L - Majority-Required to
pass
YES 23,073 81.37%
NO 5,284 18.63%
Total 28,357
CITY OF LEMON GROVE - MEASURE T - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 7,503 71.59%
NO 2,977 28.41%
Total 10,480
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY - MEASURE R - Majority-
Required to pass
NO 10,145 66.15%
YES 5,192 33.85%
Total 15,337
CITY OF OCEANSIDE - MEASURE X - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 55,360 69.67%
NO 24,104 30.33%
Total 79,464
CITY OF POWAY - MEASURE H - Majority-Required to
pass
NO 17,880 68.66%
YES 8,163 31.34%
Total 26,043
CITY OF SAN DIEGO - MEASURE C - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 264,086 67.47%
NO 127,314 32.53%
Total 391,400
CITY OF SAN DIEGO - MEASURE D - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 375,039 72.32%
NO 143,549 27.68%
Total 518,588
CITY OF SAN DIEGO - MEASURE E - Majority-Required
to pass
NO 288,446 50.31%
YES 284,940 49.69%
Total 573,386
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 12 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 23 of 232 ends

CITY OF SAN MARCOS - MEASURE Q - Majority-
Required to pass
YES 24,411 60.44%
NO 15,977 39.56%
Total 40,388
CITY OF SANTEE - MEASURE S - Majority-Required to
pass
NO 14,992 52.30%
YES 13,675 47.70%
Total 28,667

SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT -
MEASURE HH - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 256,983 60.64%
BONDS - NO 166,782 39.36%
Total 423,765

SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
- MEASURE SW - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 108,970 59.03%
BONDS - NO 75,636 40.97%
Total 184,606

BONSALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE V
- 55% Required to pass
BONDS - NO 5,536 51.96%
BONDS - YES 5,119 48.04%
Total 10,655

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE
GG - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - NO 10,139 54.51%
BONDS - YES 8,460 45.49%
Total 18,599

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MEASURE JJ - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 32,919 57.77%
BONDS - NO 24,064 42.23%
Total 56,983

VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT - MEASURE SS - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - NO 7,243 53.00%
BONDS - YES 6,422 47.00%
Total 13,665

WARNER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE
TT - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 716 63.36%
BONDS - NO 414 36.64%
Total 1,130

FALLBROOK UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MEASURE BB - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - NO 10,870 50.25%
BONDS - YES 10,761 49.75%
Total 21,631

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MEASURE RR - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 107,629 61.14%
BONDS - NO 68,400 38.86%
Total 176,029

ALPINE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE U -
55% Required to pass
BONDS - NO 6,356 60.63%
BONDS - YES 4,127 39.37%
Total 10,483

CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MEASURE W - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 31,992 52.30%
BONDS - NO 29,182 47.70%
Total 61,174

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT -
MEASURE AA - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 76,517 61.72%
BONDS - NO 47,459 38.28%
Total 123,976
DEHESA SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE Y - 55%
Required to pass
BONDS - NO 774 60.28%
BONDS - YES 510 39.72%
Total 1,284

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE Z
- 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 24,167 56.84%
BONDS - NO 18,347 43.16%
Total 42,514
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 13 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 24 of 232 ends

LEMON GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE CC -
55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 8,445 62.54%
BONDS - NO 5,058 37.46%
Total 13,503

LEMON GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE EE -
55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 8,743 64.49%
BONDS - NO 4,814 35.51%
Total 13,557

SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE KK -
55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 3,554 63.91%
BONDS - NO 2,007 36.09%
Total 5,561

SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE LL -
55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 3,537 63.36%
BONDS - NO 2,045 36.64%
Total 5,582

SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE MM -
55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 4,977 77.95%
BONDS - NO 1,408 22.05%
Total 6,385
SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE NN - 55%
Required to pass
BONDS - YES 15,580 52.38%
BONDS - NO 14,167 47.62%
Total 29,747

SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE
PP - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 16,034 66.00%
BONDS - NO 8,259 34.00%
Total 24,293

SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT - MEASURE
QQ - 55% Required to pass
BONDS - YES 16,523 67.64%
BONDS - NO 7,906 32.36%
Total 24,429
Printed: Tuesday, December 3, 2024 12:47 PM Page 14 of 14 Presidential General Election
County of San Diego
November 5, 2024
Official Results
(San Diego Portion Only)

Page 25 of 232 ends

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Planning
Prepared by: David Welch, Associate Planner
Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Approved by: Benjamin A. Martinez, City Manager

SUBJECT:

Notice of Decision – Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Zone Variance (ZV) for a New Gasoline Ser vice Station Development to be Located on a Vacant Property at Sweetwater Road and Orange Street

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff Recommended Approval of the Proposed Development Requesting a New Gasoline Service Station, Convenience Store with Off-Sale Alcohol (ABC Type-21), Drive-Through Car Wash, Drive- Through Eating Place, and Five Residential Units, Subject to the Recommended Conditions in the Draft Resolution and a Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA. The Requested Uses are Conditionally Allowed within the Major Mixed-Use District (MXD-2) and the Project can be Found Consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Code with the Approval of the Requested Zone Variance.

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

On November 18, 2024, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item for additional review time for staff. At the subsequent meeting on December 2, 2024, a public hearing was held and the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP and ZV request by a vote of 4-2 of those present (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-20).

Ayes: Armenta, Castle, Forman, Miller Nays: Quinones, Sanchez Absent: Valenzuela

EXPLANATION:

The attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit B) provides further information and analysis of the pro posed development as well as a draft resolution with proposed conditions of approval. At the Planning Commission meeting, 41 community members registered an opinion of the proposal (37 in opposition and four in support), with 26 speakers raising concerns related to public safety, air pollution, public nuisance, and public convenience and necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption. The resolution adopted by the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project based on the above-mentioned findings.

Page 26 of 232 ends

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

An application fee of $3,700 was paid with the submittal of the subject CUP. An additional application fee of $3,700 was paid for the submittal of the ZV request. Fees are anticipated to cover the cost of staff review time and processing of the permit. Approval of the CUP and ZV will lead to redevelopment of the property, which will be subject to building permit and impact fees.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Housing and Community Development

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is a project under CEQA subject to a Categorical Exemption. In -Fill Development Projects.

CCR 15332.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

The Agenda Report was posted within 72 hours of the meeting date and time in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-20
Exhibit B – Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments Exhibit C – 12/2/24 Planning Commission PowerPoint slides

Page 27 of 232 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-20

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA

DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

COMPRISED OF A NEW SERVICE STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE WITH REQUEST FOR OFF-SALE ALCOHOL (ABC TYPE-21), DRIVE-THROUGH CAR

WASH, DRIVE-THROUGH EATING PLACE, AND FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A

ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST RELATED TO MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH,

MINIMIUM STREET WALL, AND THE LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES, TO BE

LOCATED ON VACANT PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SWEETWATER ROAD BETWEEN OLIVE STREET AND ORANGE STREET.

CASE FILE NO. 2024-08 CUP, ZV
APNS: 563-252-12-00, 563-252-13-00, 563-252-14-00, AND 563-252-23-00

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed development comprised of a new service station, convenience store with request for off -sale alcohol (ABC Type- 21), drive- through car wash, drive- through eating place, and five residential units with a Zone Variance request related to maximum driveway width, minimum street wall and the location of parking spaces, to be located on vacant properties on the north side of Sweetwater Road, between Olive Street and Orange Street, at a duly advertised public hearing held on December 2, 2024, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and,

WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report contained in Case File No. 2024- 08 CUP, ZV maintained by the City and incorporated herein by referenc e along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and,

WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of National City, Ca lifornia, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on December 2, 2024, support the following findings:

1. Granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located, because the intensity of development of the site may result in public safety

Page 28 of 232 ends

concerns related to traffic, both passenger vehicles and commercial fuel trucks, the sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption, which may result in an increased propensity for over -consumption in an area already over -concentrated with outlets, and an increase in calls for service related to public safety in an area served by multiple jurisdictions.

2. Granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located, because the proposed operation of a gasoline service station may result in the emission of hazardous fumes or noxious odors, which would be in close proximity to residential uses both on- site and off -site. The increase in traffic, as anticipated by the Local Transportation Analysis, may also result in diminished air quality in the vicinity of the site.

3. Granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located, because the proposed development is comprised of uses that may create public nuisances including, but not limited to, the operation of a drive- through automated car wash and drive-through eating place that may produce excessive noise, general nuisances related to over -consumption of alcohol as m entioned above, and the potential for noxious odors related to the sale of gasoline.

4. Based on the above findings, public convenience and necessity will not be served by the off-site sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the applicant and to the City Council for review. The City Council may, at that meeting, decide to review the Planning Commission’s decision and set the matter for a public hearing.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED t hat this Resolution shall become effective and final following City Council review and thirty (30) days following the Planning Commission’ s decision, unless an appeal is filed in writing with the City Clerk.

CERTIFICATION:

This certifies that the Resolut ion was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 2, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

Page 29 of 232 ends

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: ________________________

CHAIRPERSON

Page 30 of 232 ends

Item no. 3
December 2, 2024

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
1243 NATIONAL CITY BLVD., NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Title: PUBLIC HEARING – DETERMINATION THAT THE

PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FR OM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
UNDER CLASS 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15332 (INFILL- DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) AND

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED

DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF A NEW SERVICE

STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE WITH REQUEST FO R
OFF-SALE ALCOHOL (ABC TYPE- 21), DRIVE -THROUGH

CAR WASH, DRIVE -THROUGH EATING PLACE, AND

FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A ZONE VARIANCE

REQUEST RELATED TO MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH,

MINIMIUM STREET WALL, AND THE LOCATION OF

PARKING SPACES, TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT

PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SWEETWATER

ROAD BETWEEN OLIVE STREET AND ORANGE
STREET.

Case File No.: 2024-08 CUP ZV

Location: 2311 Sweetwater Road and 3320-3336 Orange Street

Assessor’s Parcel Nos.: 563-252-12-00, 563 -252-13-00, 563 -252-14-00, and 563- 252-23-00

Staff report by: David Welch, Associate Planner

Applicant: Highland Avenue Property Investments, LLC

Zoning designation: Major Mixed-Use District (MXD-2)

Adjacent use and zoning:

North: Single-Family Attached Residential / County of San Diego

East: Residential and Convenience Store across Orange St. / Small Lot Residential (RS-2), MXD-2, and County of San Diego

Page 31 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 2 ends

South: Caltrans Right-of-Way across Sweetwater Rd. / Open Space (OS), MXD-2

West: Single-Family Residential / MXD-2

Environmental review: Categorically exempt from environm ental review pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)

Staff recommendation: Approve

Page 32 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 3 ends

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed development requesting a new gasoline service station, convenience store with off -sale alcohol (ABC Type 21), drive-through car wash, drive- through eating place, and five residential units, subject to the recommended conditions in the attached resolution and a determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. The requested uses are conditionally-allowed within the Major Mixed-Use District (MXD-2) and the project is consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Code (LUC) with the approval of the requested Zone Variance (ZV).

Executive Summary
The applicant proposes to construct an 11,478 square- foot building that includes a convenience store, drive- through eating place, and five residential units in conjunction with a new gasoline service station on an approximately 29,500 square-foot vacant property. A drive- through automated car wash is also proposed with the service station. Off -sale alcohol (ABC Type-21) for beer, wine, and distilled spirits is requested for the convenience store. A Zone Variance is also requested for a deviation from the maximum driveway width, minimum street wall requirements, and the minimum setback for parking spaces.

Site Characteristics
The project is located on a 0.68- acre property comprised of four vacant lots located at the corner of Sweetwater Road and Orange Street . The site was previously annexed and rezoned to the MXD -2 district and a proposed commercial retail use and drive- through was also originally approved. After the original approval expired, another Conditional Use Permit for a similar drive- through project was approved in 2022. Unlike the previously approved projects, the current proposal does not include an adjacent single- family lot addressed 2305 Sweetwater Road. The site is relatively flat and would require minimal grading to develop. However, the shape of the lot is triangular with a depth of approximately 203 feet on the eastern side of the property and a depth of just under 80 feet on the western side of the pr operty. The overall width is approximately 201 feet.

To the north, there are s ingle-family residences located in the County of San Diego. The northern portion of the street frontage along Orange Street is abutting the County of San Diego and single- family homes across the street. The remaining frontage is across the street from properties in National City, which are currently zoned Small Lot Residential (RS -2) and MXD -2. The property zoned

Page 33 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 4 ends

MXD-2 to the east is occupied by a 7-11 convenience store. To the south, across Sweetwater Road, is Caltrans right -of-way occupied by the intercha nge of Interstate 805 and State Highway 54. Directly east of the site is the single- family home at 2305 Sweetwater Road. Additionally, the Sweetwater Road frontage includes newly -installed separated bike lanes on the north side of the right -of- way as well as a HAWK pedestrian crossing to access the bus stop on the south side of the road.

Proposed Use
The project proposes multiple uses of the property including a gasoline service station, convenience store, drive- through eating place, automated drive- through car wash, and residential units. Off -sale alcohol is also requested for the convenience store. Of these uses, the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the service station and convenience store, the sale of alcoholic beverages, and t he drive-through. The zoning of the property, MXD -2, permits mixed-use developments and, specifically, the individual uses requested for this development.

The gasoline service station is proposed to have six double-sided fuel pumps (12 fueling stations). The fuel pump island would also serve to provide a total of 12 parking spaces. This use is subject to specific requirements in Section 18.30.190 of the LUC, which will be discussed in the subsequent section. Accessory to the service station is the proposed 900 square-foot automated car wash, which will be accessed from the southeast corner of the property. The fuel pumps and car wash are proposed to operate 24 hours daily. The variances requested by the applicant are largely related to the proposed service station use. The requests include a deviation from the maximum driveway width to allow 40- foot driveway entrances, a deviation from the minimum street wall requirement, and a deviation from the minimum setback requirement for parking space. A service stati on requires access for semi -trucks to deliver fuel and more “open air” space for the fuel pumps, which leads to a development style that is different than what is ordinarily permitted within the zone.

The convenience store is proposed within a 3,329 squar e-foot retail space in a new 14,932 square- foot building to the west of the fuel pumps. The building will also have 4,658 square- foot basement level that can be used for storage. The proposed hours of operation for the convenience store are 24 hours daily.

Alcohol sales, however, are proposed from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. The applicant is requesting an ABC Type 21 license, which allows for the sale of

Page 34 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 5 ends

beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off -site consumption. Additional requirements related to the sal e of alcohol beverages will be discussed in the subsequent section.

A drive -through lane is proposed to wrap around the western side of the proposed commercial building and serve a 1,297 square-foot suite that will house a restaurant or coffee shop. This suite will also have access from the Sweetwater frontage in conformance with the frontage standards of the MXD -2 zone.

Additional requirements for drive- through lanes are discussed later in this report.

The proposed queuing capacity of the drive-through lane is 12 vehicles.

Finally, the applicant proposed to construct five residential units on the second and third floors of the proposed building with the retail uses. Residential units are a permitted use and do not require discretionary approval. The total parking requirement for the proposed development is increased to 23 spaces with the provision of these units. During the review process, the applicant modified the proposed residential portion of the building to comply with to the height requirements of the zone.

Analysis
The applicant is proposing a development that requires the discretionary approval of seven separate request s. Each request should be considered independently for findings of consistency with the City’s General Plan and Land Use Code.

General Plan
The proposed project contributes new commercial activity and infill development, which is encouraged by the General Plan:

Policy LU 5.3: Encourage businesses to employ National City residents and support efforts to reduce local unemployment.

Policy LU 5.4: Encourage and incentivize strategic adaptive reuse and infill development of vacant land in commercial and mixed-use areas.

The proposal is for the development of a currently vacant site with a mixed- use project providing a variety of commercial offerings as well as additional housing units. The new businesses will introduce additional job opportunities to the area

Page 35 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 6 ends

with seven employees at the new convenience store and service station and further employment at the future drive-through business.

The General Plan Land Use map desig nates the property a Major Mixed-Use, which allows up to 75 dwelling units per acre. The applicant’s proposal only includes a residential density of 7.4 dwelling units per acre.

Land Use Code
In addition to specific code sections that will be discussed below, the project has been reviewed for conformance with the requirements of the MXD -2 zone and general development standards found in the LUC. The project meets all applicable standards, with the exception of the requested variances and some general requirements that will be included as conditions of approval. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is well below the maximum residential density of 75 dwelling units per acre and the maximum floor area ratio of 3.5 (less than 1.0 proposed). The project qualifies as a mixed- use development and is permitted to have additional floor area and reduced parking minimums. Thirty parking spaces are provided within the development, even though only 23 are required. Whil e the project largely complies with the design standards of the zone, a condition of approval is included to ensure it is constructed in compliance with minimum transparency and frontage standards.

Additional conditions require compliance with Chapters 18. 44 – Landscaping and

18.46 – Outdoor Lighting of the LUC.

Service Stations
Section 18.30.190 of the LUC allows for service stations and convenience stores with gasoline pumps with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additional requirements for servi ce stations include site planning standards, screening, building design standards, landscaping, and operational standards.

Site Planning Standards - A service station requires a minimum of one hundred feet of street frontage and a minimum site area of fif teen thousand feet. The site has approximately 431 feet of frontage with a lot area of 29,455 square feet. Site planning standards encourage the fuel pump islands to be screened by the main building structure and that the convenience store be placed at the street frontage with display windows along the side walk to encourage pedestrian use. The shape of the site, as well as the additional drive-through uses, make it impractical to move the fuel pumps behind the proposed building. In addition, there are residences adjacent to the property in the location encouraged by the code. The

Page 36 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 7 ends

proposed development includes another commercial business along the street frontage and the convenience store is easily accessible via an internal sidewalk.

Additional standards related to curb cuts for service stations are being met.

Screening - A masonry screening wall, not less than five feet and no more than six feet in height is required along lot lines adjoining residential zones. The applicant has proposed a seven- foot high masonry wall. A condition of approval has been added to reduce the proposed wall height to six feet.

Building Fronts - The design of the proposed development is subject to the requirements of the MXD -2 zone as well as design requirements for service stations. The proposed development complies with these requirements through a consistent design scheme and architectural details.

Landscaping - The code has a general requirement that ten percent of the gross site area shall be landscaping. The development proposes approximately 14% of the land area to be devoted to landscaping.

Use Regulations and other standards - The LUC has use regulations for service stations related to automotive service and repair, fuel pumps, product display, and lighting. Most of thes e regulations are not applicable because the applicant is not proposing any automotive service or repair with the project. Conditions of approval have been added to ensure compliance with these various regulations.

Noise – According to the Noise and Nuisance Element of the City’s General Plan, the ambient noise levels from traffic at the subject site are approximately 70- 75 dB(A). Proposed projects in areas with high ambient noise levels are required to conduct a noise study to determine if a project can c omply with a maximum of level of 45 dB(A) for habitable spaces. Due to the inclusion of residential units with the proposed project, a noise study is required as a condition of approval for conformance with residential standards due to the high ambient noi se levels as well as the proposed uses for the site (drive-through business and automated car wash). In addition, an additional condition has been included addressing the hours of operation of the automated car wash. Staff is recommending that the hours of operation be restricted to the hours for which lesser noise levels are permitted near residential uses (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) in Title 12 of the National City Municipal Code.

Page 37 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 8 ends

Alcohol Sales
Section 18.30.050 of the LUC allows for off -site alcohol sales with an approved CUP. Additional requirements for alcohol CUPs include expanded notification, a community meeting, and distance requirements. City Council Policy 707 also regulates alcohol sales in the City. The applicant is proposing to sell beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off -site consumption in the convenience store. A condition of approval for the hours of alcohol sales reflect s what the applicant has requested (6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily). The store will be in operation 24 hours a day.

Mailing - All property owners and occupants within a dista nce of 660 feet are required to be notified of a public hearing for al cohol-related CUP applications.

Notice of thi s public hearing was sent to 168 occupants and owners. The notice included information o n all the requests of this application and is provided as Attachment 4. At the time of the writing of this report, no public comments have been received for this item.

Community Meeting - Pursuant to Section 18.30.050.C of the LUC, a community meeting was held on Thursday, August 28, 2024 at 5:30 p.m. at the National City Chamber of Commerce. The meeting adver tisement is attached (Attachment 8).

Per the applicant, one husband and wife attended the meeting and had no comments.

Distance Requirements – Per S ection 18.30.050.D.5 of the LUC, no minimum distances from schools or other uses are required for convenience stores when alcohol sales are an accessory use. In addition, no schools are within the minimum distance of 660 feet.

Alcohol Sales Concentration/Location - According to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), there are four off-site license in census tract 122, where a maximum of two are recommended. Therefore, the census tract is considered to be over concentrated by ABC with regard to off -site alcohol sales outlets. The area along Sweetwater Road, east of N. 2 nd Avenue, along with unincorporated Lincoln Acres, is included in Census Tract 122.

Police Department (PD) - The ABC Risk Assessment provided by PD allocated a total of 13 points, which places it in the Medium Risk category (Medium Risk is considered 13 to 18 points). The Risk Assessment is included as Attachment 6.

Page 38 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 9 ends

Institute for Public Strategies (IPS) - Comments were received from IPS with the following considerations:

1. Consider the issuance of a Type 20 license rather than Type 21. The ability to purchase alcohol at service stations may increase the opportunity for consumption while operating a vehicle.

2. Require that staff, management, and owner attend an in- person Responsible Beverage Sales and Service training. See the California Alcoholic Beverage Control website for future trainings.

3. Adhere to ABC requirements on window transparency.

4. Post required signage in English and Spanish.

5. Post signage related to open containers on the premises and loitering.

The license type being requested by the applicant is ABC Type-21. The applicant would need to modify their request with ABC as well as the City to obtain a Type- 20 license. The other considerations have been incorporated as conditions of approval.

Standard conditions of approval are included in the report in compliance with City Council Policy 707. IPS comments are included as Attachment 7.

Drive-Through Businesses
Section 18.41.020.C of the LUC, has specific requirements for drive- through business. This section also states a CUP is required for a drive-through lane. The three requirements include:

• Minimum queuing distances (established by CUP).
• Minimum 25-foot interior turning radius for drive-through aisles. • Location requirements for the drive-through window and landscaping

A Local Transportation Analysis was completed for the project, a portion of which studied the queuing of the proposed drive-through lane and automated car wash.

Two separate case studies were us ed. The drive- through lane at a similar development located at 5494 Mission Center Road in the City of San Diego was used, which serves a drive- through only Starbucks coffee shop attached to a gasoline service station’s convenience store. The maximum queue at this location was 12 vehicles. The proposed project has capacity for 12 queuing vehicles and is expected to have sufficient room. A second study was conducted at a car wash facility located on a gasoline service station property at 1803

Page 39 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 10 ends

Highland Avenue in National City. This study observed a maximum queue of three vehicles. The applicant modified their plans to provide sufficient queuing space for the proposed car wash by shifting the entrance to the south side of the property.

The two drive-through lanes proposed for the project have been reviewed by the Engineering Department. The drive- through lane serving the proposed coffee shop or eating place complies with minimum turning radius requirements and is exempt from additional landscaping requirements since it is not located between the building and the street frontage. The automated car wash is an accessory use to the service station and does not have the same impacts as a drive- through eating place since the selection menu is limited, no speaker system would be used, the volume of customers is relatively low as shown by queueing study, and the Engineering Department has already reviewed the proposed configuration. Staff does not consider this a drive- through business and, therefore, it would not be subject to additional requirements.

Traffic - The design of the proposed project places the drive- through lane at the back of the property and along the west side of the property on the west side of the property. A landscaped strip and masonry wall separates the drive-through lane from the adjacent property. A second drive- through lane for an automated car wash is located at the portion of the property closest to the intersection of Sweetwater Road and Orange Street. The car wash building is along the Orange Street frontage of the property. At the center of the property is a fuel pump island with 12 fueling stations , which is surrounded by the car wash, parking for residential units to the north, and a 14,932 square foot mixed- use building and parking to the w est. Access to the site is from a two -way driveway on Orange Street and a two- way driveway on Sweetwater Road just east of the mixed- use building and adjacent row of parking. The configuration maximizes circulation on the property by creating a larger vehi cle loop for the drive- through eating place that is served by a secondary exit and an internal loop served by wider two- way driveways that allows vehicles to access the fuel pumps, car wash entrance, and parking spaces. The applicant is also requesting wider drive -way entrances to reduce conflict with entering vehicles and fuel trucks. As previously mentioned, it is important to note the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on Sweetwater Road that would be impacted by this development.

The Local Transportation Analysis, Attachment 9 , included a traffic impact analysis, which identified substantial effects from the proposed project. While

Page 40 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 11 ends

impacts were analyzed, the project was not subject to further study by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because no significant impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) were found. The threshold for VMT impacts for a similar development is a project with at least 50,000 square feet of proposed commercial floor area. The basis for the project’s traffic impacts is the anticipated trip generation. The analysis found that the project will generate a total of 2,743 daily trips with 195 AM peak hour trips and 231 PM peak hour trips. Of these 1,961 daily trips are Primary trips as opposed to Pass -By. Primary trips are those that are new to the street system as opposed to vehicles that are already circulating within the adjacent street network.

A Signal Warrant Analysis was included in the Local Transportation Analysis to study the need to upgrade the intersect ion of the Sweetwater Road and Orange Street with a traffic signal. The findings were significant. The level of delay within the existing conditions with the proposed project would be 23.7 seconds or Level of Service (LOS) C during the AM and 42.5 seconds or LOS E during the PM. In stark contrast, the intersection would operate at a LOS A for both periods with less than 10 second delay if a signal was introduced. The Local Transportation Analysis concluded that a traffic signal is warranted and that the applicant should pay a fair share of 70% the cost of removing the existing HAWK pedestrian crossing and installing a traffic signal at the Sweetwater Road and Orange Street intersection. In addition, the applicant is recommended to demo and reconstruct the existing bicycle infrastructure to provide driveway access to the site. These recommendations are included in the conditions of approval.

Noise - Noise issues related to drive- through businesses are usually related to vehicle queuing and ordering windows/speakers. Recent approvals for drive- through businesses have required noise- attenuating speakers at the ordering window, which is addressed in the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission may consider restrictions on the hours of operation of the business, which is proposing up to 24- hour a day operation. There are other 24 hour drive- through businesses currently operating within National City such as the Jack in the Box locations on Highland Avenue and East Plaza Boulevard as well as the under-construction Dutch Bros coffee shop. However, because of the ambient noise in the area due to the adjacent freeways, the speaker noise is not expected to be an issue.

Page 41 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 12 ends

Zone Variance
The MXD -2 zone supports the creation of mixed- use districts that serve as primary activity centers in the City, which are intended to function as twenty -four- hour neighborhoods for residents, workers, and visitors. Having a variety of uses in close proximity can have the effect of reducing car dependency. Development standards within this zone are intended to encourage developments with a sense of place, pedestrian-oriented environment, and accommodations for all modes of transportation. The proposed development, comprised of permitted uses in the MXD-2 zone, is unable to fully confor m to the standards of this zone. The applicant has requested a Zone Variance for three requirements specific to the MXD-2 zone. The requests include:

• A deviation from the maximum two- way driveway width of 25 feet to allow for 40-foot driveway entrances.
• A deviation from the minimum street wall requirement of 75%. The street wall calculation in the MXD -2 zone is the percentage of street frontage with a building face constructed within 10 feet (the maximum setback) of the property line.
• A deviation from the 40-foot minimum parking setback adjacent to a street.

For the granting of a variance the following findings shall be made:

1. The variance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of Title 18 deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will as sure the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.

3. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.

Drive-through businesses, gasoline service stations, and car washes are difficult to design in a manner that pr ovides an environment that encourages a pedestrian-friendly urban district and the applicant is proposing all these uses. It is possible to design a project for these uses that conforms to all the standards of

Page 42 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 13 ends

the zone, but the subject property is of a siz e and shape reduces the ability to meet required standards . On the eastern portion of the site the street frontage along Orange Street is approximately 203 feet, which is sufficient depth for the type of development the applicant is proposing. However, along Sweetwater Road the approximately 228 feet of frontage tapers down to the western side of the site where the depth of the site is just under 80 feet. The proposed development’s fuel pumps and canopy require a sufficiently large rectangular area that all ows for vehicles to park while pumping gas and to circulate around the pumps. For this reason, the applicant’s proposed location of the fuel pumps is the only reasonable placement on the site without reducing the number of available pumps. The proposed lay out is further cemented by the request to include a drive-through lane with sufficient queuing space, which is accomplished by wrapping the lane around the back and western side of the property. The mixed-use building follows the standards of the MXD -2 zone, but it only occupies a portion of the site. The remainder of the space on the site is taken up by the car wash use.

The first variance request, to allow for two 40-foot driveway entrances, is related to the provision of adequate ingress and egress of f uel and other delivery trucks.

Since the trucks are longer that standard passenger vehicles, their turning radius will be wider when entering and leaving the site. Without sufficient space there could be conflict with other entering or existing vehicles. T here could also be issues with trucks cutting across a curb and damaging landscaping if they do not have proper maneuvering room. On a much larger site, the applicant could possibly provide an entrance specifically for trucks and longer driveway approaches to allow the trucks to exit without making a tight turn, but these options are not feasible on a 29,455 square-foot triangular property. Furthermore, the Sweetwater Road driveway is entering the roadway at an acute angle, exacerbating the potential for co nflict while turning. Most service stations in National City were developed prior to the maximum driveway width requirement.

Two such uses are established in the MXD -2 zone, Gas King at 3009 Highland Avenue and Shell at 1606 East Plaza Boulevard; both have at least one existing driveway entrance exceeding 40 feet in width. Gasoline service stations are typically dispersed and there is not a location within the same zone and in the vicinity of the proposed project. The use is permitted in the zone with approval of a CUP.

The second request is to deviate from the minimum street wall requirements of the MXD -2 zone. In order to meet this requirement, the bulk of the structures

Page 43 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 14 ends

would need to be located along the site’s two street frontages along Sweetwater Road and Orange Street. In this instance, as discussed above, a large portion of the site is dedicated to a structure, ( fuel pump island) that could not contribute to the street wall. On a larger or more rectangular property, the fuel pump island could be located behind the convenience store building as the LUC encourages.

However, there is not sufficient lot depth, especially on the western portion of the property to accomplish this. The applicant’s site layout provides some street wall with the proposed commer cial building and the car wash building, but the 75% requirement is not met. The majority of existing commercial and mixed- use developments in the MXD -2 zone, which was established in 2012, do not meet the 75% street wall requirement. As discussed previous ly, the proposed uses in the development are permitted with the approval of a CUP.

The third request is to deviate from the 40- foot setback for parking areas. This requirement is intended to ensure that parking areas are locat ed in the rear of properties to create quality urban or pedestrian- oriented developments within the City. As discussed previously, the size and shape of the site make it impractical to develop the fuel pump island behind the proposed mixed- use building. For this reason, the parking ar ea is configured around the sides of the building and driveways circling the fuel pump island. The intent of the 40- foot setback is compromised by the layout of the site since it is impractical to construct buildings in front of the parking spaces , particu larly with a triangular lot . The proposed spaces will also be partially screened by landscaping. As with the other variance requests, most commercial development in the MXD -2 zone precedes the setback requirement and has parking spaces within 40 feet of st reet-facing property lines. The proposed uses are permitted within the zone, as previously discussed.

Comments
Comments were received from the Engineering Department, Fire Department, and Sweetwater Authority related to the development of the property . The Police Department and Institute for Public Strategies also provided comments on the request for off -site alcohol sales. The comments regarding alcohol have been previously discussed. The Engineering Department provided standard comments related to grading, storm water, land development, and right -of-way improvements. In addition, per the findings in the Local Transportation Analysis additional review will be needed for the required right -of-way improvements discussed in the study, which are also added as conditions of approval . The Fire Department provided standard comments related to the California Fire Code and

Page 44 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 15 ends

fire access roads. The applicant is providing additional access at the request of the Fire Marshal on the property to the immediate west. The com ments from Sweetwater Authority discussed the provision of service as related to the multiple parcels on site and right-of-way. The applicant will need to provide detailed plans to Sweetwater Authority once the design progresses. A condition of approval requiring a lot merger will also alleviate concerns with service provision. All comments are attached as conditions of approval in the draft resolution.

Findings for Approval
There are standard findings of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as well as additional findings related to the sale of alcohol and specific findings related to the approval of a Zone Variance (ZV). The following are the standard findings for CUPs:

1. Allowable Use: The proposed uses are permitted within the Major, Mixed- Use District (MXD-2) zone, pursuant to a CUP, and the proposed uses meet the required guidelines in the Land Use Code (LUC) for service stations, drive-through eating places, and alcohol sales with the approval of a Zone Variance (ZV), as discussed in the staff report. T he property is currently vacant and may be developed with the proposed mixed- use project.

2. General Plan Consistency: The proposed uses are permitted, subject to a CUP, by the Land Use Code, which is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the mixed- use project with service station, drive- through eating place, and alcohol sales is consistent with the Major Mixed-Use zone land use designation and the Community Character element of the General Plan.

3. Compatibility, LUC, and Traffic: The project, as discussed in the staff report, conforms with the development standards of the MXD-2 with the approval of the requested ZV as well as the guidelines related to the specific uses of service stations, drive-through lanes, and alcohol sales. Regulations within the LUC are intended to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. In addition, a Local Transportation Analysis was submitted and approved with requirements for off -site improvements that will alleviate the impacts of increased traffic from the proposed development.

Page 45 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 16 ends

4. Suitability: The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, because the site is largely flat with minimal gr ading required, it is located in an urbanized area with access to services and utilities, and the project will be review ed for compliance with applicable codes related to building and fire safety prior to the development of the lot.

5. No Nuisance: The proposed uses will be subject to conditions that limit the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off-site consumption as well as the hours that it will be available. All staff members that sell alcohol are required to receive RBSS training. Additional conditions of approval related to the proposed uses will ensure the project adequately addresses concerns related to noise, traffic, and exterior lighting.

6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects ) for which a Notice of Exemption will be filed subsequent to approval of this Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance.

With the approval of a Zone Variance, this project can be found to be consistent with all applicable general plan policies as wel l as the regulations of the MXD-2 zone. The site is less than five acres and located in an urbanized area with no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project proposes a mixed -use development that will have no possibility for significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water q uality with the approval of the subject conditions. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Additionally, the following finding is related to the sale of alcoholic beverages:

7. Public Convenience and Necessity: The convenience store, a permitted use in the Major Mixed-Use District zone, will benefit from the sale of alcoholic beverages for off -site consumption by providing for a wider diversity of commercial offerings in the area. Alcohol sales will also added to the viability of the proposed business.

Finally, the LUC contains three required finding for the granting of a Zone Variance:

Page 46 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 17 ends

8. The variance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of Title 18 deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification : The project is proposed for a property with a size and shape that is insufficient for conformance with requirements related to maximum driveway width, minimum constructed street wall, and minimum parking setbacks. The property is

0.68 acres in size and has a width of approximately 201 feet. However, the depth of the site tapers significantly from 203 feet along Orange Street to approximately 80 feet on the western lot line of the property creating a special circumstance. As discussed in the staff report, the size and shape of the lot impacts the ability for the applicant to provide a compliant site design with the above requirements.

9. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated : The requirements the applicant request s relief from were established with the MXD -2 zone in 2012. Existing service station developments within this zone exceed the maximum driveway requirement of the zone and most mixed- use or commercial development does not meet either the minimum street wall or parking setbacks of the zone. T he requested variances will not result in the granting of a special privilege and conditions of approval will ensure that the resulting development will be constructed and operate in a manner consistent with the surrounding area.

10. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation g overning the parcel of property : The proposed uses of the property are permitted in the MXD -2 zone with the approval of a CUP. A CUP, with conditions applicable to the requested uses, is included with this development proposal and the variance would not be approved without the approval of one or more of the proposed uses of the site.

Conditions of Approval
Standard Conditions of Approval have been included with this permit as well as conditions specific to the use regulations pertaining to the operation of a service station and drive- through business. Conditions related to off -site alcohol sales

Page 47 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 18 ends

per Council Policy 707 (hours of operation, employee training, and accessory sales, etc.) are also included . Several application-specific conditions have been discussed in the staff report and can be reviewed in the attached draft resolution.

Summary
The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan due to gasoline service stations, drive-through lanes, and convenience stor es selling alcoholic beverage for off -site consumption being conditionally -allowed uses in Major Mixed-Use District zone. Other uses proposed for this site, including five residential units and an automated car wash, are permitted in the zone. Alcohol sales and the operation of the car wash are considered incidental or accessory uses to the convenience store and service station. With the approval of the applicant’s requested zone variances and the attached conditions of approval, the project can be found in compliance with all development regulations pertaining to the proposed uses in the Land Use Code. Specific conditions related to traffic and the requirement to make right-of-way improvements, noise, and lighting will also ensure the proposed development o perates in harmony with the surrounding area. Staff encourages the Planning Commission to consider each request made by the applicant on their individual merits. It is within the purview of the Planning Commission to approve all or some to the requests, or deny the project as a whole, if appropriate findings can be made.

Options

1. Find the project exempt from CEQA under Class 32 of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 or other exemption and approve 2024 -08 CUP, ZV, subject to the conditions included in the Resolution, or other conditions, and based on the findings included in the Resolution, or other findings to be determined by the Planning Commission; or,

2. Find the project exempt from CEQA under Class 32 of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 or other exemption and partially approve 2024-08 CUP, ZV, subject to conditions included in the Resolution, or other conditions, and based on the findings included in the Resolution, and other findings to be determined by the Planning Commission: or,

3. Find the project not exempt from CEQA and/or deny 2024-08 CUP, ZV based on the attached findings or findings to be determined by the Planning Commission; or,

Page 48 of 232 ends

Planning Commission
Meeting of December 2, 2024

Page 19 ends

4. Continue the item to a specific date in order to obtain additional information.

Attachments

1. Draft Resolution

2. Overhead

3. Applicant's Plans (Exhibit A, Case File No. 202 4-08 CUP ZV, dated 11/13/2024)

4. Public Hearing Notice (Sent to 168 property owners & occupants)

5. Census Tract & Police Beat Maps

6. Police Department Comments

7. IPS Comments

8. Community Meeting Information

9. Local Transportation Analysis

Page 49 of 232 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-20

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA DETERMINING THAT THE

PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CLASS 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (INFILL-DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) AND

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF

A NEW SERVICE STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE WITH REQUEST FOR OFF - SALE ALCOHOL (ABC TYPE-21), DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH, DRIVE-THROUGH

EATING PLACE, AND FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A ZONE VARIANCE

REQUEST RELATED TO MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH, MINIMIUM STREET WALL,

AND THE LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES, TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT

PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SWEETWATER ROAD BETWEEN OLIVE STREET AND ORANGE STREET.

CASE FILE NO. 2024-08 CUP, ZV
APNS: 563-252-12-00, 563-252-13-00, 563-252-14-00, and 563-252-23-00

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed development comprised of a new service station, convenience store with request for off -sale alcohol (ABC Type- 21), drive- through car wash, drive- through eating place, and five residential units with a Zone Variance request related to maximum driveway width, minimum street wall and the location of parki ng spaces, to be located on vacant properties on the north side of Sweetwater Road, between Olive Street and Orange Street, at a duly advertised public hearing held on December 2, 2024, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and,

WHEREAS, at said public hearing s the Planning Commission considered the staff report contained in Case File No. 2024 -08 CUP, ZV maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and,

WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of National City, California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on December 2, 2024, support the following findings:

Page 50 of 232 ends

Findings for Approval of the Conditional Use Permit

1. The proposed uses are permitted within the Major, Mixed- Use District (MXD- 2) zone, pursuant to a CUP, and the proposed uses meet the required guidelines in the Land Use Code (LUC) for service stations, drive- through eating places, and alcohol sales with the approval of a Zone Variance (ZV), as discussed in the staff report. The property is currently vacant and may be developed with the proposed mixed-use project.

2. The proposed uses are permitted, subject to a CUP, by the Land Use Code, which is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the mixed- use project with service station, drive- through eating place, and alc ohol sales is consistent with the Major, Mixed-Use zone land use designation and the Community Character element of the General Plan.

3. The project, as discussed in the staff report, conforms with the development standards of the MXD -2 with the approval of the requested ZV as well as the guidelines related to the specific uses of service stations, drive- through lanes, and alcohol sales. Regulations within the LUC are intended to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. In addition, a Local Transportat ion Analysis was submitted and approved with requirements for off -site improvements that will alleviate the impacts of increased traffic from the proposed development.

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints, because the site is largely flat with minimal grading required, it is located in an urbanized area with access to services and utilities, and the project will be reviewed for compliance with applicable codes related to building and fire safety prior to the development of the lot.

5. The proposed uses will be subject to conditions that limit the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off -site consumption as well as the hours that it will be available. All staff members that sell alcohol are required to receive RBSS training.

Additional conditions of approval related to the proposed uses will ensure the project adequately addresses concerns related to noise, traffic, and exterior lighting.

6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been determined to be categorically

Page 51 of 232 ends

exempt from environmental review pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects) for which a Notice of Exemption will be filed subsequent to approval of this Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance. With the approval of a Zone Variance, this project can be found to be consistent with all applicable general plan policies as well as the regulations of the MXD -2 zone. The site is less than five acres and located in an urbanized area with no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The project proposes a mixed- use development that will have no possibility for signif icant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality with the approval of the subject conditions. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Additionally, the following findings are related to the sale of alcoholic beverages:

7. Public Convenience and Necessity: The convenience store, a permitted use in the Major Mixed-Use District zone, will benefit from the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption by providing for a wider diversity of com mercial offerings in the area. Alcohol sales will also added to the viability of the proposed business.

8. Based on findings 1 through 7 above, public convenience and necessity will be served by a proposed use of the property for the off- site sales of alcoholic beverages in accordance with applicable law and the recommended conditions.

The use, as proposed and conditioned, will operate in harmony with surrounding uses, will not cause a nuisance, and will benefit the community looking for a quality restaurant experience.

Findings for Approval of the Zone Variance

1. The project is proposed for a property with a size and shape that is insufficient for conformance with requirements related to maximum driveway width, minimum constructed street wall, and minimum parking setbacks. The property is

0.68 acres in size and has a width of approximately 201 feet. However, the depth of the site tapers significantly from 203 feet along Orange Street to approximately 80 feet on the western lot line of the property creating a s pecial circumstance. As discussed in the staff report, the size and shape of the lot impacts the ability for the applicant to provide a compliant site design with the above requirements.

2. The requirements the applicant requests relief from were established with the MXD-2 zone in 2012. Existing service station developments within this zone exceed the maximum driveway requirement of the zone and most mixed- use or commercial development does not meet either the minimum street wall or

Page 52 of 232 ends

parking setbacks of the zone. The requested variances will not result in the granting of a special privilege and conditions of approval will ensure that the resulting development will be constructed and operate in a manner consistent with the surrounding area.

3. The proposed uses of the property are permitted in the MXD -2 zone with the approval of a CUP. A CUP, with conditions applicable to the requested uses, is included with this development proposal and the variance would not be approved without the approval of one or more of the proposed uses of the site.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for a Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance is approved subject to the following conditions:

General

1. This Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance authorizes the construction of a new service station, convenience store with request for off -sale alcohol (ABC Type- 21), drive-through car wash, drive- through eating place, and five residential units with increased driveway width, reduced minimum street wall, and parking within the first 40 feet of the property, on vacant properties on the north side of Sweetwater Road, between Olive Street and Orange Street (Assessor Parcel Numbers 563-252-12-00, 563-252-13-00, 563- 252-14-00, and 563- 252-23-00). Plans submitted for permits associated with this project shall conform to Exhibit A, Case File No. 2024 -08 CUP, ZC, dated 11/13/2024.

2. Before this Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance shall become effective, the applicant and the property owner shall both sign and have notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Division, 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 Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance. The applicant or owner shall also submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that a Notice of Restriction on Real Property is recorded with the County Recorder. The applicant or owner shall pay necessary r ecording fees to the County. The Notice of Restriction shall provide information that conditions imposed by approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance 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 Director of Community Development prior to recordation.

3. The portion of this Conditional Use Permit related to alcohol sales shall become null and void at such time as there is no longer a Type 2 1 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control license associated with the property.

Page 53 of 232 ends

4. This permit shall become null and void if not exercised within one year after adoption of the resolution of approval unless extended according to procedures specified in the Municipal Code.

5. This permit or relevant portions thereof shall expire if the use authorized by this resolution is discontinued for a period of 12 months or longer. This permit may also be revoked, pursuant to provisions of the Land Use Code, if discontinued for any lesser period of time.

6. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked if the operator is found to be in violation of any Conditions of Approval.

Building

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

Engineering
A. Grading plans submitted for improvements shall contain the following data:
a. North arrow with scale (min. 1” = 100’).

B. Boundaries shall be shown as follows:
a. Fully dimensioned.
b. Proposed as solid lines, existing as dashed lines.
c. City/County boundaries identified.
d. Approximate Curve Information – deltas, radii, lengths. e. Inundation lines for design flood.

C. Existing improvements shall be shown as follows:
a. Highways, streets, roads – names, grades, widths, if private designated as such.
b. Sidewalks, pavement, curbs, and gutters, street lights, driveways. c. Street Centerline data shall be used for all existing as well as proposed public improvements and utilities.

D. Utilities shall be shown as follows:
a. Sewer – location, size, type, depth manholes.
b. Water – location, size, type.
c. Gas – location, size.
d. Electrical, telephone, cable, TV lines – location, size, type, poles, overhead or underground.
e. Water courses – widths, directions of flow.

Page 54 of 232 ends

f. Buildings/Structures – location with respect to lot lines. g. Trees – groves, orchards and trees of trunk diameter 4” (10cm) or more shown.
h. Contours – maximum 5’ (2m) interval.
i. Easements – location, purpose, size, public or private.

E. Proposed improvement plans shall include the following:
a. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters, driveways.
b. Sewers – location, size, type, manholes.
c. Drainage facilities.
d. Removal or relocation of existing buildings and location of any proposed buildings.
e. Removal of existing trees.
f. Grading – degree of slope, benches, retaining walls, pad elevations. g. Easements – location, purpose, size, public or private.

F. Parcel information shall be provided as follows:
a. Approximate dimensions.
b. Net area of each parcel (acres or square feet).

G. The site plan shall be revised to show the following:
a. All existing foundations to be removed.
b. Existing contour lines.
c. Spot elevations.

9. A Hydrology study (100 year flood) is required for the new project. The s tudy 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 recommendat ions are part of Engineering Department requirements.

10. 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 Eng ineering 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 at http://www.nationalcityca.gov/city-government/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

Page 55 of 232 ends

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.

11. 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.

12. All surface run- off shal l 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. A Storm Water BMP Maintenance Agreement shall be executed and submitted to the Engineering Department for approval and recordation.

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

14. 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.

15. The property owner(s) shall process a lot merger to merge the lots, APNs 563- 252- 1200, 563-252-1300, 563-252-1400, and 563- 252-2300 into a single lot, due to the fact that the proposed buildings shall cross over the lot lines

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 Prac tices 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 dispos al shall be shown on the grading/drainage plan. Any new sewer lateral in the City right -of- way shall be installed with a clean out two feet inside the property line. A sewer

Page 56 of 232 ends

stamp “S” shall be provided on the curb to mark the location of the lateral. A sewer district fee of $9,030.00 shall be paid.

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 soi ls 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 t he 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. 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 ini tial 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. The bond and any remaining plan check/inspection fees after final appr oval of the project and the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be returned. All required items shall have been completed including the As Built Drawing process, completing and submittal of the sewer lateral record card and the replacement of all mi ssing or disturbed survey monuments to include benchmarks and street centerline monuments.

22. 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.

Page 57 of 232 ends

23. 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.

24. The deteriorated portions of the existing street improvements along the pr operty frontages shall be removed and replaced. Specifically all sidewalk and curb and gutter along Orange Street, and Sweetwater Road.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

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

30. All recommendations contained in the Local Traffic Study LLG Ref. 3-22-3948, dated October 29, 202 4 shall be designed, installed, and maintained to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer, including the following:
• Provide a fair share contribution of 70% to the cost of removing the existing HAWK system and install ing a traffic signal at the Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection.
• Demo and reconstruct the Class IV Cycle Track along the Project frontage of Sweetwater Road to provide driveway access to the site.

Fire

31. Plans submitted for construction shall be in compliance with the current editions of NFPA, CFC 2022 Edition, title 19 and local City of National City Municipal Codes.

32. Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarm, Fire Protection Systems and Fire Underground plans are to be directly submitted to the National City Fire Department under separate permit for review and permitting. Fees along with 3 sets of plans including all “Cut Sheets and Calculations” shall be included upon submittal. Plan review shall be a 30- day plan review process or 21 working days. No over the counter plan reviews accomplished/no exceptions. It shall be unlawful to occupy any portion of the

Page 58 of 232 ends

building or structure until the required fire detection, alarm and suppression system have been tested and approved.

33. Fire apparatus access roads shall comply wit h the requirements of this section (Section 5 CFC 2022) 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. This comment shall apply to new residential structures.

34. 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 weathered road with the ability to support 75 thousand 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.

35. Grade of fire apparatus road shall be within the limits established (15% Grade) by the fire code official based on fire department’s apparatus.

36. 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.

37. On-site o verhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building.

Fire access roads shall remain accessible for the largest apparatus operat ed by the Fire Department. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be placed with approval of the fire code official.

38. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official

39. Aerial fire apparatus roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof.

40. Fire hydrants to 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

Page 59 of 232 ends

locations which are roadway accessible. (Measurement starts from nearest existing fire hydrant to project).

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

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

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

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

45. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project , an easement for fire access in conformance with Exhibit A shall be recorded, a copy of which shall be provided to the Planning Division.

Planning

46. Plans submitted for construction shall be in conformance with Chapters 18.44 (Landscaping) and 18.46 (Outdoor Lighting) of the Land Use Code.

47. All required landscaping installed as part of this approval shall be maintained for the life of the project.

48. Masonry walls or fences screening the property from the adjacent residential zone shall not exceed six feet in height.

49. Use of the property shall be in compliance with Chapter 18.30.190 (Service stations and convenience stores with gasoline pumps) of the Land Use Code.

50. No automotive service or repair is authorized with this permit.

51. The automated car wash is permitted to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily.

52. Business operations shall comply with Municipal Code Title 12 (Noise) at all times.

Plans submitted for construction shall reflect the use of sound- attenuating speakers that automatically reduce the volume of ordering speakers during periods of low ambient noise.

53. The applicant shall submit a noise study prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. Any recommended implementation measures resulting from the study shall be incorporated into the design and building permit plans for the project.

Page 60 of 232 ends

54. The project is required to obtain an operation permit from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), which will be subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCM).

55. Violation of APCD licensing/permitting or any other state licensing department shall be a violation of this Conditional Use Permit.

56. All proposed business signage shall be in conformance with Land Use Code requirements.

57. All staff, management, and owners shall receive Responsible Beverage Service and Sales (RBSS) training, including all owners, and managers. The RBSS training must be certified by the Department of Alcoholic B everage Control (ABC). Proof of completion of an approved RBSS program must be provided prior to issuance of a city business license. As part of the RBSS training, the permittee shall make available a domestic violence training session as provided by the I nstitute of Public Strategies.

58. Window signs on the premises shall not exceed fifteen percent of the transparent area of a window or twelve square feet, whichever is less.

59. All required signage regulating alcohol sales and activities associated with the purchase and/or consumption of alcohol shall be posted in both English and Spanish.

60. The sale of beer or malt beverages in quantities of quarts, 22ounce, 32 ounce, 40 ounce, or similar size containers is prohibited.

61. No beer products shall be sold of less than m anufacturer’s prepackaged three-pack quantities of 24 ounce cans per sale. There shall be no sale of single cans or bottles.

62. Wine shall not be sold in containers of less than 750 milliliters. The sale of wine with an alcoholic content greater than 15% by volume is prohibited.

63. Distilled spirits shall not be sold in containers of less than 750 milliliters.

64. Flavored malt beverages, also known as premium malt beverages and flavored malt coolers, and sometimes commonly referred to as wine coolers, may be sold only by four-pack or other manufacturer’s prepackaged multi-unit quantities.

65. The consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited on the subject premises, and on all parking lots and outbuildings and any property or adjacent property under the control of the applicant.

66. All cups and containers shall be sold at or above prevailing prices and in their original multi-container packages of no fewer than 12, and no cups and containers shall be given free of charge.

Page 61 of 232 ends

67. Ice may be sold only at or about prevailing prices in the area and in quantities of not less than three pounds per sale. Ice shall not be provided free of charge.

68. No alcoholic beverages shall be displayed within 20 feet of all customer entrances or exits in the convenience store.

69. Permittee shall post sig ns on the exterior building walls in compliance with Chapter

10.30.070 of the National City Municipal Code. Additionally, the permittee shall post signs, to be approved by the Planning Division, at each entrance to the applicant’s premises and parking lot, prohibiting loitering and consumption of alcohol on the premises and adjacent property under his control. Said signs shall not be less than 17 by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height. The signs shall read as follows:
a. “No open alcoholic beverage containers are allowed on these premises.” b. “No loitering is allowed.”

70. Containers of alcohol may not be stored on the premises, after being sold to patrons, for the purpose of later consumption.

71. Exterior advertising and signs of all types, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages, including advertising/signs directed to the exterior from within, are prohibited. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages and signs, which are clearly visible to the exterior, shall constitute a violation of this condition.

72. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of all other commodities during the same period. The applicant shall at all times keep records which reflect separately the gross sales of alcoholic beverages and the gross sales of all other items. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the City Finance Department and any Peace Officer of the California Department of Al coholic Beverage Control upon demand.

73. No alcohol sales shall be permitted until the applicant has been issued a Type 21 license from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

74. The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted between the hours of 6 :00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. daily.

75. Distilled spirits shall be stored in a lockable cabinet or secured area behind the sales counter accessible only to properly trained employees. Distilled spirits shall remain fully secured during the hours in which the sale of alcohol is prohibited by this Conditional Use Permit.

76. Coolers containing alcohol beverages shall be locked and not accessible to the public outside of approved alcohol sales hours.

Page 62 of 232 ends

77. The operator of the business shall maintain an active business li cense and ensure that the business license is renewed annually.

Police

78. The permittee shall comply with all applicable law s, including, but not limited to the regulatory provisions of the Business and Professions Code that pertain to the sale, serving, and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Sweetwater Authority

79. The owner shall revise and resubmit the Plans, and as the project develops, submit complete sets of Building, Grading, Precise Grading, Improvements, and Fire Protection Plans with hydraulic calculat ions, if applicable, to the Authority for its review and approval. Plans shall be revised as follows:

A. Plot the existing water services, and meters that front 2311 Sweetwater Road and 3320 Orange Street. Enclosed are the Authority’s service lateral records for reference. The owner shall include a note on the Plans indicating the intended action for the existing water services (e.g. remain or abandon) and if a service will remain, provide purpose (e.g. domestic, irrigation, fire) and usage (gallons per day) f or each service and meter. The services are also required to include an Authority approved, lead- free, Reduced Pressure (RP) backflow device.

B. Plot the existing Authority water facilities fronting the project location on Sweetwater Road and Orange Street, to include all other underground utilities (i.e. gas, electric, sewer, etc.) to verify and confirm any potential conflicts located in the public right-of-way.

C. Show and indicate the water meter(s) to be used for irrigation to the site and ensure the meter for each parcel solely serves the parcel it fronts.

D. The storm water conveyance system (flow path) shall be examined to ensure no residual runoff from the car wash or the fueling station would make it to the Sweetwater River.

80. Any new water facilities shall be designed in accordance with the Authority’s Design Standards and new water facilities are to be installed according to Sweetwater Authority’s Standard Specifications for Construction of Water Facilities. The Authority’s Standard Specifications for Constr uction of Water Facilities and Design Standards may be found at: https://www.sweetwater.org/160/Public-Documents.

Indemnification Agreement
The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harm less the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees,

Page 63 of 232 ends

relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, the Applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicant regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decisions, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicant.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the applicant and to the City Council.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day following the City Council meeting where the Planning Commission resolution is set for review, unless an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of that City Council meeting. The City Council may, at that meeting, appeal the decision of the Planning Commission and set the matter for public hearing.

CERTIFICATION:

This cer tifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 2, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________

CHAIRPERSON

Page 64 of 232 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

2024-02 CUP – 500 E. 8th Street – Overhead

Page 65 of 232 ends

TITLE SHEET

PROJECT DATA

CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS SUBMITTAL

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
2311 SWEETWATER ROAD
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
PROJECT ADDRESS:
2311 SWEETWATER ROAD
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950

PROJECT TEAM

DRAWING USE APPROVALS

THE ARCHITECT IS DEEMED OWNERS OF THEIR INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, INCLUDING THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED AS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. IF THE OWNER FAILS TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE ARCHITECT, SUCH

FAILURE SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL NONPERFORMANCE AND CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF SERVICES. IN ADDITION, WE (AND ANY ASSOCIATED

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS) WILL COORDINATE WITH CITY OFFICIALS TO SUSPEND ANY CITY

APPROVALS OR FIELD INSPECTIONS UNTIL PAYMENT IS SATISFIED AS A REVOKE OF OUR CONTRACT PERMIT DOCUMENTS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE ARCHITECT.

OWNER:BRIKHO DEVELOPMENT
2311 SWEETWATER ROAD
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950

VICINITY MAP

CODE COMPLIANCE
THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:
2022 (CBC) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (BASED ON 2021 IBC) 2022 (CRC) CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (BASED ON 2021 IRC) 2022 (CEC) CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (BASED ON 2021 NEC) 2022 (CMC) CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (BASED ON 2021 UMC) 2022 (CPC) CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (BASED ON 2021 UPC) 2022 (CFC) CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (BASED ON 2021 IFC)
2022 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
ADDRESS:2311 SWEETWATER ROAD 563-252-2300
3320 ORANGE STREET 563-252-1200
3330 ORANGE STREET 563-252-1300
3336 ORANGE STREET 563-252-1400
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
APN:563-252-1200, 563-252-1300, 563-252-1400, 563-252-2300 ZONE: MXD-2
SETBACKS:FRONT: 0'
STREET: 0'
OTHER: 0'
LOT SIZE (4 LOTS):29,455 SF OR 0.68 ACRES
BUILDING AREA:RETAIL BUILDING:5,032 SF
BASEMENT:5,032 SF
5-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING:6,446 SF
UNIT 1 - 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH UNIT @ 657 SF
UNIT 2 - 3 BEDROOM, 2-1/2 BATH UNIT @ 1,657 SF
UNIT 3 - 3 BEDROOM, 2-1/2 BATH UNIT @ 1,662 SF
UNIT 4 - 3 BEDROOM, 2-1/2 BATH UNIT @ 1,506 SF
UNIT 5 - 2 BEDROOM, 2 BATH UNIT @ 964 SF
TOTAL BUILDING AREA:
16,510 SF
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE VB, SPRINKLERED
NUMBER OF STORYS: 3
OCCUPANCY:B/M/R-2/S-1
FUEL PUMPS:6 FUEL PUMPS
PARKING PROVIDED: 30 SPACES TOTAL
18 SPACES PARKING
12 SPACES ( 2 PER FUEL PUMP)
PARKING REQUIRED: 10 SPACES (2 SPACES PER 1,000 SF) (MXD-2 ZONE) 7.5 (1.5 SPACE PER UNIT @ 5 UNITS)'

0.5 VISITOR PARKING
18 SPACES REQUIRED

DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL REQUEST

SHEET INDEX
T1 TITLE SHEET
A0.1 SITE PLAN
A1.1 FLOOR PLANS
A1.2 FLOOR PLANS
A2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A2.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A3.1 SITE SECTION
L1 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN

SCOPE OF THIS SUBMITTAL IS TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS:

1. CUP FOR FUEL STATION

2. CUP FOR CONVENIENCE STORE AT FUEL STATION

3. CUP FOR DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT

4. CUP FOR SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVARAGES

5. CUP FOR CAR WASH
ARCHITECT:MKA, INC. ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
7510 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., SUITE 207
SAN DIEGO, CA 92111
PHONE: 858 268 8176 FAX: 858 724 1556
CONTACT: MICHAEL KINOSHITA [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DATA
THIS PROJECT PROPOSES DEVELOPING 4 VACANT LOTS TOTALING 29,455 SF OR 0.68 ACRES WITH A NEW 16,510 SF MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING

OF A FUELING STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE, DRIVE-THRU AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

PLANS DATE

DRAWING TITLE

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SUBMITTAL PHASE
STAMP
FO
RNI
HSON
K
J.

LEAHCI
D
A
LAC
FO
TATS
TC
TIHC
A
ESN
CIL
I
E E
E
R
M
ITA
No. C14841
I
REN. 12/25
All ideas, designs, and arrangements indicated on these drawings are the property of martorana-kinoshita
associates, Inc. and are intended to be used in
connection with this specific project only and shall not otherwise be used for any purpose whatsoever without
written consent of the architect. There shall be no
changes or deviations from these drawings without the
written consent of the architect.
michael kinoshita associates, inc.
c Copyright 2017
michael kinoshita associates, inc.
7510 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., SUITE 207 - SAN DIEGO - CALIFORNIA - 92111 - PHONE: 858/268-8176 - FAX: 858/724-1556

ARCHITECTURE
&

PLANNING
MKA
BRIKHO
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR:
2311 SWEETWATER ROAD
NATIONAL CITY, CA 91950
7/11/2024
ATTACHMENT 3

EXHIBIT A
CASE FILE: 2024-08 CUP ZV
DATE: 11/13/2024

Page 66 of 232 ends

Page 67 of 232 ends

FLOOR PLAN
A1.1

PLANS DATEDRAWING TITLE

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SUBMITTAL PHASE
STAMP
FORNIHSONKJ.LEAHCIDALACFOTATSTCTIHCAESNCILIEEERMITANo. C14841IREN. 12/25 All ideas, designs, and arrangements indicated on thesedrawings are the property of martorana-kinoshitaassociates, Inc. and are intended to be used inconnection with this specific project only and shall nototherwise be used for any purpose whatsoever withoutwritten consent of the architect. There shall be nochanges or deviations from these drawings without thewritten consent of the architect.michael kinoshita associates, inc.cCopyright 2017michael kinoshita associates, inc.7510 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., SUITE 207 - SAN DIEGO - CALIFORNIA - 92111 - PHONE: 858/268-8176 - FAX: 858/724-1556 ARCHITECTURE&PLANNINGMKABRIKHOPROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR:2311 SWEETWATER ROADNATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 10/24/2024
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN201648 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN201648 BASEMENT4,658 SFAA3.1 AA3.1
BA3.1 BA3.1
42'-11"
18'-7"57'-8"
42'-1"
84'-6"
55'-6"
GAS
8'-6"11'-6"18'-8"
53'-9"
18'-11"9'-7"8'-10"
1'-5"13'-6"
23'-8"
5'-4"
19'-3"9'-8"72'-0"
18'-7"
29'-6"
9'-0"
53'-6"
1'-3"
10'-0"55'-6"20'-7"
DNUP
DNUP
60'-11"
13'-7"
RETAIL STORE3,329 SF
DRIVE-THRU1,238 SF28'-0"R.

Page 68 of 232 ends

Page 69 of 232 ends

EXTERIORELVATIONS
A2.1

PLANS DATEDRAWING TITLE

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SUBMITTAL PHASE
STAMP
FORNIHSONKJ.LEAHCIDALACFOTATSTCTIHCAESNCILIEEERMITANo. C14841IREN. 12/25 All ideas, designs, and arrangements indicated on thesedrawings are the property of martorana-kinoshitaassociates, Inc. and are intended to be used inconnection with this specific project only and shall nototherwise be used for any purpose whatsoever withoutwritten consent of the architect. There shall be nochanges or deviations from these drawings without thewritten consent of the architect.michael kinoshita associates, inc.cCopyright 2017michael kinoshita associates, inc.7510 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., SUITE 207 - SAN DIEGO - CALIFORNIA - 92111 - PHONE: 858/268-8176 - FAX: 858/724-1556 ARCHITECTURE&PLANNINGMKABRIKHOPROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR:2311 SWEETWATER ROADNATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 7/11/2024
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATIONKEY NOTES1EXT. PC PLASTER2STONE SIDING3STONE FACED COLUMN4ALUM. STOREFRONT SYSTEM5METAL RAIL SYSTEM6METAL CANOPY7VINYL CLAD WINDOW8EXT. PC PLASTER COLUMN 1 1
1 113 3 3 33
4 4
5 5
5 6
6 6 78 8 8
88888
9RAISED EXT. PC PLASTER BAND/COLUMN
9 1
1 111 155
11 1
AA3.1
AA3.1
BA3.1
BA3.1
AA3.1
AA3.1
BA3.1
BA3.1
11'-2"15'-0"9'-0"
17'-8"6"15'-1"33'-3"
8'-0"2"15'-0"31'-4"2"

Page 70 of 232 ends

EXTERIORELVATIONS
A2.2

PLANS DATEDRAWING TITLE

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

SUBMITTAL PHASE
STAMP
FORNIHSONKJ.LEAHCIDALACFOTATSTCTIHCAESNCILIEEERMITANo. C14841IREN. 12/25 All ideas, designs, and arrangements indicated on thesedrawings are the property of martorana-kinoshitaassociates, Inc. and are intended to be used inconnection with this specific project only and shall nototherwise be used for any purpose whatsoever withoutwritten consent of the architect. There shall be nochanges or deviations from these drawings without thewritten consent of the architect.michael kinoshita associates, inc.cCopyright 2017michael kinoshita associates, inc.7510 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., SUITE 207 - SAN DIEGO - CALIFORNIA - 92111 - PHONE: 858/268-8176 - FAX: 858/724-1556 ARCHITECTURE&PLANNINGMKABRIKHOPROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR:2311 SWEETWATER ROADNATIONAL CITY, CA 91950 7/11/2024
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIONKEY NOTES1EXT. PC PLASTER2STONE SIDING3STONE FACED COLUMN4ALUM. STOREFRONT SYSTEM5METAL RAIL SYSTEM6METAL CANOPY7VINYL CLAD WINDOW8EXT. PC PLASTER COLUMN 1 1 1
1 111 11
3 3
55 5
7 77
8 8
8888
9RAISED EXT. PC PLASTER BAND/COLUMN
9 9 94
1156
17'-8"6" 1'-3"43'-11"
24'-6"19'-2"18'-1"7" 1'-1"

Page 71 of 232 ends

19'-0"R.COVERED TRASHENCLOSUREROOF COVERING SHALLBE NON-COMBUSTIBLE

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGASGAS

GASGASGASGASGASGAS
8'-6"11'-6"18'-8"
53'-9"
18'-11"9'-7"8'-10"
1'-5"13'-6"
23'-8"
5'-4"
19'-3"9'-8"72'-0"
18'-7"
29'-6"
9'-0"
53'-6"
1'-3"
10'-0"55'-6"20'-7"
DNUP
DNUP
60'-11"
13'-7"
RETAIL STORE3,329 SF
DRIVE-THRU1,238 SF28'-0"R.ARCHOTOPHOENIXKING PALMPLANT LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME

LANTANA SELLOWIANATRAILING LANTANA
TREES
RAPHIOLEPIS I. 'PINKIE'PINKIE INDIA HAWTHORNESMALL SHRUBS WESTRINGIA F. 'MORNING LIGHT' COAST SAGEGROUND COVER
LIGUSTUM J.TEXANUMTEXAS PRIVETRHAPIS HUMILISLADY PALM

SHRUBSCUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENSITALIAN CYPRESS

PLANS DATEDRAWING TITLE

REVISIONS

SHEET NUMBER

LANDSCAPE PLAN
N 1/16" = 1'-0"163204N LANDSCAPE PLAN84004 KEEPCLEARKEEPCLEAR7 STREET TREES FOR +\-216 LF/30' = 7.2 6 STREET TREES FOR +\-187LF/30LF = 6.2
216'-0"
187'-8"

Page 72 of 232 ends

Page 73 of 232 ends

Page 74 of 232 ends

Page 75 of 232 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CLASS 32 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15332 (INFILL-DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) AND CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF A NEW SERVICE STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE WITH REQUEST FOR OFF-SALE ALCOHOL (ABC TYPE-21), DRIVE-

THROUGH CAR WASH, DRIVE-THROUGH EATING PLACE, AND FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS

WITH A ZONE VARIANCE REQUEST RELATED TO MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH,

MINIMIUM STREET WALL, AND THE LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES, TO BE LOCATED

ON VACANT PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SWEETWATER ROAD BETWEEN OLIVE STREET AND ORANGE STREET.

CASE FILE NO.: 2024-08 CUP
APNs: 563-252-12-00, 563-252-13-00, 563-252-14-00, and 563-252-23-00

The National City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing after the hour of 6:00 p.m.

Monday, November 18, 2024, in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, California, on the propos ed request. (Applicant: Highland Avenue Property Investments, LLC)

The applicant proposes to construct an 11,478 square-foot building that includes a convenience store, drive -through eating place, and five residential units in conjunction with a new gasoline service station on an approximately 29,500 square-foot vacant property. A drive-through automated car wash is also proposed with the service station. Off-sale alcohol (ABC Type-21) for beer, wine, and distilled spirits is requested for the convenience store. The proposed hours of operation for the store, service station and car wash are 24 hours daily. The sale of alcohol is proposed for the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. The fuel station will have a total of six double-side fuel pumps and the building housing the car wash will be 900 square feet in size. A Zone Variance is also requested for a deviation from maximum driveway width, minimum street wall requirements, and the minimum setback for parking spaces related to the requirements of the Maj or, Mixed -Use District zone. The Planning Commission will also consider the staff determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 32, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).

Information is available for review at the City’s Planning Division, Civic Center. Members of the public are invited to comment. Written comments should be received by the Planning Division on or before 2:00 p.m., November 18, 2024 by submitting it to [email protected].

Planning staff can be contacted at 619-336-4310 or [email protected].

If you challenge the nature of t he proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Page 76 of 232 ends

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
CensusTracts 2010
August 25, 2014
0 0.75 1.50.375 mi
0 1 20.5 km
1:45,467
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 77 of 232 ends

City of National City
Beat 23
Source: Microsoft Mappoint
NCPD CAU, 4/18/07

Page 78 of 232 ends

Notes:

NATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT

ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL

RISK ASSESSMENT
DATE:

BUSINESS NAME:

ADDRESS:

OWNER NAME: DOB:

OWNER ADDRESS:
(add additional owners on page 2)
I. Type of Business
 Restaurant (1 pt)
 Market (2 pts)
 Bar/Night Club (3 pts)
Tasting Room (1pt)
II. Hours of Operation
 Daytime hours (1 pt)
 Close by 11pm (2 pts)
 Close after 11pm (3 pts)
III. Entertainment
 Music (1 pt)
 Live Music (2 pts)
 Dancing/Live Music (3 pts)
No E
ntertainment (0 pts)
IV. Crime Rate
 Low (1 pt)
 Medium (2 pts)
 High (3 pts)
V. Alcohol Businesses per Census Tract
 Below (1 pt)
 Average (2 pts)
 Above (3 pts)
Revised: 8/16 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 6
05/01/24
Party Time Liquor
2311 Sweetwater Road, National City, CA 91950
Highland Avenue Property Investments, LLC
N/A
2945 Highland Avenue, National City, CA 91950
- Currently, there are (2) off sale licenses authorized in tract 122 - Currently, there are (4) on sale licenses authorized in tract 122 - Currently, there are (4) active on sale licenses in tract 122 - Currently, there are (4) active off sale licenses in tract 122 ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

Page 79 of 232 ends

National City Police Department ABC Risk Assessment

VI. Calls for Service at Location (for previous 6 months)  Below (1 pt)
 Average (2 pts)
 Above (3 pts)

VII. Proximity Assessment (1/4 mile radius of location)  Mostly commercial businesses (1 pt)
 Some businesses, some residential (2 pts)
 Mostly residential (3 pts)

VIII. Owner(s) records check
 No criminal incidents (0 pts)
 Minor criminal incidents (2 pts)
 Multiple/Major criminal incidents (3 pts)

OWNER NAME: DOB:

OWNER ADDRESS:

OWNER NAME: DOB:

OWNER ADDRESS:

Recommendation:

Completed by: Badge ID:

Revised: 8/16
2 of 2
Low Risk ( 12pts or less)
Medium Risk (13 – 18pts)
High Risk (19 – 24pts)

Total Points
13 Adeeb Asso Brikho
03/28/76
1921 Corona Vista, El Cajon, CA 92019
Joseph John Brikho
11/25/78
1963 Corona Vista, El Cajon, CA 92019
This census tract area is over saturated for ABC licensed off sale business. This business assessed at a medium risk and is deserving of such a rating. This business should be built with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts to deter the large homeless population that lives in the ravine nearby from victimizing the business, loitering on the property, or increasing criminal activity in the area.

Sgt. J. Camacho
449
✔
✔
✔

Page 80 of 232 ends

Funded by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency 8885 Rio San Diego Drive #117  San Diego, California, 92108 Phone: 619.476-9100  Fax: 619.476-9104 www.publicstrategies.org
Environmental Scan for
Proposed Type 21 Alcohol CUP
2311 Sweetwater Road, National City, CA 91950
Conducted: May 2, 2024
Photo of the proposed location
An environmental scan was conducted on Thursday, May 2, 2024, for a proposed Type 21 off- sale alcohol license at 2311 Sweetwater Road. The proposed location is a vacant lot where a gas station/convenience store is planned. During a scan of the premises, the following was noted:
• The business will be located adjacent to a residential neighborhood. • A 7-Eleven convenience store and a motel are located across the street. • The primary transportation option to the location is a traditional car infrastructure with the location being located in close proximity to State Route 54.

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 81 of 232 ends

Funded by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency 8885 Rio San Diego Drive #117  San Diego, California, 92108 Phone: 619.476-9100  Fax: 619.476-9104

www.publicstrategies.org

Youth Sensitive Areas
Sweetwater Secondary School (approximately 2,640 feet away) Parkside Park (approximately 7,392 feet away)

Churches
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (approximately 8,448 feet away) is the closest one to this location.

Crime Rate
A request for crime-related information from personnel within the City of National City Police Department should determine the rate at which alcohol related harms such as violent crime and alcohol impaired driving occur in the area and whether this would discourage the issuance of a Type 21 alcohol license.

Outlet Density
Based on Centers for Disease Control guidelines, alcohol density is defined as the average distance between a person and their closest alcohol retailer. In the map below, the darker the census tract, the less distance a person has to travel to their closest alcohol retailer. The proposed location is defined as “very dense.”

Page 82 of 232 ends

Funded by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency 8885 Rio San Diego Drive #117  San Diego, California, 92108 Phone: 619.476-9100  Fax: 619.476-9104

www.publicstrategies.org

Page 83 of 232 ends

Funded by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency 8885 Rio San Diego Drive #117  San Diego, California, 92108 Phone: 619.476-9100  Fax: 619.476-9104

www.publicstrategies.org

Considerations
The following are considerations if a CUP is issued:

1. Consider the issuance of a Type 20 rather than a Type 21 license to limit sales to beer and wine and not higher alcohol volume distilled spirits in conjunction with a fueling station.

The ready access and ability to purchase alcohol at service stations may increase the opportunity for individuals to consume alcohol while operating a vehicle, as opposed to when alcoholic beverages are purchased as part of other planned shopping tasks (such as at a supermarket or other retail establishment).

2. Require that staff and management attend an in-person Responsible Beverage Sales and Service training.

3. Ensure no more than 33 percent of windows and clear doors bear advertising or signs in order to ensure the public and law enforcement personnel have an unobstructed view of the interior, including cash registers, from the exterior entrance.

4. Post in English and Spanish a notice that state law prohibits sales of alcoholic beverages to persons under age 21.

5. Post and maintain signage stating that no open alcoholic beverage containers are allowed on the premises and no loitering is allowed on or in front of the premises.

Page 84 of 232 ends

Funded by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency 8885 Rio San Diego Drive #117  San Diego, California, 92108 Phone: 619.476-9100  Fax: 619.476-9104

www.publicstrategies.org

Page 85 of 232 ends

Office: (619) 491-0335
Mobile: (619) 944-3051 | Fax: (619) 491-0696
www.duhscommercial.com
[email protected]
3830 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104
TEL 619.491.0335 • FAX 619.491.0696
duhscommercial.com
1 August 22, 2024
Re: New proposed Commercial and Residential Development, Including the Sale of Beer, Wine and Distilled Spirits - Sweetwater Road and Orange Street, National City, CA
Greetings Resident/Owner:

This letter is to invite you to attend a Community Information meeting to be held at the National City Chamber of Commerce offices located at 901 National City Boulevard.

This meeting will, hopefully, be both enjoyable and educational, as it will be held for the purpose of displaying a new commercial and apartment development to be located at the intersection of Orange Street and Sweetwater Road in National City.

Hosting this meeting will be the commercial development team of Highland Avenue Property Investments featuring Mr. Joseph Brikho and Mr. Eddy Brikho.

The project they will be “unveiling” is a very well designed Convenience Store, within which will provide for the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off-site consumption. This convenience store will support three, three bedroom, and two, one-bedroom good-sized apartments. Additionally, their proposed development will include a small car wash, a six pump fueling station, and a drive thru coffee shop/restaurant.

Coffee and refreshments will be served in the Meeting Room of the National City Chamber of Commerce:

Date: August 28, 2024
Time: 5:30 to 7:00 PM
Place: Chamber of Commerce, Board Room, 901 National City Boulevard Your attendance and comments are sincerely welcomed and appreciated.

Page Two Following:

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 86 of 232 ends

Office: (619) 491-0335
Mobile: (619) 944-3051 | Fax: (619) 491-0696
www.duhscommercial.com
[email protected]

3830 Ray Street San Diego, CA 92104
TEL 619.491.0335 • FAX 619.491.0696
duhscommercial.com
2 Any specific comments may be mailed directly to:

Mr. David Welch
Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950-4397

Sincerely,

L. Thomas Morgan, CCIM
Retail Specialist
Duhs Commercial, Inc.
(619) 944-3051 - cell

C: Mr. David Welch, Associate Planner, City of National City Mr. Martin Reeder, Assistant Director of Community Development Mr. Joseph Brikho, Highland Avenue Property Investments Mr. Eddy Brikho, Highland Avenue Property Investments
Mr. Michael Kinoshita, Architect

Page 87 of 232 ends

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

SWEETWATER ROAD COMMERCIAL
National City, California
October 29, 2024
LLG Ref. 3-22-3948
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:

Narasimha Prasad John Boarman
Senior Transportation Engineer Principal
&
Zahi
ra Chayeb
Tr ansportation Engineer II
ATTACHMENT 9

Page 88 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2

3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Existing Street Network ...................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology .................................................................................... 11

4.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Signalized Intersections .................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Unsignalized Intersections ................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Street Segments ................................................................................................................. 14

5.0 Substantial Traffic Effect Criteria ......................................................................................... 15

6.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 16

6.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................... 16

6.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service ........................................................................... 17

7.0 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................. 18

7.1 Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 18

8.0 Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment ............................................................................ 21

8.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 21

8.1.1 Pass-By Trips / Primary Trips Discussion ............................................................ 21

8.1.2 Total Trips ............................................................................................................. 22

8.1.3 Primary Trips ........................................................................................................ 22

8.1.4 Pass-By Trips ........................................................................................................ 22

8.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 22

8.3 Trip Assignment................................................................................................................ 22

9.0 Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios ........................................................................................... 31

9.1 Existing + Project .............................................................................................................. 31

9.1.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 31

9.1.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 31

Page 89 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx ii

9.2 Existing + Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................ 31

9.2.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 31

9.2.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 31

9.3 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects ......................................................................... 31

9.3.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 31

9.3.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 32

10.0 Signal Warrant Analysis ......................................................................................................... 37

10.1 Peak Hour Signal Warrant ................................................................................................ 38

10.2 Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................ 40

11.0 Site Access, On-Site Circulation / Queuing and Parking ..................................................... 42

11.1 Vehicular Access .............................................................................................................. 42

11.2 On-Site Queuing ............................................................................................................... 42

11.2.1 Counts at an Existing Similar Gas Station / Drive-Through Restaurant .............. 42

11.2.2 Counts at an Existing Similar Gas Station / Car Wash ......................................... 42

12.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment ........................................................................... 45

12.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 45

12.2 Transportation Analyses ................................................................................................... 45

13.0 Active Transportation ............................................................................................................. 46

13.1 Pedestrian Mobility ........................................................................................................... 46

13.2 Bicycle Mobility ............................................................................................................... 46

13.3 Transit Mobility ................................................................................................................ 46

14.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 48

14.1 CEQA Transportation Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ................................ 48

14.2 Local Transportation Analysis .......................................................................................... 48

14.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 48

Page 90 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx iii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Intersection and Segment Count Sheets
B. Intersection Peak Hour Analysis Worksheets – Existing C. National City Circulation Element Roadway Classification Table D. Cumulative Projects Trip Generation
E. SANDAG and ITE Trip Generation Sheets
F. Intersection Peak Hour Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Project G. Intersection Peak Hour Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Cumulative Projects H. Intersection Peak Hour Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects I. Intersection Peak Hour Analysis Worksheets – Existing + Project & Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Improvements
J. Queueing Count locations and Data
K. Bus Route Schedules

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
Figure 2–1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2–2 Project Area Map .......................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2–3 Project Site .................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3–1 Existing Conditions Diagram ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 3–2 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 10 Figure 7–1 Cumulative Project Volumes ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 7–2 Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 20 Figure 8–1 Project Traffic Distribution (Primary Trips) ............................................................... 24 Figure 8–2 Project Traffic Distribution (Pass-by Trips) ............................................................... 25 Figure 8–3 Project Traffic Volumes (Primary Trips) .................................................................... 26 Figure 8–4 Project Traffic Volumes (Pass-by) .............................................................................. 27 Figure 8–5 Project Traffic Volumes (Total) .................................................................................. 28 Figure 8–6 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 29 Figure 8–7 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ....................................... 30

Page 91 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx iv

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
Table 3–1 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 4–1 Intersection Level of Service Descriptions ........................................................................ 13 Table 4–2 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) & Delay Ranges ...................................................... 13 Table 4–3 Circulation Element Roadway Classifications .................................................................. 14 Table 5–1 Substantial Traffic Effect Thresholds ................................................................................ 15 Table 6–1 Existing Intersection Operations ........................................................................................ 16 Table 6–2 Existing Street Segment Operations .................................................................................. 17 Table 8–1 Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................. 23 Table 9–1 Existing + Project Intersection Operations ........................................................................ 33 Table 9–2 Existing + Project Segment Operations ............................................................................. 34 Table 9–3 Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Intersection Operations ................................... 35 Table 9–4 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Segment Operations ........................................ 36 Table 10–1 Warrant 3: Peak Hour – Opening Year with Project ....................................................... 39 Table 10–2 Existing + Project Improvement Intersection Analysis ................................................... 40 Table 10–3 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Improvement Intersection Analysis .............. 41 Table 11–1 Queue Observations Summary ........................................................................................ 44

Page 92 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 1 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

SWEETWATER ROAD COMMERCIAL
National City, California
October 29, 2024

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) has completed the following Local Transportation Analysis ( LTA) associated with the proposed Mixed-use/commercial development on Sweetwater Road at Orange Street in National City. This traffic study analyzes traffic operations and alternative modes of travel within the project’s study area and evaluates the effects of the Project on the local transportation system to determine if the Project triggers the need for improvements. In conformance with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment that evaluates the project’s transportation impacts using a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric under CEQA, pursuant to guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in December 2018 is also included in this report. Consistent with SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, the CEQA significance determination for the Project will be based only on VMT and not on LOS.

The following sections are included in this report:
• Project Description
• Existing Conditions Description
• Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
• Analysis Approach and Methodology
• Substantial Traffic Effect Criteria
• Analysis of Existing Conditions
• Cumulative Traffic
• Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
• Analysis of Near-term Scenarios
• Signal Warrant Analysis
• Site Access, On-Site circulation, Queuing and Parking Assessment • Conclusion

Page 93 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The proposed project is located on the northwest corner of the Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection in National City . The existing site is undeveloped and zoned Major Mixed -Use District (MXD-2), which is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Figure 2–1 shows the general vicinity of project. Figure 2–2 depicts a more detailed project area map.

2.2 Project Description
The project proposes the construction of a 6 -pump (12 fueling positions) gas station with a 3,329 SF convenience store, a 1,297 SF drive -through restaurant with no indoor seating as part of the convenience store, an automatic car wash with vacuum and 5 apartment units. Access to the project would be provided via full access driveways on Sweetwater Road and Orange Street.

A total of 7 parking spaces will be provided for the residential units, 9 parking spaces for the convenience store and 2 parking spaces for the car wash vacuum.

Access proposed is described below:
• One full access driveway on Sweetwater Road,
• One exit only driveway for the restaurant drive-through, and • One full access driveway on Orange Street.

Figure 2–3 is the conceptual site plan.

Page 94 of 232 ends

Vicinity Map
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 2-1
N:\3948\Figure
Date: 8/27/2024
SanGIS, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS ¯
Project Site

Page 95 of 232 ends

Project Area Map
Figure 2-2N:\3948\Figures
Date: 08/26/24
Sweetwater Road Gasoline development
Project
Site

Page 96 of 232 ends

N:\3267\Figures
19'-0"
R.

COVERED TRASH

ENCLOSURE

ROOF COVERING SHALL

BE NON-COMBUSTIBLE

GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS AS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
8'-6"
11'-6"
18'-8"
53'-9"
18'-11"
9'-7"
8'-10"
1'-5"
13'-6"
23'-8"
5'-4"
19'-3"
9'-8" 72'-0"
18'-7"
29'-6"
9'-0"
53'-6"
1'-3"
10'-0"
55'-6"
20'-7"
DN
UP
DN
UP
60'-11"
13'-7"

RETAIL STORE
3,329 SF

DRIVE-THRU
1,238 SF
28'-0"
R.
56'-8"
110'-3"
70'-3"
1'-0"
12'-0"
3'-0"
5'-5"
18'-0"
4'-6"
63'-0" 9'-9" 6'-9"
18'-0" 34'-10" 30'-0" 23'-3"
4'-6"
12'-0"
4'-1"
18'-0" 8'-0" 81'-0"
36'-8" 24'-0" 24'-0"
45'-0"17'-1"
40'-0"35'-0"
27'-10"
40'-0"
35'-2"

EXISTING
SFR

TO REMAIN REMOVE
PATIO
COVER
14,932 SF BUILDING
7 42'-10"
127'-8"
20'-0"
10"
FUEL
PUMPS

ENCLOSED

CAR WASH

LANDSCAPING
(TYP.)

LANDSCAPING
(TYP.)
RES.RES.RES.RES.RES.RES.RES.
12'-1"
12'-0"
5'-0"
37'-0"
9'-0"
18'-0"
4'-0"

KEY NOTES
1 7'-0" DECOR
2 STEPPED W
2111
6 6 5 4 3 2
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
1 4 7 10
2 5 8 11
3 6 9 12
3 CANOPY ST

SPACE TO H
CU.FT. OF S
4 VISIBILITY T
4 5
5 POLE MOUN
(E) 4" GAS LINE
(E) 30" TRANSITION MAIN

CENTERLINE SWEETWATER ROAD
(E) 8" VCP SEWER
(E) WATER LINE
(E) 8" VCP SEWER

CENTERLINE OF ORANGE STREET(E) WATER LINE
(E) 2" GAS LINE
6 FIRE DEPT.
6 6
3333333
1'-6"
26'-0"
26'-0"
11'-4"
14'-0"
12'-0"
12'-0"
27'-8"
24'-0"
28'-0"
77'-4"
25'-0"
7 FIRE DEPT.

ONLY
7 19'-7" 3'-7"
Date: 09/08/20
Site Plan
Figure 2-3
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
N:\3948\Figures
Date: 10/24/24
Sweetwater Road
Orange Street

Page 97 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 6 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Effective evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project requires an understanding of the existing transportation system within the project area. Figure 3 –1 shows the existing conditions diagram, including signalized intersections and lane configurations.

3.1 Study Area
The study area intersections and segments were selected based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) San Diego and Imperial County Sections Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in the San Diego Region (May 2019) and discussions w ith National City staff. The TIS guidelines recommend that the study area be determined by where the Project adds 50 peak hour trips in either direction to the existing roadway traffic. Although this project is not expected to add 50 peak hour trips in either direction, the signalized intersections near the project site, the intersection fronting the project site, and the roadway segments adjacent to these intersections were included in the study area.

The study area intersections and segments are listed below.

Intersections

1. Sweetwater Road / Euclid Avenue / I-805 SB Ramps

2. Sweetwater Road / I-805 NB Ramps

3. Sweetwater Road / Project Driveway A

4. Orange Street / Project Driveway B

5. Sweetwater Road / Orange Street

6. Sweetwater Road / Valley Road
Segments
Sweetwater Road
• Prospect Street to I-805 NB Ramps
• I-805 NB Ramps to Valley Road
• Valley Road to Stockman Street

3.2 Existing Street Network
The following is a description of the existing street network in the study area.

Sweetwater Road is classified as a Major Arterial in the National City Circulation Element. Within the study area, Sweetwater Road is a 4-Lane undivided roadway from Prospect Street to the I-805 NB Ramps. East of the I-805 NB Ramps to Valley Road it is a 4- Lane roadway with a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). Between Valley Road and Stockton Street, Sweetwater Road is a 4-Laneundivided roadway. Curbside parking is prohibited along these segments of Sweetwater Road, as the City recently installed Class IV Cycle Tracks along the curbline. Bus stops serve routes 961 and 968 at 30-

Page 98 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 7 minute intervals along this road. The posted speed limit on Sweetwater Road ranges between 35 and 45 mph.

A HAWK Beacon is installed at the Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection. A HAWK Beacon (high intensity activated crosswalk beacon) is a traffic control device used to stop road traffic and allow pedestrians to cross safely. It is officially known as a pedestrian hybrid beacon. The purpose of a HAWK beacon is to allow protected pedestrian crossings, stopping vehicular traffic only as needed. The HAWK beacon is a type of traffic control alternative to traffic control signals and/or where an intersection does not meet traffic signal warrants.

Orange Street is classified in the National City Circulation Element as a local road . It is currently built as a 2 -lane roadway. Orange Street is located on the east side of the project site. The adjacent land uses are mainly residential. No posted speed limit was observed, and parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway.

3.3 Existing Traffic Volumes
Peak Hour Volumes – Existing weekday commuter AM and PM peak hour (7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00- 6:00 PM) traffic volumes were commissioned at the study area intersections. The counts were conducted on Tuesday, August 6, 2024, when area schools were in session.

Daily Volumes – Existing street segment Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were commissioned on Tuesday, August 6, 2024.

Table 3–1 is a summary of the existing street segment average daily traffic within the project study area. Figure 3–2 shows the Existing Traffic Volumes.

Appendix A contains the manual count sheets.

It should be noted that the Project site is located one block south of the entrance to the La Vista Memorial Park cemetery, the main entrance of which is located at the north end of Orange Street. The cemetery generally has very little traffic but does have three (3) special events during the year when traffic is atypical. These would be Memorial Day, Mother’s Day and Dia De Los Muertos. While these events result in higher -than-average traffic volumes in the study area, they are not representative of typical street system operations and therefore not subject to analysis in this study.

Page 99 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 8 TABLE 3–1

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street Segment ADT a

Sweetwater Road
Prospect Street to I-805 NB Ramps 23,800
I-805 NB Ramps to Valley Road 25,200
Valley Road to Stockman Street 16,400

Footnotes:
a. Average Daily Traffic Volume counts conducted on Tuesday, August 6, 2024.

Page 100 of 232 ends

Existing Conditions Diagram
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 3-1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64N:\3948\Figure
Date: 8/22/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??
Êeee
Êeee
Êeee
!"$! !
!!
!
!!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
! !
!
I-805 NB
Ramps
I-805
SB RampsEuclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Sweetwater Rd
Sweetwater
Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
DJL
DJK
DJJL
DJJL
JK
DL
DJJ
JJ
JJ
J
J
JK
DJJ
DLH
DJJ
JK
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
4U
45mph
4D35mph
BL
BL
BL
BL
45mph4D 4U
4U+
2U
4U+
2U
4U
CT
CT
45mph
*
Study Intersection
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turning Movements
Number of Travel Lanes
Posted Speed Limit
Divided / Undivided Roadway
Two-Way Left-Turn Median
Bike Lane
Cycle Track
Sneaker Lane
#
2/4/6
35mph
DJL
STOP
U / D
+
BL
CT
*
BL
BL

Page 101 of 232 ends

Existing Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 3-2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 16,400
25,200
23,800N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!J
J
LLJ D
JD
DL D L
J L
J D
D
L
J
J
J
J
L D
LJ
J D
L D
LJ
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
103 / 87
289 / 782
179 / 220
398 / 202
159 / 163
151 / 282
548 / 606
68 / 79
222 / 257
150 / 324
136 / 247
95 / 377
534 / 567
172 / 286
350 / 1,132
297 / 365
134 / 296
72 / 96
706 / 853
422 / 1,228
49 / 37
64 / 70
40 / 34
9 / 3
5 / 8
678 / 800
383 / 1,209
59 / 62
269 / 271
17 / 28
15 / 52
360 / 521
254 / 828
151 / 406
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT
Future
Future

Page 102 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 11 4.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments.

4.1 Methodology
Peak hour intersection analysis was performed to determine the potential effects of the Project on the roadway network. There are various methodologies used to analyze signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections.

The measure of effectiveness for intersection and segment operations is level of service (LOS) which denotes the operating conditions which occur at a given intersection or on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. LOS designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments.

In the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The LOS analysis provides results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.

Table 4–1 lists the criteria, which are based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement (unsignalized intersections) and overall intersection (signalized intersections). For signalized intersections, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delays include initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 4–2 summarizes the delay thresholds in seconds for each corresponding level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

4.2 Signalized Intersections
LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

Page 103 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 12 LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of Average delay.

LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or higher v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are frequent.

LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.

4.3 Unsignalized Intersections
For unsignalized intersections, LOS is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. For All-Way-Stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections, the overall intersection delay is reported. For two-way-stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections, LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole, but the worst-case movement (typically the minor street left-turn) delay and LOS are reported.

LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This LOS is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits.

LOS F may also appear in the form of side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing.

Page 104 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 13 TABLE 4–1

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
LOS Description
A Occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.

Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B Generally, occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

C Generally, results when there is fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D Generally, results in noticeable congestion. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F Considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation i.e. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volume-to- capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels

TABLE 4–2

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) & DELAY RANGES
LOS Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections
A ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0
C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0
D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0
E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0
F ≥ 80.1 ≥ 50.1
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6.

Page 105 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 14 4.4 Street Segments
Street segment analysis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the National City Roadway Classification, Level of Service, and ADT Table . This table provides segment capacities for different street classifications based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics.

Table 4–3 summarizes the National City’s Roadway Classification, Level of Service, and ADT.

TABLE 4–3

CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS

CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Street
Classification
# of
Lanes
Level of Service *

A B C D E F

Arterial 6 0-20,000 20,001- 28,000 28,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001+ Arterial 4 0-15,000 15,001-21,000 21,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001+ Arterial 4 0-10,000 10,001-14,000 14,001-20,000 20,001-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001+ Arterial 3+1 0-8,500 8,501-12,000 12,001-17,000 17,001-21,000 21,001-25,000 25,001+ Collector 4 0-7,000 7,001-10,000 10,001-14,000 14,001-17,000 17,001-20,000 20,001+ Collector 2+1 0-5,000 5,001-7,000 7,001-10,000 10,001-13,000 13,001-15,000 15,001+ Collector 2 0-4,000 4,001-5,500 5,501-7,500 7,501-9,000 9,001-10,000 10,001+

* Approximate recommended Average Daily Traffic based upon the ITE San Diego and Imperial County Sections TIS Guidelines, as amended by the City of National City.

Page 106 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 15 5.0 SUBSTANTIAL TRAFFIC EFFECT CRITERIA
National City uses the regionally adopted ITE San Diego and Imperial County Sections TIS Guidelines for the purposes of traffic impact analysis. National City considers LOS D as the minimum acceptable level of service.

A project is considered to have a substantial traffic effect if the new project traffic decreases the operations of surrounding roadways by a defined threshold. The defined thresholds shown in Table 5–1 for roadway segments and intersections are based on published ITE San Diego and Imperial County Sections TIS Guidelines. If the project exceeds the thresholds in Table 5–1, then the project may be considered to have a substantial traffic effect. A feasible improvement should be identified to return the project effect within the thresholds (pre -project + allowable increase) to ensure that the project is consistent with the City of National City General Plan transportation improvements.

TABLE 5–1

SUBSTANTIAL TRAFFIC EFFECT THRESHOLDS
Level of Service with Project Allowable Increase Due to Project Effects a Roadway Segments Intersections
V/C Delay (sec.)

E & F b 0.02 2.0

Footnotes:
a. If a proposed project’s traffic effects exceed the values shown in the table, then the effects are deemed “substantial.” The project applicant is recommended to identify “feasible improvements” to achieve LOS D or better. b. The acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard for roadways and intersections in the City of National City is LOS D. Hence, if the project maintains the level of service at LOS D, the impact is not considered substantial.

General Notes:

V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections.

LOS = Level of Service

Page 107 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 16 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

6.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Table 6–1 summarizes the intersection operations under existing conditions. As shown in Table 6–1, all intersections operate at LOS D or better. Appendix B contains the Existing peak hour analysis worksheets.

TABLE 6–1

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Delaya LOSb

1. Sweetwater Rd / Euclid Ave / I-805 SB
Ramps
Signal AM 32.8 C
PM 45.6 D

2. Sweetwater Rd / I-805 NB Ramps Signal AM 17.9 B
PM 30.5 C

3. Sweetwater Rd / Driveway A DNE AM DNE DNE

PM DNE DNE

4. Driveway B / Orange St DNE AM DNE DNE

PM DNE DNE

5. Sweetwater Rd / Orange St TWSCc AM 13.2 B
PM 13.6 B

6. Sweetwater Rd / Valley Rd Signal AM 26.7 C
PM 41.0 D

Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. Two-Way stop-controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay and LOS reported.

General Note:

DNE – Does Not Exist.

SIGNALIZED

UNSIGNALIZED
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

Page 108 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 17 6.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service
• Table 6–2 summarizes the street segment operations under the existing conditions. As shown in Table 6–2, all segments are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better.

TABLE 6–2

EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Classification Capacity
(LOS E) a
ADT b LOS c V/C d

Sweetwater Road
Prospect St to I-805 NB Ramps 4-lane Major Arterial 40,000 23,800 0.595 C I-805 NB Ramps to Valley Rd 4-lane Major Arterial 40,000 25,200 0.630 C Valley Rd to Stockman St 6-lane Major Arterial 50,000 16,400 0.410 B

Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on National City Circulation Element Roadway Classification Table, Appendix C. b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity Ratio.

General Notes:

Bold indicates LOS E or F operations.

Page 109 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 18 7.0 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Two planned projects in the area would be expected to add traffic to the roadways surrounding the project site. LLG coordinated with City staff to compile a list of relevant cumulative projects for consideration in the analysis. The following is a brief description of the two (2) cumulative projects identified for consideration in the analysis.

7.1 Description of Projects
CarMax Auto Superstore – The project site is located at the southeast corner of I-805, State Route (SR) 54 and Sweetwater Road, along Plaza Bonita Road. The site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes the construction of a 7.73-acre CarMax Auto Superstore. Trip generation from the project is calculated based on the SANDAG trip rate for auto sales (dealer/repair). Trips are evenly distributed county-wide. Only trips coming from the north direction (25% of total ADT) will pass streets adjacent to the project site. The Project is calculate d to generate 2,319 ADT (116 trips during the AM peak hour and 186 trips during the PM peak hour) at its driveway.

Sweetwater Road & 2nd Avenue Apartments – The project site is located along N. 2nd Avenue and Sweetwater Road within the City of National City. The site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes the construction of 130 apartment units. Trip generation from the project is calculated based on the SANDAG trip rate for apartments. The Project is calculated to generate 780 ADT (62 trips during the AM peak hour and 70 trips during the PM peak hour).

Figure 7–1 depicts the cumulative project location and the total AM/PM peak hour intersection and ADT volumes in the study area. Figure 7–2 depicts the AM/PM peak hour and ADT volumes for the Existing + Cumulative Projects scenario.

Appendix D includes the trip generation analysis for both cumulative projects.

Page 110 of 232 ends

Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 7-1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 660
700
550N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!L
J
L
J
DL D
J L
J D
D
J
J
J
J
L
J
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
21 / 19
20 / 8
1 / 2
5 / 20
3 / 1
13 / 5
3 / 12
2 / 7
8 / 28
29 / 22
3 / 12
13 / 5
10 / 35
29 / 22
10 / 35
29 / 22
1 / 2
9 / 33
26 / 21
3 / 1
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Future
Future
1 2
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT
CarMax Auto Superstore
130-Unit Apartments
1 2

Page 111 of 232 ends

Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 17,060
25,900
24,350N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!J
J
LLJ D
JD
DL D L
J L
J D
D
L
J
J
J
J
L D
LJ
J D
L D
LJ
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
103 / 87
309 / 790
179 / 220
399 / 204
159 / 163
151 / 282
553 / 626
68 / 79
225 / 258
163 / 329
139 / 259
116 / 396
536 / 574
180 / 314
379 / 1,154
300 / 377
147 / 301
72 / 96
716 / 888
451 / 1,250
49 / 37
64 / 70
40 / 34
9 / 3
5 / 8
688 / 835
412 / 1,231
59 / 62
270 / 273
17 / 28
15 / 52
369 / 554
280 / 849
154 / 407
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT
Future
Future

Page 112 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 21 8.0 TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT

8.1 Trip Generation
The SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were reviewed to determine the appropriate trip generation rates for the project. Based on the project description, the following rates were used:
• Apartments: SANDAG trip rates for Apartment or any multi -family units more than 20 DU per Acre were used.
• Gas Station, Convenience St ore and Carwash : SANDAG trip and pass -by rates for Automobile Gasoline with Food Mart and Car Wash were used. • Drive-Through restaurant: The drive-through restaurant is part of the convenience store and does not have indoor seating. The trips generated by the restaurant were accounted for separately for a conservative analysis.

Trip and pass -by rates for Land Use 935, Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive -Through Window and No Indoor Seating, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition were used. The daily trip rate is not provided in the ITE Trip Generation manual, and hence, the SANDAG daily rate for fast-food with drive-thru of 650/ksf for 1,297 SF was used.

ITE only provides pass-by rates for PM peak hour. PM peak hour ITE rates were assumed for ADT and AM peak hour.

Appendix E contains the SANDAG and ITE trip generation sheets for each land use.

8.1.1 Pass-By Trips / Primary Trips Discussion
Development of new land uses creates trips on a street system that are new, or “primary” trips.

However, several types of retail/commercial developments experience local and regional trips at the driveway that are already on the street system whether that development exists or not. These trips are known as “pass-by” trips. For example, if a driver on the way to work stops at a gas station and then carries on to work, that would be considered a pass- by trip. Pass-by trips only appear as “new” trips at the project driveway. Pass-by trips were based on SANDAG and ITE guidelines and existing traffic patterns.

The remaining trips are those that are new to the street system, also called “primary” trips. These trips occur due to the development of the project, and the project itself becomes one end of a primary trip, either the origin or the destination.

Page 113 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 22 8.1.2 Total Trips
Table 8–1 summarizes the total Project trips . The project is calculated to generate a total of approximately 2,743 daily trips with 195 AM peak hour trips (96 inbound and 99 outbound) and 231 PM peak hour trips (118 inbound and 113 outbound).

8.1.3 Primary Trips
Table 8–1 also summarizes the Project Primary trips. The project is calculated to generate a total of approximately 1,961 daily Primary trips with 140 AM peak hour trips (69 inbound and 71 outbound) and 166 PM peak hour trips (85 inbound and 81 outbound).

8.1.4 Pass-By Trips
Table 8–1 also summarizes the Project Pass-By trips. The project is calculated to generate a total of approximately 782 daily Pass-By trips with 55 AM peak hour trips (27 inbound and 28 outbound) and 65 PM peak hour trips (33 inbound and 32 outbound).

8.2 Trip Distribution
The project -generated traffic was distributed to the street system based on the existing roadway network and travel patterns, a working knowledge of the local transportation system, and a review of the proposed land uses. Separate distribution percentages were developed for the Project Primary and Pass-by trips.

Figure 8–1 depicts the regional project traffic distribution percentages for the P rimary Trips.

Figure 8–2 depicts project traffic distribution percentages for the Pass-by Trips. For both Primary and Pass-by trips, outbound trips from t he drive-through were assigned to the full access driveway on Sweetwater Road to provide a conservative analysis.

8.3 Trip Assignment
Figure 8–3 depicts the assigned Project Primary AM/PM peak hour traffic and ADT based on the trip distribution shown in Figure 8–1. Figure 8–4 shows the Project Pass-By AM/PM peak hour traffic at the site driveways based on the distribution percentages in Figure 8–2. Pass-by trips do not represent new ADT on the street system. Figure 8–5 depicts the total project traffic assignment.

Figure 8–6 depicts the AM/PM peak hours and ADT volumes for the Existing + Project scenario.

Figure 8–7 depicts the AM/PM peak hours and ADT volumes for the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects scenario.

Page 114 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 23 TABLE 8–1

TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Size Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate a Volume % of ADT In:Out
Split
Volume % of ADT In:Out
Split
Volume
In Out Total

In Out Total

1. Apartments 5 DU 6 /DU 30 8% 20:80 1 2 3 10% 70:30 3 1 4

2. Gasoline with Food Mart & Car Wash 12 Fueling
Space
155 Fueling
Space
1,860 8% 50:50 75 74 149 9% 50:50 84 83 167
Primary b 72% 1,339 54 53 107 60 60 120
Pass-By b 28% 521 21 21 42 24 23 47

3. Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-
Through Window and No Indoor
Seating c, d

1.297 KSF 650 KSF 843 43 /Drive-
Thru
Lane
47:53 20 23 43 59.5 /Drive
-Thru
Lane
51:49 31 29 60

Primary e 69% 582 14 16 30 21 20 41
Pass-By e 31% 261 6 7 13 10 9 19
Total Project 2,743 96 99 195 118 113 231 Primary 1,961 69 71 140 85 81 166
Pass-by 782 27 28 55 33 32 65
Footnotes:
a. Rates are based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002, unless otherwise specified. b. Primary and pass-by rates from SANDAG.
c. Trip and pass-by rates for Land Use 935, Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window and No Indoor Seating, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. d. The daily trip rate is not provided in the ITE Trip Generation manual and hence the SANDAG daily rate for fast-food with drive-thru of 650/ksf for 1,297 SF was used. e. ITE only provides pass-by rates for PM peak hour. PM peak hour ITE rates were assumed for ADT and AM peak hour.

Page 115 of 232 ends

Project Primary Traffic Distribution
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
lD
jd
J L
j l
L
J
l d
Lj
DJ
Ld
D
l
l d
LJ
j D
L
J
j d
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
1 2 3 4 65
5%
10%
5% 20%
5%
15%
10%
10%
5%
70%
10%
60%
10% 30%
40%
5%
10%
5%
5%
20%
20%
5%
20%
5%
70%
50%
20%
20%
40%
30%
Project
Site
Orange St
5%
5%
10%
5%
5%
40%
30%
Study Intersection
Inbound AM/PM Trip Distribution
Outbound AM/PM Trip Distribution
Regional Trip Distribution
#
XX %
DJL
djl

Page 116 of 232 ends

Project Pass-By Traffic Distribution
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/24/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
dl16% / 9%9% / 16%DJ9% / 16%
-9% / -16%
JL-16% / -9%
16% / 9%
l75% / 75%
75% / 75%
D
dl49% / 29%26% / 46%DJ26% / 46%
-26% / -46%
JL-49% / -29%
49% / 29%
Study Intersection
Inbound Trip Distribution
Outbound Trip Distribution
#
DJL
djl

Page 117 of 232 ends

Project Pass-By Traffic Distribution
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
dl16% / 9%9% / 16%DJ9% / 16%
-9% / -16%
JL-16% / -9%
16% / 9%
l75% / 75%
75% / 75%
D
dl49% / 29%26% / 46%DJ26% / 46%
-26% / -46%
JL-49% / -29%
49% / 29%
Study Intersection
Inbound AM/PM Trip Distribution
Outbound AM/PM Trip Distribution
#
DJL
djl

Page 118 of 232 ends

Project Primary Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 590
1,370
200N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
LD
JD
J L
J L
L
J
L D
LJ
DJ
LD
D
L
L D
LJ
J D
L
J
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
4 / 4
3 / 4
6 / 8
4 / 4
8 / 9
3 / 4
14 / 16
4 / 4
3 / 4
14 / 17
11 / 12
7 / 8
14 / 17
7 / 8
3 / 4
14 / 17
3 / 4
4 / 4
48 / 59
49 / 57
7 / 8
43 / 49
34 / 42
14 / 17
7 / 8
14 / 17
27 / 34
21 / 25
21 / 25
28 / 32
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT

Page 119 of 232 ends

Project Pass-By Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/24/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
L D
LJ
DJ
L D
L D
LJ
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
4 / 3
3 / 5
4 / 3
-4 / -3
2 / 5
-2 / -5
21 / 24
21 / 25
14 / 9
7 / 15
13 / 10
-13 / -10
-7 / -15
7 / 15
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL

Page 120 of 232 ends

Total Project Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 590
1,370
200N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
LD
JD
J L
J L
L
J
L D
LJ
DJ
LD
D
L
L D
LJ
J D
L
J
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
4 / 4
3 / 4
6 / 8
4 / 4
8 / 9
3 / 4
14 / 16
4 / 4
3 / 4
14 / 17
15 / 15
10 / 13
18 / 20
3 / 5
5 / 9
12 / 12
3 / 4
4 / 4
69 / 84
70 / 81
21 / 17
50 / 64
47 / 52
1 / 7
0 / -7
21 / 32
27 / 34
21 / 25
21 / 25
28 / 32
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT

Page 121 of 232 ends

Existing + Project Traffic Volumes
Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 16,990
26,570
24,000N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!J
J
LLJ D
JD
DL D L
J L
J D
D
L
L D
LJ
DJ
LJD
JD
L
L D
LJ
J D
L D
LJ
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
103 / 87
297 / 791
183 / 224
398 / 202
159 / 163
154 / 286
554 / 614
72 / 83
222 / 257
150 / 324
136 / 247
98 / 381
548 / 583
176 / 290
364 / 1,149
297 / 365
134 / 296
75 / 100
15 / 15
10 / 13
18 / 20
709 / 858
5 / 9
434 / 1,240
3 / 4
49 / 37
4 / 4
64 / 70
69 / 84
70 / 81
61 / 51
59 / 67
52 / 60
679 / 807
383 / 1,202
80 / 94
296 / 305
17 / 28
15 / 52
381 / 546
275 / 853
179 / 438
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT

Page 122 of 232 ends

Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development
Figure 8-7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$ $$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$$$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$ $
$
$$$
$
$$$$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Valley Rd
G
r
o
v
e
S
t
Sweetwater Rd
Euclid Ave
1 2
3 5
64 17,650
27,270
24,550N:\3948\Figure
Date: 10/29/2024
¯
§¨805
"Ã54
"Ã54
??!
!
!!! !! !
!!
!
!! ! !!
!!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!!
! !!!! !!!!
!!!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!!!!!J
J
LLJ D
JD
DL D L
J L
J D
D
L
L D
LJ
DJ
LJD
JD
L
L D
LJ
J D
L D
LJ
J D
I-805 NB Ramps
I-805 SB Ramps
Euclid Ave
Orange St
Orange St
Proj Dwy
Proj Dwy
Sweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater RdSweetwater Rd
Valley Rd
Sweetwater Rd
103 / 87
317 / 799
183 / 224
399 / 204
159 / 163
154 / 286
559 / 634
72 / 83
225 / 258
163 / 329
139 / 259
119 / 400
550 / 590
184 / 318
393 / 1,171
300 / 377
147 / 301
75 / 100
15 / 15
10 / 13
18 / 20
719 / 893
5 / 9
463 / 1,262
3 / 4
49 / 37
4 / 4
64 / 70
69 / 84
70 / 81
61 / 51
59 / 67
52 / 60
689 / 842
412 / 1,224
80 / 94
297 / 307
17 / 28
15 / 52
390 / 579
301 / 874
182 / 439
1 2 3 4 65
Project
Site
Orange St
Study Intersections
Intersection AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes
#
DJL
XX,XXX Street Segment ADT

Page 123 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 31 9.0 ANALYSIS OF NEAR-TERM SCENARIOS
This section discusses the near-term operations of the intersections and street segments in the project study area.

9.1 Existing + Project

9.1.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 9–1 summarizes the intersection operations under Existing + Project conditions. With the addition of project traffic volumes, all intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better except for the following:
• Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection - LOS E
The increase in the delay due to the project is more than 2 seconds and therefore, the Project has a significant impact at this intersection.

Appendix F contains the Existing + Project peak hour analysis worksheets.

9.1.2 Segment Operations
Table 9–2 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Project conditions. With the addition of project traffic volumes, all street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better..

9.2 Existing + Cumulative Projects

9.2.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 9–3 summarizes the intersection operations under Existing + Cumulative Project conditions.

With the addition of cumulative projects traffic volumes, all intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better.

Appendix G contains the Existing + Cumulative peak hour analysis worksheets.

9.2.2 Segment Operations
Table 9–4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative Project conditions.

With the addition of cumulative projects traffic volumes, all street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better. Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects

9.3 Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects

9.3.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 9–3 summarizes the intersection operations under Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects conditions. As shown in Table 9–3, wi th the addition of Project and C umulative project traffic, all intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better except the following:
• Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection - LOS E

Page 124 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 32 The increase in the delay due to the project is more than 2 seconds and therefore, the Project has a substantial effect impact at this intersection. It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at this intersection if signal warrants are met. A signal warrant analysis is included in Section 10.

Appendix H contains the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects peak hour analysis worksheets.

9.3.2 Segment Operations
Table 9–4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects conditions. With the addition of project and cumulative traffic volumes , all street segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better.

Page 125 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 33 TABLE 9–1
EXISTING + PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing + Project Δ Delayc Substantial
Effect
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS

1. Sweetwater Rd / Euclid Ave / I-805 SB Ramps Signal AM 32.8 C 34.4 C 1.6 No PM 45.6 D 46.3 D 0.7 No

2. Sweetwater Rd / I-805 NB Ramps Signal AM 17.9 B 18.2 B 0.3 No PM 30.5 C 31.4 C 0.9 No

3. Sweetwater Road / Driveway A TWSCd AM 0.0 A 13.8 B 13.8 No PM 0.0 A 18.1 C 18.1 No

4. Driveway B / Orange St Signal AM 0.0 A 9.2 A 9.2 No PM 0.0 A 9.2 A 9.2 No

5. Sweetwater Rd / Orange St TWSCd AM 13.2 B 23.2 C 10.0 No PM 13.6 B 39.2 E 25.6 Yes

6. Sweetwater Rd / Valley Rd Signal AM 26.7 C 28.7 C 2.0 No PM 41.0 D 51.9 D 10.9 No

Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service
c. Δ denotes the increase in delay due to Project.
d. Two-way stop control.

General Note:

DNE – Does Not Exist.

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

Page 126 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 34 TABLE 9–2
EXISTING + PROJECT SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Capacity
(LOS E) a
Existing Existing + Project Δ V/C e Substantial
Effect
ADTb V/Cc LOSd ADT V/C LOS

Sweetwater Road
Prospect Street to I-805 NB Ramps 40,000 23,800 0.595 C 24,000 0.600 C 0.005 No I-805 NB Ramps to Valley Road 40,000 25,200 0.630 C 26,570 0.664 C 0.034 No Valley Road to Stockman Street 50,000 16,400 0.410 B 16,990 0.425 B 0.015 No

Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on National City Roadway Classification & LOS table b. Average Daily Traffic
c. Volume to Capacity ratio
d. Level of Service
e. Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity ratio

Page 127 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 35 TABLE 9–3
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS + PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects
Δ Delay c Substantial
Effect
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS

1. Sweetwater Rd / Euclid
Ave / I-805 SB Ramps
Signal AM 33.2 C 34.8 C 1.6 No
PM 48.1 D 48.8 D 0.7 No

2. Sweetwater Rd / I-805 NB
Ramps
Signal AM 18.6 B 18.9 B 0.3 No
PM 35.0 C 36.6 C 1.6 No

3. Sweetwater Road /
Driveway A
TWSC
d AM 0.0 A 13.9 B 13.9 No
PM 0.0 A 18.6 C 18.6 No

4. Driveway B / Orange St Signal AM 0.0 A 9.2 A 9.2 No PM 0.0 A 9.2 A 9.2 No

5. Sweetwater Rd / Orange St TWSCd AM 13.4 B 23.7 C 10.3 No PM 13.9 B 41.5 E 28.6 Yes

6. Sweetwater Rd / Valley Rd Signal AM 26.3 C 28.4 C 2.1 No PM 41.1 D 52.1 D 11.0 No

Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service
c. Δ denotes the increase in delay due to Project.
d. Two-way stop control.

General Note:

DNE – Does Not Exist.

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

Page 128 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 36 TABLE 9–4
EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SEGMENT OPERATIONS Street Segment Capacity
(LOS E)a
Existing + Cumulative Projects Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Δ V/C e Substantial Effect ADTb V/Cc LOSd ADT V/C LOS

Sweetwater Road
Prospect Street to I-805 NB Ramps 40,000 24,350 0.609 C 24,550 0.614 C 0.005 No I-805 NB Ramps to Valley Road 40,000 25,900 0.648 C 27,270 0.682 C 0.034 No Valley Road to Stockman Street 50,000 17,060 0.427 B 17,650 0.441 B 0.015 No

Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on National City Roadway Classification & LOS table (See Appendix C). b. Average Daily Traffic
c. Volume to Capacity ratio
d. Level of Service
e. Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity ratio. f. The Project does not have a substantial effect though the segment is calculated to operate at LOS E without and with Project traffic since the increase in V/C is less than 0.02.

Page 129 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 37 10.0 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Assumptions
The Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection is currently a three- leg intersection with no south leg as described below:
 Southbound: One shared left/ right lane
 Westbound: One through lane and one shared through / right-turn lane  Eastbound: One left turn lane and two through lanes
The following assumptions are made in determining the conditions at the subject intersection:
 Approach Lanes:

Page 847 ends

Edition states “for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left- turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left -turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume ap proaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one -lane approach. The approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles.” At this location, Oran ge Street is a two -lane road (one lane in each direction) with a shared left/right lane at the intersection and it is not considered to be possible for traffic to enter Sweetwater Road with “minimal conflict”. Hence, this approach will function and is analyzed as a one lane approach.

Page 130 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 38 10.1 Peak Hour Signal Warrant
Methodology
In the California MUTCD 2014 Edition, Chapter 4C – Section 4C.04 Warrant 3. Peak Hour details the warrant is intended for when the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day. The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:

A. If all of the three conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15- minute periods) of an average day:

1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor -street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds:4 Vehicles-hours for a one-lane approach; or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and

2. The volume on the same-minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and

3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.

B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume on the minor – street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (or any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C -3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.

If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85
th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C -4 may be used in place of Figure 4C -3 to satisfy the criteria in the seco nd category.

Calculations
Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project peak hour intersection volumes were used to complete the traffic signal warrant analysis whic h is summarized in Table 10–1. Since only two of the three conditions of Part A are met, Part A is not satisfied. The posted speed limit on Sweetwater Road is 45 mph. Therefore, the 70% criterion applies for Part B. Hence, Figure 4C -4 is used in place of Figure 4C-3. The peak hour traffic volumes fall above the curve for the appropriate number of lanes when plotted on Figure 4C-4 of the California MUTCD. Since Part B is satisfied, Warrant 3 is met.

Based on the above, Table 10–1 Warrant 3 is satisfied for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic condition.

Page 131 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 39 TABLE 10–1
WARRANT 3: PEAK HOUR – OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT
Warrant 3 – Peak Hour Part A or Part B Satisfied Yes  No

Part A
(All Parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)
Satisfied Yes No 

1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor -street approach controlled by a STOP sign equal or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle- hours for a two -lane approach; AND

Yes No 

2. The volume on the same-minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND

Yes  No
AM = 120; PM = 110. See Fig. 4C-4.

3. The entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for the intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches.

Yes  No
AM = 1,343; PM = 2,320. See Fig. 4C-4
Part B Satisfied Yes  No

The plotted points for vehicles per hour on Major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15-minute period) fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

MINOR STREET VOLUME

MAJOR STREET VOLUME
Sweetwater Road / Orange Avenue
Figure 4C-4, Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Traffic
75 AM: 1223, 120
PM: 2210, 110
Subject Curve

Page 132 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 40 10.2 Intersection Improvements
The intersection analysis provided in this study shows that the following intersection is calculated to operate at unacceptable LOS due to traffic generated from the Project:
 Intersection #5. Sweetwater Road / Orange Street (Existing + Project & Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects)
This intersection is currently unsignalized and therefore to improve operations a traffic signal would need to be installed. The existing lane geometry would remain the same, however the traffic signal should provide protected left turn phasing for all approaches. The traffic signal would provide LOS A operations under both scenarios outlined above.

Appendix I contains the Existing + Project and Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects Improvements Intersection Analysis worksheets.

Table 10–2 & 10–3 show the Existing + Project & Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects intersection operations for Sweetwater Road / Orange Street under the proposed improvement.

TABLE 10–2
EXISTING + PROJECT IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Intersection Control Type Peak
Hour
Existing + Project Existing + Project
+ Improvements
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS

5. Sweetwater Rd / Orange St TWSC c /Signal
AM 23.2 C 9.5 A
PM 39.2 E 7.9 A
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. Two Way Stop Control.

General Notes:
 Italics indicates intersection control type with improvements.

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED

DELAY/LOS

THRESHOLDS

DELAY/LOS

THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

Page 133 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 41 TABLE 10–3
EXISTING + PROJECT + CUMULATIVE PROJECTS IMPROVEMENT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Intersection Control Type Peak
Hour
Existing + Project +
Cumulative Projects
Existing + Project +
Cumulative Projects
+ Improvements
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS

5. Sweetwater Rd / Orange St TWSC c /Signal
AM 23.7 C 9.5 A
PM 42.5 E 8.0 A
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. Two Way Stop Control.

General Notes:
 Italics indicates intersection control type with improvements.

SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED

DELAY/LOS

THRESHOLDS

DELAY/LOS

THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS

0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A

10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B

20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C

35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D

55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F

Page 134 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 42 11.0 SITE ACCESS, ON-SITE CIRCULATION / QUEUING AND PARKING

11.1 Vehicular Access
Vehicular access is proposed via one full access unsignalized driveway and an exit -only driveway (from the drive-through) on Sweetwater Road and another full access driveway on Orange Street.

Sweetwater Road currently has a two -way left-turn lane (TWLTL), which acts as a refuge area for entering and exiting vehicles allowing for vehicles to turn into and out of the site when there are gaps in only one direction of the through movement in the traffic stream . The exiting traffic in the drive - through lane was assigned to the full access driveway on Sweetwater Road for a conservative analysis.

Tables 9–1 and 9–3 show the driveway LOS for all scenarios. These tables show that under both “with Project” conditions, the minor -street movements operate at acceptable LOS C or better under either peak hour at the two full access driveways.

11.2 On-Site Queuing
In order to assess the potential queues that could result at the proposed gas station / drive -through restaurant and the car wash, queue counts were conducted on three days during the anticipated peak periods.

11.2.1 Counts at an Existing Similar Gas Station / Drive-Through Restaurant Queue counts were conducted at a Gas Station / Drive- Through Restaurant facility similar to the one proposed at this site, located at 5494 Mission Center Road, San Diego. The facility is a Mobil Gas Station with a liquor/convenience store and a drive -through-only Starbucks. Queues for Starbucks were collected for 3 days from 7AM to 9AM and 4PM to 6PM with the queue noted every 5 minutes.

The counts were conducted on the following days:
• Saturday (8/10/24)
• Wednesday (8/14/24)
• Thursday (8/15/24)
The maximum queue of 12 vehicles or 300 feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle was observed on Thursday (8/15/24) at 7:50AM. The Project proposes queuing for 12 vehicles for the drive-through.

Therefore, the proposed queueing storage is expected to be sufficient storage.

11.2.2 Counts at an Existing Similar Gas Station / Car Wash Queue counts were conducted at a Car Wash facility, similar to the one proposed at the site, located at 1803 Highland Avenue in National City. The facility is a Gas Station with convenience store and a single Car Wash named “Highland Service”. C ar wash queues were recorded for 3 days , including two weekdays and on Saturday. Queues were recorded every five (5) minutes between 8AM to 10AM and 4PM to 6PM on the weekend and between 12PM to 2PM and 4PM to 6PM on the weekdays. The queue observation periods were selected based on a combination of available traffic data and the

Page 135 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 43 applicant’s experience. Based on SANDAG data for a standalone car wash, the weekday AM peak activity is less than half that of the PM peak. Therefore, a mid-day period for the weekday was selected to ensure that the busiest times were captured in the observations.

The counts were conducted on the following days:
• Saturday (8/10/24)
• Wednesday (8/14/24)
• Thursday (8/15/24)
The maximum queue was observed on various days and times . The maximum queue was 3 vehicles or 75 feet, assuming 25 feet per vehicle. The Project car wash will provide queuing storage for at least 3 vehicles. Therefore, the proposed queueing storage is expected to be sufficient.

Table 11–1 includes a summary of the queue observations. Appendix J contains aerial views of the above-mentioned two locations where the queues were observed and the raw queue counts.

Based on the above discussions, it is concluded that sufficient storage is available at the site to accommodate anticipated queues.

Page 136 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 44 TABLE 11–1

QUEUE OBSERVATIONS SUMMARY
Day Time Maximum Queue
(cars)
Maximum Queue
Length (feet) a
Starbucks Drive-Thru b – 5494 Mission Center Road, San Diego Saturday (8/10/24) 7AM – 9AM 4 100
4PM – 6PM 2 50
Wednesday (8/14/24) 7AM – 9AM 11 275
4PM – 6PM 2 50
Thursday (8/15/24)

7AM – 9AM 12 300
4PM – 6PM 2 50
Car Wash – 1803 Highland Ave, National City
Saturday (8/10/24) 8AM – 10 AM 3 75
12 PM – 2PM 1 25
Wednesday (8/14/24) 12 PM – 2 PM 2 50
4 PM – 6PM 1 25
Thursday (8/15/24)

12 PM – 2 PM 3 75
4 PM – 6PM 3 75
General Note:
a. Queue length calculated assuming 25 feet per vehicle. b. Starbucks is attached to a gas station and convenience store.

Page 137 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 45 12.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ASSESSMENT

12.1 Background
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is defined as the “amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project” per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.3. VMT and VMT/capita or VMT/employee are measures of the use and efficiency of the transportation network as well as land uses in a region. VMT is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT is estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts. For residential uses, the metric is resident VMT/resident.

12.2 Transportation Analyses
The potential transportation impacts of the proposed Project are based on VMT to satisfy the CEQA guidelines through Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). Public Resources Code section 20199, enacted pursuant to SB 743, identifies VMT as an appropriate metric for measuring transportation impacts along with the elimination of auto delay/Level of service (LOS) for CEQA purposes statewide. The justification for this paradigm shift is that auto delay/LOS impacts may lead to improvements that increase roadway capacity and t herefore sometimes induce more traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, constructing projects in VMT -efficient locations assists California in meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets. Therefore, consistent with SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, the CEQA significance determination for the Project is based only on VMT and not on LOS.

The City of National City utilizes the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA ” and The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) San Diego and Imperial County Sections "Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region" for assessing potential CEQA transportation impacts due to VMT. According to these guidelines development projects that are either local serving or a small project generating less than 110 daily trips are presumed to have a less -than-significant impact on VMT, and therefore, "screen out" from needing to perform a VMT assessment.

Accordingly, retail projects in the City of National City that are locally serving may be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. The project proposes the construction of a 12 Fueling Space Gasoline station with a 3,329 sf Retail Store and a Car Wash, a 1,207-sf fast food drive- through only restaurant and 5 apartments. Based on the screening criteria described above, the project is screened out of requiring a detailed VMT analysis based on meeting the criteria of being a Locally Serving Retail Project (i.e. less than 50,000 sf).

The residential portion of the Project is calculated to generate 30 daily trips. This is less than 110 trips and hence is assumed to cause a less-than-significant impact.

Therefore, based on the above discussions, the project is presumed to have a less than significant transportation VMT impact.

Page 138 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 46 13.0 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

13.1 Pedestrian Mobility
Sweetwater Road provides 5-foot sidewalks on the north side of the road along the entire roadway.

Sidewalks are not provided along the south side of Sweetwater Road between approximately 280 feet west of Euclid Avenue to Plaza Bonita Road (located east of Valley Road). Sidewalks are provided on the south side of Sweetwater Road outside of this segment.

Orange Street provides 5-foot sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. Additionally, there is a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Crosswalk signal (sometimes referred to as a HAWK signal) at the Sweetwater Road & Orange Street intersection that allows pedestrians to cross the east leg. This signal is inactive, and traffic is free to move as an unsignalized intersection until a pedestrian activates it by pressing the crosswalk button to cross. LLG field observations note that pedestrians get a Flash Don’t Walk time of 22 seconds, while drivers experience about 33 seconds of red light.

13.2 Bicycle Mobility
Sweetwater Road provides Class IV Cycle Tracks between N 2nd Avenue and Plaza Bonita Road. One- way cycle tracks are present on both sides of the roadway between N 2 nd Street and Orange Street.

Two-way cycle tracks are present on the south side of the roadway between Orange Street and Plaza Bonita Road. Sweetwater Road provides Class II Bike Lanes on both sides of the roadway west of N 2nd Street and east of Plaza Bonita Road.

No bicycle facilities are provided on Orange Street.

No future bike facilities are planned in the Project vicinity.

13.3 Transit Mobility
The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) operates within the study area. Bus route s 961 and 968 run along Sweetwater Road and Euclid Avenue. The nearest bus stops are located less than 500 feet away from the Project site, at the Sweetwater Road & Orange Street intersection and the Sweetwater Road and Olive Street intersection. These stops serve routes 961 and 968. Continuous sidewalk connectivity is available between the Project site and the nearest bus stops. The Project site is located 1 mile from the Plaza Bonita Transit Center to the east and 2.4 miles from the 24 th Street Transit Center to the west. Below is a description of bus routes 961 and 968:

Route 961 runs between the 24th Street Transit Center and Encanto/62nd St. Trolley Station. There are thirty-four (34) stops along this route. Weekday service begins at 5:3 1 AM with 15 -to-30-minute headways and ends at 10:45 PM. Saturday service begins at 6:22 AM with 30-minute headways and ends at 8:52 PM.

Page 139 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 47 Route 968 runs between the 8th Street Transit Center and the Plaza Bonita Transit Center. There are twenty-three (23) stops along this route. Weekday service begins at 5: 26 AM with 60 -minute headways and ends at 8:36 PM. There is no weekend service.

Appendix K contains the bus route schedules and maps for the above two routes.

Page 140 of 232 ends

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-22-3948 Sweetwater Road Commercial
N:\3948 - Sweetwater Road Gasoline Development\Report\LTA.3948.docx 48 14.0 CONCLUSION
The project proposes the construction of a 6 -pump (12 fueling positions) gas station with a 3,329 SF convenience store, an automatic car wash with vacuum, a 1,297 SF drive -through restaurant with no indoor seating and 5 apartment units.

14.1 CEQA Transportation Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) According to CEQA guidelines for assessing potential transportation impacts, since the Project consists of local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet in size and the residential portion of the Project is a small project generating less than 110 ADT, the Project is presumed to have a less- than- significant impact on VMT.

14.2 Local Transportation Analysis
Per the City’s criteria for performing a local transportation analysis and the analysis methodology presented in this report, project related traffic is calculated to contribute to a substantial effect at the Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection . The intersection is calculated to operate at LOS E for minor street traffic during the PM peak hour with the addition of Project traffic.

A traffic signal is recommended to improve operations to an acceptable LOS and a signal at this location would be warranted as shown in Section 10.1. A traffic signal with protected left turn phasing would result in LOS A operations during AM/PM peak hours as provided in Section 10.2.

The Project is responsible for 69% (81 of 118) of PM peak hour trips on the critical minor street (Orange Street) approach in the Existing + Project + Cumulative Projects scenario . Therefore, the Project will provide a fair share contribution of 70% of the cost of removal of the existing HAWK and installation of a traffic signal at this intersection.

Queue storage provided for the drive-through restaurant and the car wash is adequate based on studies conducted at similar locations.

14.3 Summary
It is recommended that the Project provide the following improvements:
• Provide a fair share contribution of 70% to the cost of removing the existing HAWK system and installing a traffic signal at the Sweetwater Road / Orange Street intersection. • Demo and reconstruct the Class IV Cycle Track along the Project frontage of Sweetwater Road to provide driveway access to the site.

Page 141 of 232 ends

Public Hearing

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW

SERVICE STATION, CONVENIENCE

STORE REQUESTING OFF-SALE
ALCOHOL (ABC TYPE-21), DRIVE-

THROUGH CAR WASH, AND DRIVE-

THROUGH EATING PLACE WITH A ZONE

VARIANCE REQUEST RELATED TO

DRIVEWAY WIDTH, STREET WALL, AND

THE LOCATION OF PARKING SPACES,

TO BE LOCATED ON VACANT

PROPERTIES ALONG SWEETWATER
ROAD
2024-08 CUP, ZV

Page 142 of 232 ends

Overhead

Page 143 of 232 ends

Photo

Page 144 of 232 ends

Site Characteristics
0.68-acre vacant property located at Sweetwater Road and Orange Street  Existing lots would be merged
 Additional lot with house not included
 General Plan Amendment/Zone Change/Conditional Use Permit previously approved; expired approval for retail and drive- through considered by Planning Commission in 2022
 Relatively flat
 Irregular shape; lot depth ranges from 203 feet on eastern side to 80 feet on western side Close proximity to State Highway 54 and Interstate 805 Surrounded by commercial and residential uses
 Adjacent to single-family homes to the north in County of San Diego  7-Eleven, motel along Sweetwater Road
 Caltrans rights-of-way
Recent Sweetwater Road improvements
 HAWK pedestrian crossing to access bus stop
 Separated bike lane

Page 145 of 232 ends

Proposal
Multiple uses of the property including:
Gasoline service station
Automated car wash
Convenience store with alcohol sales
Drive-through lane to serve coffee shop/restaurant
Five residential units
Basement storage

Page 146 of 232 ends

Proposal
Requests:
Gasoline service station
Automated car wash
Convenience store with alcohol sales
Drive-through lane to serve coffee shop/restaurant
Zone Variance
Maximum two-way driveway width
Minimum street wall requirement
Minimum parking setback

Page 147 of 232 ends

Renderings

Page 148 of 232 ends

Renderings

Page 149 of 232 ends

Renderings

Page 150 of 232 ends

Site Plan

Page 151 of 232 ends

Proposal-Service Station
Six double-side fuel pumps with canopy
Zone Variance (ZV) to exceed maximum two-way driveway width 25-foot width permitted
40-foot width requested
ZV to deviate from minimum setback for parking areas
40-foot setback required
0-foot setback requested
Hours of operation: 24 hours daily

Page 152 of 232 ends

Service Station

Page 153 of 232 ends

Proposal-Automated Car Wash
Entrance from south east corner of lot
Hours of operation: 24 hours daily
Queueing for three vehicles

Page 154 of 232 ends

Automated Car Wash

Page 155 of 232 ends

Proposal-Convenience Store
3,329 square-foot retail space within new 14,932 square-foot mixed-use building 4,658 square-foot basement storage
Hours of operation: 24 hours daily
Request for off-site beer, wine, and distilled spirits (ABC Type-21) Hours of operation: 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily

Page 156 of 232 ends

Convenience Store

Page 157 of 232 ends

Convenience Store

Page 158 of 232 ends

Proposal - Drive-Through Eating Place
1,297 square-foot suite within proposed mixed-used building Hours of operation: Not specified - 24 hours daily
Drive-through lane wraps around north and west side of building Exit on Sweetwater Road
Queueing for 12 vehicles

Page 159 of 232 ends

Drive-Through Eating Place

Page 160 of 232 ends

Proposal – Five Residential Units
Permitted by right
Located on second and third floors of building
Market rate
23 parking spaces for overall site
Design modified to meet height requirements

Page 161 of 232 ends

Residential Units

Page 162 of 232 ends

Residential Units

Page 163 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis
Seven total requests requiring discretionary approval
Proposed uses requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
 Service station
 Automated car wash – accessory to service station
 Convenience store with off-site alcohol – accessory to service station  Drive-through eating place
Requested Zone Variance
 Three total deviations
Requests may be considered independently

Page 164 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – General Plan
New commercial activity and infill development encourage by the General Plan:
 Policy LU 5.3: Encourage businesses to employ National City residents and support efforts to reduce local unemployment.
 Policy LU 5.4: Encourage and incentivize strategic adaptive reuse and infill development of vacant land in commercial and mixed-use areas.
Proposal would develop currently vacant site
Seven new jobs at convenience store and service station Meets residential density
 7.4 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre) proposed
 75 DU/acre permitted

Page 165 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
NCMC Section 18.30.190 requires CUP for new service stations  Site planning standards
 100 feet of street frontage (431 feet)
 Site area of 15,000 feet (29,455 feet)
 Encourage fuel pump islands to be screened by main building structure  Impractical due to shape of site
 Convenience store should be placed on street frontage  Coffee shop/restaurant located on street

Page 166 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
NCMC Section 18.30.190 requires CUP for new service stations  Screening
 Masonry wall required adjacent to residential zones
 Building fronts
 Subject to MXD-2 frontage requirements
 Consistent design required
 Landscaping
 10 percent of site is recommended to be landscaped (14%)  Use regulations
 Applicant is not proposing and auto service or repair

Page 167 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
NCMC Section 18.30.190 requires CUP for new service stations  Noise
 Existing high ambient noise levels from traffic
 Residential units require noise study
 Main concern is automated car wash
 Recommended reduced hours of operation (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily)  Noise study requirement

Page 168 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
NCMC Section 18.30.050 requires CUP for alcohol sales
 Additional requirements
 Expanded notification
 Community meeting
 Distance requirements for certain uses
 Retail outlets with accessory sales exempt
 Proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily  Alcohol outlet concentration: two recommended, four exist  PD Risk Assessment: 13 points, considered medium risk  Institute for Public Strategies (IPS)
 Consider Type-20, RBSS, ABC requirements for transparency and signage

Page 169 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
NCMC Section 18.41.020.C requires CUP for new drive-through lanes  Primarily queuing
 Distance of 12 cars backed by Local Transportation Analysis  Similar site used for study
 Distance of 3 cars for automated car wash – entrance shifted  Location on Highland Avenue used for study
 Location requirements for drive-through window and landscaping  No additional requirements
 Noise
 Noise-attenuating speakers
 Other existing 24-hour locations in National City

Page 170 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
Traffic
 Local Transportation Analysis conducted
 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screened out
 Trip generation
 2,743 new daily trips
 1,961 primary trips – new to local street system
 Signal Warrant Analysis
 Existing conditions result in 23.7 second delay (Level of Service C) during AM and 42.5 second delay during PM (Level of Service E)
 Operate at Level of Service A with new signal
 New signal recommended
 Recent pedestrian and bicycle improvements to be removed and/or replaced  Applicant to contribute 70%

Page 171 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
Zone Variance
 Required findings

2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.

3. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.

Page 172 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
Zone Variance
 Major, Mixed-Use District (MXD-2)
 Intended for walkable, urban activity centers
 Proposal is for permitted uses, but not fully compatible with development standards  Deviation for maximum drive-way width
 Deviation for street wall
 Deviation for parking setback

Page 173 of 232 ends

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
Zone Variance
 Major, Mixed-Use District (MXD-2)
 Site is of a size and shaped that reduces the ability to meet standards  203 foot of depth on eastern side tapers down to 80 feet on western side  Fuel pumps require a large rectangular area and had to be located in the middle of the site  Sufficient circulation needed around pumps
 Drive-through lane needed to be on exterior for queuing space  Other locations have similar conditions as requested (driveway width)  Gas King at 3009 Highland Avenue
 Shell at 1606 East Plaza Boulevard
 Setbacks and street wall deviations exist throughout the zone

Page 174 of 232 ends

Site Plan – Variances

Page 175 of 232 ends

Comments
Engineering Department
 Standard conditions for new development proposals
 Recommendations from transportation analysis
Fire Department
 Fire access
Sweetwater Authority
 Added to conditions of approval
Alcohol CUP
 PD and IPS

Page 176 of 232 ends

Fire Access

Page 177 of 232 ends

Conditions
Standard conditions for:
 Operation of service station
 Drive-through businesses
 City Council Policy 707 for off-site alcohol sales
 Adherence to developments standards
Application specific:
 Off-site improvements
 Fire access
 Noise study
 Modified hours for car wash
 Wall height
 Auto service and repair
 Air quality permit with APCD
 Lockable cabinet for distilled spirits
 Display location for alcohol

Page 178 of 232 ends

California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
Project recommended to be categorically exempt pursuant to Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects)  Sites less than five acres in an urbanized area
 No value as habitat
 No significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality  Adequately served by utilities and public services

Page 179 of 232 ends

Summary
Proposed use is consistent with the General Plan
Four of the proposed uses are conditionally-allowed in the MXD-2 zone Residential units permitted at the proposed density
Adherence to development standards with approval of Zone Variance request and conditions of approval

Page 180 of 232 ends

Options
• Find project exempt from CEQA & approve 2024-08 CUP ZV based on findings listed in the draft resolution / findings determined by the Commission; or
• Find project exempt from CEQA & partially approve 2024-08 CUP ZV based on findings listed in the draft resolution / findings determined by the Commission; or • Find project not exempt from CEQA and/or deny 2024-08 CUP ZV based on findings listed in the draft resolution / findings determined by the Commission; or • Continue the item for additional information
• Staff recommending approval
• Notice of Decision to City Council

Page 181 of 232 ends

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Police Department
Prepared by: Ronald Gutlay, Management Analyst II
Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Approved by: Benjamin A. Martinez, City Manager

SUBJECT:

Purchase of Thirty-Three (33) Axon Fleet 3 Video Solutions (“FLEET”) Cameras for Police Department Vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution Entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City Of National City, California, 1) Waiving The Formal Bid Process Pursuant to National City Municipal Code Section 2.60.110(B) Regarding Exceptions to Formal Competitive Bidding and Authorizing the Purchase of Thirty- Three Axon Fleet 3 In -Car Video Solutions and Supporting Information, Services and Training from Axon Enterprise, Inc. in a Not -to-Exceed Amount of $279,248.78 ; and 2) Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc . for the Purchase and Related Services.”

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

Not Applicable.

EXPLANATION:

The National City Police Department is need of in-vehicle cameras for documentation of pursuits by officers. Because the Department already utilizes Axon body-worn cameras, it has determined that the Axon Fleet 3 in -vehicle system best meets its needs for compatibility and functionality.

The Department requests that the City Council waive the formal bid process pursuant to National City Municipal Code Section 2.60. 110(B) to ensure compatibility with existing equipment and services and authorize the purchase of thirty-three (33) Axon Fleet 3 in-car cameras.

The Axon Fleet 3 solution is a purpose -built in-vehicle, AI-driven recording system for capturing audio and video in high-risk environments encountered by law enforcement, corrections, military, emergency medical services (EMS), and private security. The system records events for secure storage, retrieval, and analysis via Axon Evidence services. Recordings transfer securely to Axon Evidence using LTE, Wi-Fi, or manual operations.

Fleet 3 typically consists of at least two cameras: one in the front of the vehicle in a windshield mount and the second pointed at t he law enforcement vehicle’s prisoner compartment. These cameras are connected to and controlled by the Fleet Hub, which can control additional cameras, such as for side views. Add an Axon Signal Vehicle device to automatically activate nearby Axon Body-Worn Cameras (BWC) during Fleet recording events.

Fleet 3 cameras have two operating modes:
 The default Buffering mode provides pre -event buffering to capture activities that occur prior to activating cameras.
 Event mode records events.

Page 182 of 232 ends

The Axon Fleet 3 system automatically powers on upon detecting vehicle ignition power and the shutdown delay of the system after ignition power-off is programmable.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

If approved, the cost for the five-year agreement will be $279,248.78 ($55,849.76 per year). The first year of the agreement will be paid for with COPS grant monies. The cost for the subsequent four years will be incorporated into the annual General Fund budget for the Police Department.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is not a project under CEQA and is therefore not subject to environmental review. CCR15378; PRC 21065.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

The Agenda Report was posted within 72 hours of the meeting date and time in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A: Axon Enterprise, Inc. Axon Fleet Agreement
Exhibit B: Resolution

Page 183 of 232 ends

National City City CouncilDecember 10, 2024

National City City Council
December 10, 2024