From: leslie johnson
To: Public Comment
Subject: parking enforcment..
Date: Saturday, September 13, 2025 5:54:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. can a citizen pick and choose what laws he will obey? can a city pick and choose which laws they will enforce? it has been 9 months for the 20 feet from the curb law and the city has yet to enforce it...the law was made because it is a traffic hazard for cars to see oncoming traffic when cars are parked too close to the curb..the city is overdue enforcing this law.. the city passed laws on motorhomes and trailers and box trucks parking in residential areas, they do not enforce their own laws.. the people are doing whatever they want on parking and getting away with it please try? thanks les johnson
General Comment
From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: Tonya Hussain
Subject: Public Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:29:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
User Ted Godshalk has enter the following comment(s):
The Bikepath design is a danger to cyclists, peds, and motorists. I've shown you this. No one asked for this. The amount of money being spent on this project is obscene in this day of tight budgets. $14,384,259 for construction tonight. Has $4.7 million already been spent? ASK for the total amount of money raised, including NC General Funds. ASK for an accounting for all overhead by city staff that has been paid for with all grant money. ASK for costs that are not in the contract before you.
for Awarding a Contract to Griffith Company for the Bayshore Bikeway Segment 5 and Connections Project, CIP No. 19-24. in Regular City Council Meeting 9/16/2025 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
Item 10.6
From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: Tonya Hussain
Subject: Public Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:41:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
User Ted Godshalk has enter the following comment(s):
Drop this idea! The change in the list of available sites has not been robustly vetted with the community, at the Council nor at the Neighborhood Council/Town Halls. There are sites in the other Districts that could be despoiled by this horrible urban destruction. National City will never take in enough rent to justify despoiling the urban landscape. Do Councilmen Bush and Rodriguez want to rent the signs to the new Weed Bar on 24th Street? It's always just about money with National City?
for First Amendment to the Agreement with Terra Realty Advisors to Include Phase II Scope of Services for Digital Billboard Consulting and Increasing the Not-to-Exceed Amount by $27,000. in Regular City Council Meeting 9/16/2025 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
Item 10.11
From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: Tonya Hussain
Subject: Public Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:15:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
User Ted Godshalk has enter the following comment(s):
Mr. Rodriguez is attempting to weaken inspections on Tobacco outlets while appearing to protect children. Also, he and Mr. Bush continue to push for more Alcohol outlets and Weed dispensaries. Political image making is apparent. The idea of new licenses for these outlets has the look of revenue raising for the city budget which, remember, is currently underwater, but then there is structural problem that the Tobacco program cannot pay for itself. Brilliant. Once again, it's all about the MONEY.
for Public Hearing – Re-Introduction of an Amendment of NCMC 9.38 Establishing a Tobacco Retail License Program in Regular City Council Meeting 9/16/2025 6:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
Item 11.1
From: Leigh Martin
To: Ditas Yamane; Jose Rodriguez; Ron Morrison; Luz Molina; Marcus Bush Cc: Clerk
Subject: CFCA Letter Regarding the TRL Ordinance
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2025 11:29:15 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CFCA National City TRL Letter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please find attached California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (CFCA) letter the tobacco retail license ordinance. We respectfully request your consideration for our recommendations to protect local convenience stores and gas stations while achieving the City's policy objectives. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification.
Thank you,
Leigh Martín
Policy Analyst
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Main: (916) 646-5999 | Fax: (916) 646-5985 | www.cfca.energy Advocates for the fuels and convenience store industries since 1952 September 11, 2025
National City City Council
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Subject: Recommendations on the Proposed Tobacco Retail License Ordinance Dear Members of the National City City Council,
On behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (CFCA), we write to formally express concern regarding the proposed Tobacco Retail License Ordinance currently under consideration for adoption. While CFCA supports the City's goals of protecting youth from tobacco access, this proposal will inadvertently harm gas stations and convenience stores—small, family-owned businesses that play an essential role in the National City economy.
The ordinance’s non-transferable license provisions fundamentally undermine business investment and economic development in National City. Tobacco sales account for a large portion of a business’s transferable value, with industry estimates indicating that at least 30% of in-store purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are tobacco-related. By prohibiting license transfers to new owners, these stores will no longer be worth the same investment and lose their value.
Existing retailers benefit from grandfathering protections while new retailers face multiple barriers to entry, creating an anti-competitive market. The ordinance’s distance restrictions further compound this problem by arbitrarily banning new gas station and convenience stores from certain areas in the city, which places them at a competitive disadvantage.
In light of these concerns, we respectfully urge the City Council to consider the following amendment:
1. Allow license transfers under specific conditions to protect business investments and prevent unnecessary barriers when businesses change ownership.
CFCA is committed to collaborating with National City on workable, effective policy solutions that serve the interests of both the community and the business operators who help sustain it.
Sincerely,
Alessandra Magnasco
Sr. Director, Government Affairs
California Fuels & Convenience Alliance
From: Elizabeth Murphy
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 11.1 Public Hearing – Re-Introduction of an Amendment of NCMC 9.38 Establishing a Tobacco Retail License Program
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:09:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Honorable Mayor Morrison and Councilmembers,
My name is Liz Murphy, and I am a representative of the Sweetwater Union High School District. I am writing to strongly urge you to pass a robust Tobacco Retail License Ordinance that includes key provisions to protect our youth.
The sad truth is that many tobacco retailers are not following our laws and are still selling illegal flavored products to underage youth. Requiring at least one youth decoy operation per year will ensure compliance and hold retailers accountable, thereby protecting our children.
Without these regular compliance checks, strong penalties are meaningless. This is a proven best practice that has been successfully implemented in many other cities across California.
Please act now to protect the health and well-being of our kids.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
M.Ed.
Tobacco Use Prevention Education Coordinator
Teacher on Special Assignment
Student Support Services
Sweetwater Union High School District
"Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." – George Washington Carver From: christopher gonzalez
To: Public Comment
Subject: Comments regarding 3040, 3042-3046, 3102-3104, & 3106-3108 EAST 16TH STREET AND 1540 SOUTH
HARBISON AVENUE
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 6:21:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello please see my comments against the proposed use. The council should vote down this change
## Introduction
The proposed rezoning and General Plan Amendment for properties at 3040, 3042- 3046, 3102-3104, and 3106-3108 East 16th Street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue in National City, California, represents a critical pivot with deep implications for the affected neighborhoods’ future. This proposal seeks to rezone these parcels from RS2 (Small Lot Residential) to MXC-1 (Minor Mixed-Use Corridor) and alter the General Plan designation from Low-Medium Density Residential to Medium Mixed-Use, paving the way for a five-unit multi-family residential building and consistent treatment across five neighboring parcels. The Planning Commission recommended approval on August 18, 2025, and a Negative Declaration was issued per CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. On behalf of concerned residents and community stakeholders, I strongly oppose this zoning and General Plan amendment. My opposition is rooted in four fundamental arguments: zoning compatibility, environmental concerns, preservation of community character, and more appropriate and community-centric alternative land use options. Each aspect is discussed in detail below, anchored by National City's Municipal Code, General Plan policies, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
---
## Zoning Compatibility
### 1. Incompatibility with Surrounding Neighborhood Context The current RS-2 designation is intended to protect the predominance of modest, single-family neighborhoods and low-density residential living. According to the National City Zoning Ordinance, the RS-2 (Small Lot Residential) zone "accommodates detached and attached single-family residences and compatible community uses" with the express purpose of maintaining neighborhood stability and the suburban character prized by local residents. The proposed MXC-1 (Minor MixedUse Corridor) zone, conversely, allows residential densities up to 48 units per acre, as well as a broad array of commercial and mixed-use activities. This leap in allowable density and intensity of land uses is incongruent with the existing land use pattern that predominates along East 16th Street and South Harbison Avenue.
Item 11.3
Neighborhoods adjacent to the site remain largely low to moderate density, with detached homes and small-scale multi-family dwellings, not the scale or intensity of development enabled by MXC-1 zoning. A zoning map review confirms that MXC-1 districts are typically located along primary corridors with established commercial nodes—a pattern not reflected at these properties, which are embedded in a primarily residential setting.
This abrupt transition from protected residential to a mixed-use corridor zone contradicts standard best practices in land use compatibility, which favor transitional zoning—"stepping" densities and uses in a graduated fashion to minimize disruption and incompatibility. Introducing MXC-1 zoning here risks disrupting the spatial logic and jeopardizes the stability of adjacent RS-2 zones.
### 2. Undermining the Purpose and Intent of RS-2 Zoning The National City Municipal Code states that zoning changes must "encourage the most desirable and appropriate use of land for open space, residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and other purposes, including the most desirable mix and intensity of uses and density of population throughout the city". This implies that shifts in zoning must not only be theoretically possible but also contextually appropriate and community-serving. A rezoning to MXC-1 greatly exceeds the intensity envisioned for these sites under the RS-2 designation and does not preserve the delicate balance of residential scale, open space, and livability that current neighbors value.
From a statutory perspective, California law (Government Code Section 65860) also requires that zoning be planned in a manner that is consistent with the city's General Plan, not as an abrupt leap toward allowable maximum densities and intensities but with sensitivity to the character and infrastructure of the area. The courts have affirmed, notably in *City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey*, that the community retains the right to challenge zoning changes meant to conform to amended General Plans, particularly when there are other, less disruptive means for creating such consistency —which is the case here if the city were to consider alternative, incremental density options, or transitional residential zones.
### 3. Potential Precedents and Cumulative Impacts
Rezoning these parcels to MXC-1 threatens to set a precedent for further upzonings in adjacent RS-2 neighborhoods, undermining the stability and predictability the zone is supposed to provide. With the door opened to mixed-use and higher densities, there is a strong likelihood of a “domino effect” whereby neighboring properties come under pressure to seek similar treatment, leading to piecemeal erosion of singlefamily and low-density housing without comprehensive planning or transitional buffering.
### 4. Lack of Transitional Zoning and Proper Buffers
Planning best practices recommend transitional zoning—introducing medium-density or missing middle housing types—to create a smooth gradient between single-family zones and higher-density or mixed-use corridors. By advancing directly from RS-2 to MXC-1, the proposal ignores this principle and risks abrupt changes in built form, traffic, noise, and resident lifestyle. More gradual, context-sensitive zoning would be more aligned with citywide and statewide planning norms. **In summary, the proposed zoning and General Plan amendment represent an excessive, incompatible escalation from RS-2 to MXC-1, undermining both local policy intent and land use compatibility principles.**
---
## Environmental Concerns
### 1. Questioning the Appropriateness of the Negative Declaration under CEQA The Planning Commission has issued a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, concluding that the proposed rezoning and five-unit multifamily development “will not have a significant effect on the environment” and hence do not warrant a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, this determination is questionable and potentially premature for several reasons.
Firstly, the CEQA "fair argument" standard requires that if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may have significant environmental effects, an EIR must be prepared, regardless of contrary evidence presented by the applicant or staff. The intensity and mix of uses permitted under the proposed MXC-1 zoning go beyond just the initial five-unit project. Once the zoning is changed, any development within MXC-1 standards could occur, bringing the potential for significantly greater cumulative impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, and stormwater runoff over time.
Secondly, while CEQA does facilitate streamlining or categorical exemptions for infill development, these streamlined routes apply only if certain environmental thresholds are met, including the absence of significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts, and provided there are no "unusual circumstances" or cumulative significant effects. The Negative Declaration appears only to address the specific five-unit project, not the full array of developments that would be permissible under MXC-1, a critical oversight. If rezoning is approved, future intensification—possibly commercial or larger multi-family projects—could introduce impacts well beyond those analyzed, rendering the Negative Declaration inadequate as a shield against environmental review.
### 2. Traffic and Infrastructure Impacts
The conversion to MXC-1 enables a substantial increase in allowable density—up to 48 units per acre in standard MXC-1 zones—with associated increases in vehicle trips, on-street parking pressures, and infrastructure demand. Even at five units, a multi-family building generates more daily car trips and more concentrated ingress/egress points than single-family or missing middle housing types. Research shows that multifamily mixed-use developments can create pronounced traffic surges during both residential and commercial peak hours when mixed uses are actually introduced, compounding congestion and safety concerns if adequate infrastructure has not been upgraded or planned for in advance.
The adequacy of existing local streets, water, sewer, and schools to absorb this shift has not been sufficiently analyzed in the current Negative Declaration or public review process. The city’s roadways in this area, consistent with the intent of RS-2 zoning, were not designed for mixed-use corridor volumes. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), a standard requirement for such upzonings, should have been performed but appears absent from the record.
### 3. Cumulative Environmental and Health Impacts
Allowing medium mixed-use zoning in close proximity to existing low and low-medium density residences risks escalating environmental and health impacts, including increased noise, vehicle emissions, stormwater runoff from greater impervious surface, and possible urban heat island effects if green space is not preserved. While the city’s Climate Action Plan and recent General Plan updates acknowledge the importance of sustainable, walkable growth, the unchecked expansion of dense mixed-use corridors into originally protected residential neighborhoods could create net negative outcomes for both environmental quality and public health, especially for sensitive groups such as children and the elderly.
### 4. Environmental Justice and Community Health
National City is designated as an environmental justice (EJ) community under California law, and cities with such status must address pollution burdens and cumulative effects in General Plan amendments and subsequent zoning decisions (see Senate Bill 1000 and related regulations). Already burdened neighborhoods deserve heightened scrutiny for rezoning that might increase exposures, given the legacy of environmental contamination and disproportionate health risks in lowincome and historically marginalized communities. The city’s environmental review should robustly assess not just direct impacts but indirect and cumulative effects as required by both CEQA and SB 1000.
**The issuance of a Negative Declaration for this rezoning is thus not adequately justified and may not comply with CEQA’s requirements for full and fair environmental assessment, especially given the city’s environmental justice status and the project's long-term, cumulative potential.**
---
## Community Character
### 1. Loss of Established Neighborhood Identity
National City’s General Plan recognizes community character as a core value, citing the need to “promote and protect the public health, safety, welfare and general prosperity of the city,” explicitly mentioning the importance of residential character and neighborhood identity. The proposed shift to MXC-1 jeopardizes this by introducing built forms, densities, and uses not reflective of the established streetscape.
The RS-2 neighborhoods affected are defined by modest lot sizes, family occupancy, and a low-rise, open, and human-scaled environment. The introduction of even smallscale mixed-use buildings, let alone higher-density residential or commercial infill, would cause a stark contrast in massing, facade articulation, and overall rhythm of the streetscape. This is a classic case of land use incompatibility, recognized by urban planning best practices as a primary risk when abrupt upzonings are pursued. ### 2. Risks of Deteriorating Social Cohesion
The literature is clear that rapid and pronounced changes to neighborhood form and function can undermine social connections, erode trust among neighbors, and generate perceptions of instability or lack of care in planning decisions. For established residential communities, especially those with significant populations of families and older adults, sudden intensification is associated with displacement risks, shifts in demographic makeup, and the unbalancing of long-standing social networks.
Community opposition expressed at public hearings and during Commission meetings reflects a desire to preserve an environment conducive to raising families, supporting local schools, and fostering community engagement—core tenets of the existing General Plan and Housing Element. Residents’ concerns about unruly behavior, increased transient activity, and loss of “neighborliness” have been documented and cannot be brushed aside by simply attributing them to the behavior of existing residents rather than the systemic impacts of zoning change. ### 3. Housing Affordability and Exclusion of “Missing Middle” Options The city’s Housing Element and the American Planning Association (APA) highlight the acute need for “missing middle” housing—varied, house-scale residential options such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage courts—which can increase affordability and diversify the housing stock without undermining established neighborhood character. MXC-1 zoning, with its much higher densities and accompanying commercial allowances, bypasses this gentle densification in favor of less context-sensitive development. As a consequence, the city risks amplifying gentrification and displacement pressures, while exacerbating tensions over neighborhood change and tax base shifts.
### 4. Pattern of Inadequate Public Engagement
A robust planning process is one in which the voices and aspirations of local communities are given careful consideration and reflected in planning outcomes. The Focused General Plan Update (FGPU) and Housing Element update both emphasized the need for public outreach through digital tools during the pandemic, stakeholder interviews, and public comment periods. However, the opposition to this rezoning suggests a potential disconnect between procedural engagement and substantive response to community input. Approving such a substantial density and use change against the concerns expressed by residents risks alienating key stakeholders and undermining trust in city government.
**In summary, the proposed amendments would inflict lasting, negative change on the unique community character, social cohesion, and livability of these established RS-2 neighborhoods, existing counter to both the letter and spirit of city policy and planning best practice.**
---
## Alternative Land Use Options: Serving Housing Needs Responsibly and Proportionately
### 1. Pursuing “Missing Middle” Housing and Transitional Zoning Instead of a wholesale rezoning to MXC-1, the city should explore the use of transitional residential zoning, such as medium-density residential or specific overlays that allow a limited range of “missing middle” housing types while preserving neighborhood scale and minimizing disruption. APA advocates practical “zoning hacks” for missing middle housing: reducing minimum lot sizes for duplexes/quadplexes, allowing for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and revisiting restrictions on building forms, rather than upzoning to mixed-use corridors with commercial allowances.
Scholarly research and real-world case studies show that distributing small-scale multiplexes, cottage courts, or townhouse developments throughout suburban and inner-ring residential neighborhoods can provide increased affordability and diversity without erasing community character or adding intense commercial activity. These types could serve as a gentle transition to higher-density areas and create affordable options for new families, young professionals, and seniors. ### 2. Implementing Affordable Housing Requirements
If addressing affordable housing shortages is a core goal, the city should work proactively within its Housing Element framework to require that any new development in rezoned or upzoned areas commit to a significant proportion of affordable units, leveraging programs such as “House National City”—the city’s own density bonus framework tied to floor area ratios and proximity to transit, which can be operated within more gentle density increases.
By emphasizing mixed affordability, anti-displacement measures, and programs that encourage non-profit or cooperative housing models, the city can better align with both its own goals and state mandates for affordable housing provision. ### 3. Addressing Environmental Justice Directly
Given National City’s status as an environmental justice community, alternative land use strategies must explicitly address historical pollution burdens, health inequities, and the need to protect vulnerable populations from new hazards or exclusionary practices. Policies should prioritize clean infill, robust environmental assessments, enhanced green space requirements, and targeted infrastructure upgrades. Any upzoning should be accompanied by enforceable commitments to avoid net increases in pollution, crowding, or displacement.
The Westside Specific Plan and its amortization ordinance provide precedents for engaging affected communities meaningfully and gradually phasing out or transitioning incompatible uses over time, as opposed to abrupt, top-down land use changes. The city should revisit such participatory planning models to co-create infill or redevelopment strategies that are safer, greener, and more equitable. ### 4. Specific Land Use Alternatives Table
| Option | Description & Benefits
| Drawbacks / Considerations |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | Maintain RS-2 Zoning | Preserves existing residential character; compatible with existing homes; protects neighborhood stability | May still be underutilized for meeting state housing goals |
| Add Medium Density Overlay | Allows for “missing middle” housing: duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes, cottage courts; gentler transition | Requires careful design guidelines and enforcement |
| RD-3 or Equivalent Zoning | A moderate multifamily or townhouse district matching scale to adjacent housing | Modest density bump, does not support retail/commercial |
| Incentivize ADUs & JADUs | Expands housing options without changing external character of neighborhoods | Incremental supply increase, may not achieve deep affordability |
| Conditional Density Bonus using “House National City” FAR | Ties increased density to affordability, transit proximity, and design excellence | Requires monitoring and may be complex to administer |
| Limited, Contextual Mixed-Use | If mixed use is proposed, restrict ground-floor commercial to live-work units or small-scale, local-serving uses; cap FAR and height | Reduces risk of abrupt character change; may require project-by-project review | As summarized above, a variety of land use options exist that would provide for expanded and affordable housing choices in a manner proportionate to community needs and respectful of local context. Each alternative avoids the negative externalities associated with a sudden, high-density MXC-1 designation, while enabling incremental, sustainable growth and enhancing social equity. **In sum, a more measured, community-driven approach to land use change— favoring missing middle options, affordability incentives, and robust public engagement—would better serve both statutory requirements and the vision articulated in National City’s General Plan and Housing Element.** ---
## Conclusion and Recommendations
In closing, I urge the City Council and staff to reconsider the proposed rezoning and General Plan amendment for 3040, 3042-3046, 3102-3104, and 3106-3108 East 16th Street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue. The record demonstrates that:
- The proposal is not compatible with existing RS-2 neighborhoods and risks destabilizing community character and predictability.
- The issued Negative Declaration under CEQA is insufficient, as it fails to robustly address current and future environmental, health, and cumulative community impacts. - The change would erode unique neighborhood quality, exacerbate community concerns about traffic, livability, affordability, and loss of sense of place—contrary to both city and state planning mandates and best practices. - Better, grounded alternatives exist: transitional medium-density zoning, “missing middle” housing, enhanced affordability requirements, and sustainable, health-first planning consistent with environmental justice commitments.
It is incumbent upon city leaders to prioritize the long-term vision, health, and wellbeing of existing residents and to pursue land use changes via an iterative, inclusive, and evidence-based approach that respects both statutory imperatives and the will of the community. Only by doing so can National City remain a safe, inclusive, and thriving place for all.
---
## Supporting Legal and Policy References
- National City Zoning Ordinance (RS-2 and MXC-1) – Chapter 18, Municipal Code - National City 2011 and 2024 Focused General Plan Update – Land Use Element, Housing Element, and Community Character
- CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15071, 15183, 15183.3) and Negative Declarations - Senate Bill 1000 – Environmental Justice in General Plans (Cal. Gov. Code §65040.12, §65302)
- Case Law: City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2018) and subsequent analyses
Get Outlook for iOS