National City City Council
October 7, 2025

Warrant Register #4
7/18/2025 to 7/24/2025

76.67 143.70
112.44
4,185.94

22.78 16.30

25.00 96.51

8.72 8.72

8.72 8.71

8.71 58.74

59.97 13.03
240.00

9.62 59.00
217.64
862.17

10.33 180.00

37.63 47.14
275.10
(10.00)

10.00 0.00
(87.00)
(29.00)
(29.00)

54.68 71.58
112.60
303.36
1,077.05
190.00
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025

KITCHEN SUPPLIES RETURN

KITCHEN SUPPLIES RETURN

KITCHEN SUPPLIES RETURN

KITCHEN SUPPLIES

KITCHEN SUPPLIES

COAT HANGERS, WIRE LUGS AND HSS STEP DRILL BI

SOLA CAR POWER INVERTER AND LED LIGHT

KITCHEN SUPPLIES

CPR CARDS
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM

AMR SAN DIEGO
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for Finance
Fire
AMAZON.COM
Finance

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

VOIDED CITY OF NATIONAL CITY PAYMENT MODULE C

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY PAYMENT MODULE CARD REA
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for Eng/PW

CALIFORNIA UNDER LOCK

ENGINEERS BD

IN-N-OUT BURGERS

IN-N-OUT BURGERS

CALIFORNIA UNDER LOCK - KEYS FOR FACILITIES
ENGINEERS BD = BIENNIAL RENEWAL FOR LUCA ZAP
P
PW LUNCH FOR M3 MEETING FOR MONTH OF JUNE FY
PW LUNCH FOR M3 MEETING FOR MONTH OF JUNE FY
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for Council
Eng/PW

PAPER TOWEL FOR CM YAMANE'S FILIPINO INDEPEND

DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION - CM JOSE RODRIGUEZ

HOSPITALITY MATERIALS FOR STAFF RECOGNITION E
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025

ISLAND PACIFIC SEAFOOD MA

SAN DIEGO UNION TRIB-SUB
SPORTS FEVER 14A

HANGING FOLDER FOR THE MAYOR OFFICE

MAYOR ASSISTANT PLANNER AND CALENDAR BOOK
5 SECTION DESK ORGANIZER

CONSULE TABLE STAND FOR MAYOR COUNCIL LOBB
Y

WATER DELIVER FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE

WATER DELIVER FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE

WATER DELIVER FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE

WATER DELIVER FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE

WATER DELIVER FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE

HOSPITALITY REFRESHMENT MATERIAL FOR COMMU
CM MOLINA'S DISTRICT 1 TOWNHALL MEETING

GOING AWAY FAREWELL CARD FOR CARLOS AGUIR
R

ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING REGISTRATION / VM BUS

ARROWHEAD WATER

CARNIVAL CANDIES

COSTCO WHOLESALE

HOBBY LOBBY
IEACA.ORG
AMAZON.COM

ARROWHEAD WATER

ARROWHEAD WATER

ARROWHEAD WATER

ARROWHEAD WATER
Total for Comm Svcs
Council
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025AED CABINET FAB PROGRAM/CSD

ET/MLK REC SUPPLIES/CSD

AED CABINET FAB PROGRAM/CSD WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY

WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY

WAL-MART
9

Warrant Register #4
7/18/2025 to 7/24/2025
342.00
360.54

32.31 12.52
226.76
1,285.50

25.55 1,311.52

93.00 150.00
176.60
5,680.57
262.29
262.29
257.11
781.69
151.16
867.30
(1.00)
(1.00)

1.00 1.00
119.61
843.05
1,981.12
1,261.39
398.30
418.48
261.75

89.80 2,429.72
538.75
461.60
(59.73)

33.67 76.02
112.08
120.69
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025

FLEXCUFFS FOR PROTEST
ALASKA AIR 0272106954795 TRAINING TRAVEL FOR P

CHARGER FOR LENOVO LAPTOP

FURNITURE MOVER SLIDERS

BLU-RAY RECORDABLE MEDIA DISC

SHOWER CURTAINS FOR LOCKER ROOM SHOWERS

WALL MOUNTING BRACKETS FOR CHIEFS WALL
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
Police

ACE UNIFORMS

ALASKA AIRLINES
AMAZON.COM
AMAZON.COM
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for Library

ALASKA AIRLINES

AMERICAN AIRLINES

GIANT NEW YORK PIZZA

WAL-MART
ALA CONF., AIRBNB FOR D. GHIO, PRC T3418
ALA CONF., TRAVEL TO NEW YORK, PRC T3418 FOR D

ALA CONFERENCE- RETURN FLIGHT FOR DANIELLE G

GIANT NEW YORK PIZZA- ADULT LITERACY FAMILY EV

WAL-MART- ADULT LITERACY, CAFE NIGHTS SUPPLIE
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for IT
Library
AIRBNB GLOBAL NETWORK 6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
DELL
ZOOM

PRIME SUBSCRIPTION

HONEYWELL AREA IMAGING SCANNERS

CREDIT CARD READER TEST - VOIDED

CREDIT CARD READER TEST - VOIDED

CREDIT CARD READER TEST

CREDIT CARD READER TEST

DELL LAPTOP BATTERY

ZOOM SUBSCRIPTION
AMAZON.COM

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for HR
IT
AMAZON.COM 6/23/2025
HOYA

SMART & FINAL

SAFETY GLASSES/PRESCRIPTION EYEWEAR/PICHE

SAFETY GLASSES/PRESCRIPTION EYEWEAR/WOODS
ANTI-HARASSMENT TRAININGS SUPPLIES/JUN25
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for Fire
HR
HOYA 6/23/2025 6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025 CFED LUNCHEON CONFERENCE(BRIAN KREPPS AND
SAN DIEGO FIRE PREVENTION MEMBERSHIP, PRC#14

NFPA CONFERENCE AND EXPO LAS VEGAS NEVADA
F
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025COFFEE FOR COUNTY EMS

MGM GRAND HOTEL AND CASINO LAS VEGAS NEVAD
A
NFPA CONFERENCE AND EXPO REGISTRATION PRC #

RED CARD FOR MUTUAL AID RESPONSES
CFED HOTEL MAY 18-22, 2025, INDIAN WELLS, CA - B

CRENAISSANCE HOTELS

SANDIEGOCOU

SANDIEGOFIR

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES

CPR CARDS

MGM GRAND HOTEL AND CASINO VEGAS NEVADA H
O

LUNCH - CFED FOOD - INDIAN WELLS BC KREPPS PRCDON DIEGO'S OF INDIAN WEL

FRIENDS OF FRIENDS

MGM GRAND HOTEL

NFPA FULFILLMENT CEN

OFFICE DEPOT

AMR SAN DIEGO

ARES HOTELS AND TICKETS
10

Warrant Register #4
7/18/2025 to 7/24/2025

75.00 725.00
575.00
575.00
4,607.50
569.55
167.00
650.58
458.35
644.00
(1,131.36)
(535.44)
535.44
635.50
682.79
1,131.36
175.00
1,211.70

82.92 86.96
1,027.82
895.00

56.43 37.69
525.00

44.00 114.00

16.05 117.61
142.02
405.62
513.60
613.36
850.00
421.52

91.31 19,075.96
38,573.83
1,618,309.44GRAND TOTAL
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
Total for Police
P-CARD PAYMENTS Total
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025

CVSA LAPTOP RETURN SHIPPING FEE
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025
6/23/2025

TFO OPERATION
SOUTHWES 5262347946225 TRAINING TRAVEL FOR
P
SOUTHWES 5262350395843 TRAVEL FOR TRAINING P
WWW.TACFIRE.COM TRAINING TUTION FOR PRC T33 9

FOOD FOR WORKING PROTEST

PELOTON ALL ACCESS MEMBERSHIP

SCCCD FCC POS PAYMENT TRAINING TUITION FOR PR
SHELL OIL 10008282005 TRAINING FOR PRC T3422 GA

FOOD FOR WORKING PROTEST

INTERVIEW CONFERENCE ROOM SNACKS

HOMES TO SUITES BY HILTON TRAINING LODGING F
O
INST. OF POLICE TECH & TRAINING TUITION PRC HAS

DISPATCHER INTERVIEW PANEL LUNCH

FLAT PANEL RECESSED LIGHT

OC SHERIFFS DEPT KATELLA TUITION FOR TRAINING
FEDEX OFFICE 800000836 THIS WAS IN ERROR AND
W
EVENT REGISTRATION CONFIRMATION #Y4N5VBP2B6
HAYES MANSION TRAINING LODGING FOR PRC T3422

CHIEF'S WALL PROJECT MOUNTING TAPE AND PUCK

CHIEF'S WALL PROJECT ELECTRICAL PARTS FOR RE
C
FEDEX OFFIC26900026971 CHARGE CREDITED BACK T
FEDEX OFFIC26900026971 CHARGE IN ERROR AND WA
FEDEX OFFICE 800000836 TRAINING MATERIALS FOR
FEDEX OFFICE 800000836 TRAINING ACADEMY SUPP
L
FEDEX OFFICE 800000836 TRAINING SUPPLIES FOR P

DOUBLETREE HOTEL FRESNO TRAINING LODGING FO

DOUBLETREE HOTEL FRESNO TRAINING LODGING FO

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR TRAVEL FOR TRAINING PRC

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES TRAINING LODING FOR PRC

FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES TRAINING LODING FOR PRC

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
TACFIRE INC.

TACO SALSA
UPS
WWW.ATAPWORLDWIDE.ORG MEMBERSHIP FOR AT
A

ASSOC OF THREAT ASSESSMEN TRAINING TUITION F

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAI TRAINING TUITION FOR PR

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAI TRAINING TUITION FOR PR
CELLEBRITE INC. TRAINING TUITION FOR PRC T3422
SHELL
SLICE

SMART & FINAL

SMART & FINAL

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES

JERSEY MIKE'S
LOWES

OC SHERIFFS DEPT KATELLA

PELOTON

SCCCD FCC POS PAYMENT
HILTON

HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE

HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE
HOME2 SUITES BY HILTON

INSTITUTE OF POLICE TECHN

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE

FLOCK CENTRAL

ENTERPRISE RENT A CA

FAIRFIELD INN

FAIRFIELD INN

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE

FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAININ

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAININ

CELLEBRITE INC

DOUBLETREE HOTEL

DOUBLETREE HOTEL
ATAP
ATAP
11

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Finance
Prepared by: Karla Apalategui, Sr. Accounting Assistant Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Approved by: Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Warrant Register No. 5 for the Period of 7/25/25 through 7/31/25 in the Amount of $4,243,680.96

RECOMMENDATION:

Ratify Warrants Totaling $4,243,680.96.

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

Not Applicable.

EXPLANATION:

Per Government Section Code 37208, below are the payments issued for the period of 7/25/25 – 7/31/25. Consistent with the Department of Finance’s practice, listed below are all payments above $50,000.

Vendor Check/Wire Amount Explanation
Endelos Construction 375426 53,993.44 CIP 20-04 PD Generator & Electric Upgrade RJ Noble Company 375457 1,876,685.01 CIP 23-15 Pavement Rehabilitation Project STC Traffic Inc 1000672 107,979.58 Proposal for On-Call Eng Support City of San Diego 1000668 128,225.20 Fire & Emergency Medical Dispatch Svcs BCICapital, Inc 1000667 88,590.85 Police CAD Upgrade Financing

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

Warrant Register Total $4,243,680.96

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 at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBIT:

Exhibit A – FY26 Warrant Register No. 5

CHK NO AMOUNT
375420 236.00
375420 293.94
375420 2,603.56
375420 5,876.49
375420 22,656.00
31,665.99
375461 24,849.00
375461 3,755.00
28,604.00
375467 336.00
336.00
375417 1,772.37
375419 3,000.00
375432 814.80
5,587.17
375411 153.00
375418 476.25
375421 2,460.69
375423 4,350.36
375426 53,993.44
375431 46.38
375431 319.36
375431 398.00
375433 76.49
375433 47.20
375433 232.54
375433 506.29
375433 159.98
375433 337.11
375433 804.08
375433 477.40
375436 3,611.84
375437 3,849.13
375438 95.10
375438 76.07LEFORT'S SMALL ENGIN MOP 80702 STREET SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 KIMLEY HORN AND CIP 19-25 NC CITYWIDE BICYCLE WAYFINDING PR O 7/31/2025
LEFORT'S SMALL ENGIN MOP 80702 AUTO PARTS FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 KIMLEY HORN AND CIP 19-23 CENTRAL COMNTY MOBILITY PROJ. 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE SMALL TOOLS FOR WW FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 FLEET SERVICES INC MOP 67804 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 FLEET SERVICES INC MOP 67804 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 FLEET SERVICES INC MOP 67804 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 CV VENTURES LLC QUARTERLY MONITORING SERVICES- Q1 2025 7/31/2025 ENDELOS CONSTRUCTION CIP 20-04 PD GENERATOR AND ELECTRICAL UPGRA 7/31/2025 CAL PACIFIC TRUCK CE HEADLIGHT SWITCH VEH #080-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 COSCO FIRE PROTECTIO CIP 24-16 FIRE SERVICE BACKFLOW PREVENTER 7/31/2025 Total for Comm Svcs
Eng/PW
ASBURY ENVIRONMENTAL USED OIL PICK UP FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 CASTILLO, DANIEL A RFW FAB PROGRAMMING DJ/MC GOLD PACKAGE/C 7/31/2025 GUERRERO, FEDERICO RFW CONTRACT INST BACKPAY FOR WINTER 2024 7/31/2025 Total for Clerk
Comm Svcs
BSN SPORTS LLC PROGRAM EQUIPMENT FOR CAMACHO RECREATIO 7/31/2025 Clerk
SOUTH BAY SHREEDDING DOCUMENT SHREDDING 7/31/2025
SANDAG FY 2026 MEMBER AGENCY ASSESSMENT 7/31/2025
Total for City Mgr
Total for City Atty
City Mgr
SANDAG FY 2026 MEMBER AGENCY ASSESSMENT 7/31/2025
CIVICA LAW GROUP APC LEGAL SERVICES FOR CODE MATTER 1508 E. 8TH S 7/31/2025 CIVICA LAW GROUP APC LEGAL SERVICES FOR STUDIO 6 7/31/2025 CIVICA LAW GROUP APC LEGAL SERVICES FOR RAMADA MATTER 7/31/2025 CIVICA LAW GROUP APC LEGAL SERVICES FOR MATTER 220 W. 14TH STREE 7/31/2025

A/P PAYMENTS
City Atty
CIVICA LAW GROUP APC LEGAL SERVICES FOR STARDUSTS INN MATTER 7/31/2025 Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1Page 183 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375439 293.25
375439 4,891.40
375440 98.16
375443 2,356.10
375444 2,914.90
375444 999.10
375445 288.17
375445 (43.50)
375445 176.44
375445 33.95
375446 223.32
375446 35.69
375446 43.84
375447 52.27
375448 23.71
375449 24.15
375450 185.00
375452 313.09
375452 53.80
375452 34.23
375452 142.55
375452 369.51
375452 64.54
375452 78.17
375452 71.19
375452 81.12
375452 98.94
375452 130.61
375452 57.24
375452 19.55
375452 76.95
375452 102.75
375452 296.21
375452 326.16
375452 358.86
375452 62.93
375452 156.37
375452 34.67
375452 111.53
375452 244.51
375452 432.89
PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PERRY FORD-NATIONAL MOP 45703 AUTO SERVICE FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MOP 75877 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MOP 75877 CREDIT FOR INV 3186-272607 FY26-PW/ E 7/31/2025
O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MOP 75877 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 NV5 INC FOR T&A 90658 – 2104 G AVENUE 7/31/2025
O'REILLY AUTO PARTS MOP 75877 PARK SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 NINYO & MOORE CIP 24-12 GEOTECHNICAL SVCS FOR 16TH ST AND 7/31/2025 NV5 INC FOR T&A 90696- 21 W 7TH ST. 7/31/2025
LEIGHTON CONSULTING CIP 22-26 EL TOYON PARK PROP 68 IMPROVEMENT 7/31/2025 MASON'S SAW & LAWNMO MOP 45729 STREET SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 LEIGHTON CONSULTING CIP 19-23 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES FOR 7/31/2025 2Page 184 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375452 457.80
375452 68.15
375452 44.59
375452 61.37
375452 91.88
375452 144.34
375453 3.90
375453 8.79
375453 13.18
375454 2,672.25
375454 7,395.25
375454 9,149.25
375454 19,870.50
375455 52.94
375455 85.65
375455 113.84
375455 52.94
375455 80.16
375455 85.65
375455 113.84
375455 52.94
375455 113.84
375456 400.00
375456 200.00
375457 1,876,685.01
375458 1,101.29
375459 421.68
375462 122.89
375464 215.46
375464 420.29
375464 92.64
375464 58.40
375464 21.82
375464 94.29
375465 116.25
375465 15.86
375468 188.56
375471 139.09
375471 1,219.00
375472 549.30
375473 2,005.61VELOCITY TRUCK CENTE ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION PARTS FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 UNDERGROUND SERVICE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH BROOMS & PARTS STR SWPR 49&50 FY26-PW/EQ M 7/31/2025
SPEEDPRO IMAGING VEHICLE DECALS FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025
UNDERGROUND SERVICE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 SO CAL TRUCK STOP MOP 45758 PROPANE FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 SO CAL TRUCK STOP MOP 45758 PROPANE FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SU MOP 69277 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SU MOP 69277 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SU MOP 69277 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SU MOP 69277 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SU MOP 69277 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SU MOP 69277 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 SAN DIEGO HYDRAULICS MOP 85005 AUTO SERVICE FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 SEDANO FORD OF LM, I MOP 87498 AUTO PARTS FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 RJ NOBLE COMPANY CIP 23-15 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT 7/31/2025 S D COUNTY VECTOR CN MOSQUITO AND VECTOR DISEASE CONTROL ASSES 7/31/2025 RED WING BUSINESS WORK BOOTS FOR R.SALES/D.GALLEGOS FY26-PW 7/31/2025 RED WING BUSINESS WORK BOOTS FOR F.FIATOA FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PROJECT PROFESSIONAL STORM- PROF SERVICES FOR 3131 VALLEY RD STO 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PROJECT PROFESSIONAL CIP 24-10 - KIMBALL PARK BALLFIELD LIGHTING -AR 7/31/2025 PROJECT PROFESSIONAL CIP 24-20 - STORM 16TH AND Q AVE STORM DRAIN 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PROJECT PROFESSIONAL CIP 19-11 AMENDMENT 1 FOR PARADISE CREEK WQ 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 PRO BUILD COMPANY MOP 45707 GENERAL SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/31/2025 3Page 185 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375475 250.20
375475 366.36
375477 2,124.06
375479 4,872.89
375480 225.60
2,021,424.63
375478 3,873.00
3,873.00
375410 17.50
375412 401.02
375416 918.70
375429 66.97
375430 449.67
375434 1,846.85
375455 25.00
3,725.71
375467 140.00
140.00
375467 74.00
375467 74.00
148.00
375413 107.22
375414 61.61
375414 918.07
375414 8,186.88
375422 114.00
375422 224.73
375422 302.53
375422 454.96
375422 60.00
375422 2,060.21
375422 25.16
375422 174.00
375474 479.93
13,169.30Total for IT
Library
COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 VERIZON WIRELESS VERIZON WIRELESS DATA/PHONES FY26 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY25 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 AT&T SBC/AT&T DATA/PHONES FY26 7/31/2025 COX COMMUNICATIONS COX BUSINESS DATA/VIDEO FY26 7/31/2025 AT&T SBC/AT&T DATA/PHONES FY26 7/31/2025 AT&T SBC/AT&T DATA/PHONES FY26 7/31/2025 IT
AT&T SBC/AT&T DATA/PHONES FY26 7/31/2025 SOUTH BAY SHREEDDING ON-SITE MOBILE DOC DESTRUCTION/JUN25 7/31/2025 Total for HR
Total for Housing
HR
SOUTH BAY SHREEDDING ON-SITE MOBILE DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION/MAY25 7/31/2025 Total for Fire
Housing
SOUTH BAY SHREEDDING MONTHLY FEE FOR SHREDDING SERVICE 7/31/2025 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTO CRADLEPOINT R 1900-5GB- WIRELESS ROUTER 7/31/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP #45742. SHOP TOWELS 7/31/2025
FASTSIGNS IDENTIFICATION PLACARD FOR FIRE ENGINE 7/31/2025 FIRE ETC TRUE NORTH GEAR HS400 GRENADE HOSE STRAP 7/31/2025 AT & T INC MONTHLY PHONE SVCS TO RECV DISPATCH EMERG 7/31/2025 BOUND TREE MEDICAL L SUCTION UNIT S-SCORT III 7/31/ 2025 Total for Finance
Fire
AMEDEE, WALTER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT, SDCFCA EM MEETING 7/31/2025 Total for Eng/PW
Finance
WILDAN FINANCIAL SRV COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND USER FEE STUDY 7/31/2025 WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION, CIP 19-11 PARADISE CREEK WATER QUALITY 7/31/2025 WSP USA INC FOR T&A 90704: E 19TH ST. & HARRISON AVE. 7/31/2025 VULCAN MATERIALS COM ROADWAY MATERIALS FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 WETMORES DEF HOSE FOR VEH #180-PW/EQM 7/31/2025
VULCAN MATERIALS COM ROADWAY MATERIALS FY26-PW/STS 7/31/2025 4Page 186 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375415 43.82
375415 30.23
375415 238.94
375415 379.58
375415 410.15
375415 110.42
375425 58.25
375441 34.01
1,305.40
375455 17.40
375466 294.00
375470 241.14
375470 249.78
375470 399.93
375470 405.09
375470 409.99
375470 34.71
375470 439.46
2,491.50
375408 72.00

72.00 375409 3,825.00
375424 209.61
375427 1,750.00
375435 951.56
375442 19,111.51
375451 247.61
375451 247.61
375451 194.81
375460 473.00
375463 797.27
375469 40.00
375476 260.74
375476 124.62
375476 55.93
28,289.27
2,140,831.97A/P PAYMENTS Total

EFT PAYMENTS
WADSWORTH, MATTHEW EMP. REIMBURSEMENT CO2 FOR PEPPERBALL LAU 7/31/2025 Total for Police
WADSWORTH, MATTHEW REIM: MWADSWORTH AXON TASER INSTRUCTOR C 7/31/2025 WADSWORTH, MATTHEW REIM: MWADSWORTH FIELD TRAINING OFFICER CO 7/31/2025 SHAFER, VINCENT REIM: VSHAFER - SNIPER SCHOOL COURSE 7/31/2025 SPRINGER, KENNETH REIM: KSPRINGER CATO SWAT COMMANDER COUR 7/31/2025 PHILLIPS WILLIAM REIM: WPHILLIPS BASIC COLLISION INVESTIGATION 7/31/2025 SANCHEZ, GILBERT REIM: GSANCHEZ- BASIC SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFI 7/31/2025 PHILLIPS WILLIAM REIM: WPHILLIPS - BASIC TRAFFIC TRAINING 7/31/2025 PHILLIPS WILLIAM REIM: WPHILLIPS - BASIC TRAFFIC TRAINING 7/31/2025 JRBADGES COMMUNITY OUTREACH JRBADGES 7/31/2025 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS I MOTOROLA APX6000 700/800 MODEL 2.5 PORTABLE 7/31/2025 DOUGHERTY, JOHN REIM: JDOUGHERTY RANGEMASTER DEVELOPMEN 7/31/2025 ESRI ESRI ANNUAL RENEWAL 7/31/2025 Total for Nutrition
Police
ALL TRAFFIC SOLUTION RENEWAL 3YR SUBSCRIPTION WARRANTY 7/31/2025 Total for Neigh Svcs
Nutrition
AIR EXHAUST CORP CO CLEANING SERVICES OF HOODS, FANS, DUCTS 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 SOTO, ROBERTO ACADEMY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT CODE 7/31/2025 THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS MOP 77816 PAINT SUPPLIES 7/31/2025 Neigh Svcs
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SVC 7/31/2025
MIDWEST TAPE, LLC MIDWEST TAPE- ANORA 7/31/2025
Total for Library
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 6 BOOKS 7/31/2025
EBSCO INFORMATION SE EBSCO- LATE FEE 7/31/2025
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 22 BOOKS 7/31/2025
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 30 BOOKS 7/31/2025
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 2 BOOKS 7/31/2025
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 11 BOOKS 7/31/2025
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- EFFECTIVE FUNDRAISING 7/31/2025 5Page 187 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1000666 81.36
1000671 24.53
1000671 22.94
1000671 84.49
213.32
1000666 (58.23)
1000666 422.72
1000666 178.91
1000666 1,650.97
1000670 55.73
1000671 333.08
1000674 263.99
1000674 135.07
1000674 810.19
1000674 109.29
1000674 249.58
1000674 299.06
1000674 108.21
1000674 240.82
4,799.39
1000674 598.13
598.13
1000669 78.46
1000669 37.95
1000669 178.79
1000669 452.11
1000669 489.38
1000669 77.48
1000672 107,979.58
109,293.75
1000671 21.48
1000671 103.19
124.67
1000668 128,225.20
1000671 277.82STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP#45704, FOLDER SNGL TOP LTR 1/3 AST 7/25/2025 Fire
CITY OF SAN DIEGO FIRE & EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH SERVCS, F 7/25/2025 STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP #45704 / MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES / FIN. DEPT. 7/25/2025 Total for Finance
Total for Eng/PW
Finance
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP #45704 / DISH SOAP / FINANCE DEPT. 7/25/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/25/2025 STC TRAFFIC INC PROPSAL FOR ON-CALL ENG SUPPORT- SILVERSTR 7/25/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/25/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/25/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/25/2025 GRAINGER MOP 10262 BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/25/2025 Total for Council
Eng/PW
GRAINGER MOP 65179 BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 7/25/2025 Council
T'S & SIGNS INC CERTIFICATE PAPER FOR MAYOR'S OFFICE 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC ADMIN & MANAGER WEARING APPAREL/CSD 7/25/2025 Total for Comm Svcs
T'S & SIGNS INC ACRYLIC PLAQUES AND GATORBOARDS/CSD 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC SUPERVISOR WEARING APPAREL/CSD 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC SUPERVISOR WEARING APPAREL/CSD 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC YOUTH EMPOWERMENT APPAREL/CSD 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC CASA MUSIC SHOWCASE SHIRTS/CSD 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC CASA DE SALUD STAFF WEARING APPAREL/CSD 7/25/2025 STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP 45704 FAB PROGRAMMING SUPPLIES/CSD 7/25/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC CASA MUSIC SHOWCASE SHIRTS/CSD 7/25/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI FRAME, NET GOALS, EVENT SUPPLIES/CSD 7/25/2025 SMART SOURCE OF CALI MOP 63845 BUSINESS CARDS FOR J.M./CSD 7/25/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI FAB PROGRAMMING SUPPLIES/CSD 7/25/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI EVENT SUPPLIES/CSD 7/25/2025
Total for Clerk
Comm Svcs
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI AMAZON CREDIT MEMO/CSD 7/25/2025
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV OFFICE SUPPLIES 7/25/2025
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV OFFICE SUPPLIES 7/25/2025
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI PASSPORT PHOTO FOLDERS 7/25/2025
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV OFFICE SUPPLIES 7/25/2025
Clerk
6Page 188 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #5
7/25/2025 to 7/31/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
128,503.02
1000670 36.98
1000670 17.50

54.48 1000671 54.45
1000671 121.10
175.55
1000667 88,590.85
88,590.85
1000666 80.68
1000666 29.34
1000670 55.73
165.75
1000671 256.38
256.38
1000673 1,023.83
1000673 5,430.20
1000673 267.62
1000673 4,076.74
10,798.39
1000669 1,084.31
1000671 280.00
1000671 173.99
1000671 63.28
1000671 24.45
1000671 119.06
1000675 1,600.00
3,345.09
346,918.77
1,755,930.22
1,755,930.22
4,243,680.96GRAND TOTAL
PY91646 7/30/2025
Payroll Total
Total for Police
EFT PAYMENTS Total
Payroll
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP# 45704 / SEAT CUSHION & DUSTPAN / PD ADMI 7/25/2025 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES I NEW WORLD FIXED INSTALLATION SERVICE FEES 7/25/2025 STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP# 45704 / VARIOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES / PD ADM 7/25/2025 STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP# 45704 / VARIOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES / PD ADM 7/25/2025 STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP# 45704 / WHITEBOARD FOR CONF. RM / PD AD 7/25/2025 STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP# 45704 / DESK CHAIR / RECORDS CYNTHIA 7/25/2025 Police
GRAINGER DETENTION BENCH 7/25/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC FOOD / NUTRITION CENTER 7/25/2025
Total for Nutrition
SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC FOOD / NUTRITION CENTER 7/25/2025
SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC FOOD / NUTRITION CENTER 7/25/2025
Total for Neigh Svcs
Nutrition
SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC FOOD / NUTRITION CENTER 7/25/2025
Total for Library
Neigh Svcs
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP 45704 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7/25/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MATERIALS & SUPPLIES- GLUE STICKS, CIRC. 7/25/2025 SMART SOURCE OF CALI MOP 63845- SMART SOURCE, BUS CARDS, BAHENA 7/25/2025 Total for IT
Library
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MATERIALS & SUPPLIES- LABELS, CORRECTION TAP 7/25/2025 IT
BCICAPITAL, INC POLICE CAD UPGRADE FINANCING 7/25/2025
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP #45704/OFFICE SUPPLIES/HR 7/25/2025 Total for HR
HR
STAPLES BUSINESS ADV MOP #45704/OFFICE SUPPLIES/HR 7/25/2025 SMART SOURCE OF CALI BUSINESS CARDS/ HOUSING 7/25/2025
Total for Housing
Housing
SMART SOURCE OF CALI BUSINESS CARDS/ HOUSING 7/25/2025
Total for Fire
7Page 189 of 547

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Finance
Prepared by: Karla Apalategui, Sr. Accounting Assistant Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Approved by: Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Warrant Register No. 6 for the Period of 8/01/25 through 8/07/25 in the Amount of $3,481,140.81

RECOMMENDATION:

Ratify Warrants Totaling $3,481,140.81.

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

Not Applicable.

EXPLANATION:

Per Government Section Code 37208, below are the payments issued for the period of 8/01/25 – 8/07/25. Consistent with the Department of Finance’s practice, listed below are all payments above $50,000.

Vendor Check/Wire Amount Explanation
A Good Sign & Graph 375488 207,793.50 CIP 19-25 Bicycle Wayfinding Project Blok Modular 375497 179,824.31 CIP 24-18 Las Palmas Pool Modular Bldgs Aster Construction 375558 121,566.75 CIP 24-04 FY24 & 25 ADA Improvements Devaney Pate Morris 1000683 96,667.16 Legal Services Cummins Matter AP General Corp 1000678 260,070.15 CIP 24-13 Las Palmas Park Improvements Public Emp Ret 252120184 374,127.25 Service Period 7/08/2025 – 7/21/2025

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

Warrant Register Total $3,481,140.81

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 at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBIT:

Exhibit A – FY26 Warrant Register No. 6

CHK NO AMOUNT
375516 75.00
375516 970.00
375516 2,050.00
375516 2,145.00
375516 2,245.00
375516 3,715.00
375516 15,949.05
375544 776.95
27,926.00
375498 276.34
375498 22.98
375515 750.00
1,049.32
375504 58.30
375504 58.30
375522 110.19
226.79
375548 23.45
375548 30.41

53.86 375488 207,793.50
375492 46,971.00
375493 2,907.00
375497 179,824.31
375500 610.00
375505 150.00
375509 1,185.00
375511 2,171.56
375511 483.09
375514 2,500.50
375514 14,300.00
375514 15,590.00
375514 46,900.00
375514 20,743.24
375519 19.37
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANT NTP- FY25 COMPLIANCE SUPPORT FOR CITY OF N C 8/7/2025
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE MISC PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR FY25-PW 8/7/2025 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANT CNC VEGETATION REMOVAL 8/7/2025 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANT ENCAMPMENTS CLEANUP - PLAZA BONITA CAR MAX 8/7/2025 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANT AS-NEEDED HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEANUP 8/7/2025 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANT FENCE AND TREE REMOVAL - NEAR PLAZA AND EU 8/7/2025 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES SEWER PIPE SUPPLIES FY25-PW/WW 8/7/2025 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES MOP 45723 PARK SUPPLIES FY26-PW/PARKS 8/7/2025 COSCO FIRE PROTECTIO FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS FY25-PW/FAC 8/7/2025 DIVISION 8 INCORPORA GLASS AND WINDOW REPAIR FOR FY25-PW/FAC 8/7/2025 BLOK MODULAR CIP 24-18 LAS PALMAS POOL MODULAR BLDGS PRO 8/7/2025 CALIFORNIA DIESEL CO DPF CELANING FOR VEH #180-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 ANSER ADVISORY MANAG NTP 5-5-21- SWEETWATER RD PROTECTED 8/7/2025 ANSER ADVISORY MANAG GRANT MANAGEMENT VILLA CIVIL 8/7/2025 Eng/PW
A GOOD SIGN & GRAPHI CIP 19-25 BICYCLE WAYFINDING PROJECT 8/7/2025 SMART & FINAL MOP 45756 FAB PROGRAM SUPPLIES/CSD 8/7/2025 Total for Comm Svcs
Total for Clerk
Comm Svcs
SMART & FINAL MOP 45756 MESSY PLAY SUPPLIES/CSD 8/7/2025 CORODATA RECORDS OFF SITE RECORD STORAGE 8/7/2025
INTEGRITY NEWSPAPERS PUBLIC NOTICING 8/7/2025
Total for City Mgr
Clerk
CORODATA RECORDS OFFSITE RECORD STORAGE 8/7/2025
BLUETRITON BRANDS WATER DELIVERY FOR FINANCE DEPARTMENT 8/7/2025 GOVERNMENT TRAINING CCMA FY 2025/2026 ANNUAL FEE 8/7/2025 City Mgr
BLUETRITON BRANDS WATER FOR FINANCE DEPARTMEMENT 8/7/2025 SCHULTZ, BARRY STATE BAR OF CA REIMBURSEMENT / SCHULTZ 8/7/2025 Total for City Atty
HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR SUNDA MATTER 8/7/2025 HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR DELGADO MATTER 8/7/2025 HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR CORTEZ MATTER 8/7/2025 HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR MARTIN MATTER 8/7/2025 HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR CHICANO FEDERATION MATT 8/7/2025 HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR RODRIGUEZ MATTER 8/7/2025

A/P PAYMENTS
City Atty
HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP LEGAL SERVICES FOR ALVAREZ MATTER 8/7/2025 Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1Page 191 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375519 268.30
375519 75.36
375519 366.32
375525 4,293.68
375525 3,747.89
375528 3,534.45
375528 1,755.00
375528 15,906.00
375533 193.72
375537 85.65
375537 88.65
375538 300.00
375540 457.59
375540 11,540.00
375540 711.21
375540 11.45
375540 43.85
375540 126.98
375540 11.45
375540 54.83
375540 56.20
375540 11.45
375540 95.17
375541 29.10
375541 98.42
375541 1,408.98
375541 16,345.64
375541 118.87
375542 442.72
375545 68.77
375545 568.04
375549 138.62
375549 138.62
375549 60.45
375549 60.45
375549 60.45
375549 60.45
375549 60.45
375549 60.45
375549 60.45
375549 60.45SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/P A 8/7/2025
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER BILL FOR WASTEWATER MAY-JUN FY25-PW 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SEDANO FORD OF LM, I R&M CITY VEHICLES FY26-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER BILL FOR WASTEWATER MAY-JUN FY25-PW 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO HYDRAULICS MOP 85005 AUTO REPAIRS FY26-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 SEDANO FORD OF LM, I R&M CITY VEHICLES FY26-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR FACILITIES JUL FY25-PW/F 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR WASTEWATER JUL FY25-P 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR FACILITIES JUL FY25-PW/F 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEC GAS AND ELECTRIC FOR STREETS JUL FY25-PW/ST 8/7/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/PARKS 8/7/2025 RANDALL LAMB ASSOCIA ON-CALL PROJECT SUPPORT SERVICES~ 8/7/2025 PARTS AUTHORITY METR MOP 75943 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SERVICES FY26-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 LEIGHTON CONSULTING CIP 22-25 8TH ST MOBILITY HUB FOR THE FRANC 8/7/2025 LEIGHTON CONSULTING CIP 23FY24 AND FY25 PAVEMENT REHAB PROJECT 8/7/2025 KIMLEY HORN AND CIP 19-23 CENTRAL COMMUNITY MOBILITY 8/7/2025 LEIGHTON CONSULTING GEOTECH EXPLORATION FOR KIMBALL BALLFIELD 8/7/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE MISC PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR FY25-PW 8/7/2025 KIMLEY HORN AND NC EASTSIDE I-805 COMMUNITY 8/7/2025
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE MISC PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR FY25-PW 8/7/2025 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SE WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 2Page 192 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375549 91.92
375549 119.09
375549 119.09
375549 119.09
375549 122.64
375549 126.00
375549 145.88
375549 146.73
375549 157.19
375549 160.55
375549 164.10
375549 194.18
375549 347.12
375549 436.10
375549 670.97
375549 786.65
375549 2,053.89
375549 6,060.77
375549 6,842.30
375549 7,332.21
375550 33.46
375550 36.64
375550 36.64
375550 36.64
375550 36.64
375550 60.45
375550 60.45
375558 30,089.77
375558 121,566.75
783,879.06
375481 400.00
375482 460.00
375483 780.00
375484 280.00
375485 460.00
375486 460.00
375487 135.00
375506 3,496.00
375507 2,938.00
375517 3,594.45HDL COREN & CONE PROPERTY TAX CONSULTING AND PR / JUL-SEP '2 5 8/7/2025
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RSWA UNIF PROG FACIL PERM - CITY OF POWAY F 8/7/2025 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RSWA UNIF PROGR FACIL PERM CITY OF VISTA FY2 8/7/2025 PIERSON, DARREN P RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 ROARK, LANNY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 MCCABE, TOM RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 MEEKS, JEFFREY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DEPASCALE, AARON RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 IBARRA, JOE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 Total for Eng/PW
Finance
CORNEJO, JAVIER RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 ASTER CONSTRUCTION CIP 24-04 FY24 AND FY25 ADA IMPROVEMENTS PRO 8/7/2025 ASTER CONSTRUCTION CIP 24-04 FY24 AND FY25 ADA IMPROVEMENTS PRO 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER BILL FOR WASTEWATER MAY-JUL FY25-PW 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR FACILITIES MAY-JUL FY25-PW 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR FACILITIES MAY-JUL FY25-PW 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY WATER SERVICE FOR PARKS MAY-JUL FY25-PW/PA 8/7/2025 3Page 193 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375536 2,448.00
375539 6,794.32
375553 2,072.42
375554 5,557.50
375555 5,605.20
375556 3,000.00
375557 5,250.00
43,730.89
375494 (6.71)
375494 401.02
375523 275.00
375530 365.40
375534 217.50
375537 25.00
375547 1,178.50
2,455.71
375527 119.52
375552 169.00
288.52
375482 2,664.24
375490 825.60
375535 145.00
3,634.84
375495 198.55
375495 1,300.50
375495 1,926.61
375495 11,598.08
375503 5,900.76
20,924.50
375491 8,000.00
375496 39.91
375496 35.06
8,074.97
375499 210.00
375537 47.94PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SVC 8/7/2025 Total for Library
Neigh Svcs
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATI PRC #T3447 R.SOTO CCEO APPLICATION FEE 8/7/2025 BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 2 BOOKS 8/7/2025
BAKER & TAYLOR BAKER AND TAYLOR- 2 JUV BOOKS 8/7/2025
Total for IT
Library
AMERICA LEARNS, LLC AMERICA LEARNS IMPACT SUITE LICENSE- SUBSCR 8/7/2025 AT&T AT&T DATA FY25 8/7/2025
CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS REALQUEST ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 8/7/2025 AT&T AT&T DATA FY25 8/7/2025
AT&T AT&T DATA FY25 8/7/2025
Total for HR
IT
AT&T AT&T DATA FY25 8/7/2025
AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEA EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/AUG25 8/7/2025 PRATHER, RAPHAEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY REQ LICENSES/PRATH 8/7/2025 HR
DEPASCALE, AARON ADVANCED DISABILITY PENSION PAYMENT/AUG25 8/1/2025 THE NELROD COMPANY FORM HUD-50058 JULY-25 CARINA ROMAN SECT8 D 8/7/2025 Total for Housing
Total for Fire
Housing
LASER SAVER INC MOP BLACK TONER FAX FOR SECTION DEPARTMEN 8/7/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP#45742, 18X18 PURPLE SHOP TOWEL 8/7/2025 SIGTRONICS CORPORATI COMPONENTS OF HEADSETS UTILIZED IN FIRE ENG 8/7/2025 LINEGEAR FIRE & RESC WILDLAND WEB GEAR FOR WILDLAND FIREFIGHTI N 8/7/2025 PERFORMANCE FIRE INC ITEM #10914, BUCKEYE NEW 5LB ABC PORTABLE F 8/7/2025 AT & T INC MONTHLY PHONE SVCS TO RECV DISPATCH EMERG 8/7/2025 K & J PARTY 150 WHITE CHAIRS RENTAL/K & J PARTY 8/7/2025 Total for Finance
Fire
AT & T INC MONTHLY PHONE SVCS TO RECV DISPATCH EMERG 8/7/2025 WOODRUFF & SMART RSWA - LEGAL SVCS. - JULY 2025 8/7/2025 WOODRUFF & SMART RSWA - GENERAL MANAGER MONTHLY INVOICE JU 8/7/2025 WOODRUFF & SMART RSWA - GEN. MANAGER EXCESS RETAINER FY25 8/7/2025 WOODRUFF & SMART RSWA - LEGAL SVCS. - EXCESS RETAINER FY25 8/7/2025 RELIANCE STANDARD AUGUST 2025- GRP VAI826233, VCI801146, & VG180 8/7/2025 VISION SERVICE PLAN AUGUST 2025 - VISION SERVICE PLAN (CA) 8/7/2025 PROGRESSIVE TECHNOLO RSWA PAYMENT FOR SECURITY AND MONITORING 8/7/2025 4Page 194 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
375537 141.61
375537 29.46
429.01
375489 1,054.88
375489 196.83
375489 1,950.00
375501 100.18
375502 9,570.00
375508 58.50
375512 329.24
375513 613.08
375518 913.55
375520 212.58
375520 110.35
375521 440.44
375521 29.01
375527 97.82
375529 6,578.30
375531 473.00
375531 645.10
375543 927.11
375546 107.38
375551 1,200.00
375559 1,305.00
375560 750.00
375561 483.75
375561 2,902.50
31,048.60
375510 3,198.73
375524 7,469.98
375526 187.00
375532 3,482.74
14,338.45
938,060.52
1000683 96,667.16
1000683 14,100.00
1000683 1,600.00DEVANEY PATE MORRIS LEGAL SERVICES FOR CALI MOTA MATTER 8/1/2025 DEVANEY PATE MORRIS LEGAL SERVICES FOR CUMMINS MATTER 8/1/2025 DEVANEY PATE MORRIS LEGAL SERVICES FOR POLANCO MATTER 8/1/2025 A/P PAYMENTS Total

EFT PAYMENTS
City Atty
OSUNA, ESMERALDA OSUNA, ESMERALDA VS. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY 8/7/2025 Total for Risk
KD MANAGEMENT GRP., KD MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC VS. CITY OF NATION 8/7/2025 LADCO NUNEZ, MICHAEL JAMES L. VS. CITY OF NATIONAL C 8/7/2025 Risk
EBIX INC BASE ANNUAL FEE UPTO 183 ACCTS (06/25 - 05/26) 8/7/2025 SALEM & BIDDLE, INC PRISONER WATCH FY 2026 8/7/2025 Total for Police
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLU LEXISNEXIS ACCURINT TRAX INVOICE #1300147019 8/7/2025 SALEM & BIDDLE, INC PRISONER WATCH 8/7/2025 THE COUNSELING TEAM EMPLOYEE SUPPORT SERVICE FEB 2025 8/7/2025 HIGH DENSITY INC. BASEMENT LOCKERS ADD ON 8/7/2025 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQU BALLISTIC VESTS FY 2026 8/7/2025 SHANAHAN, MICHAEL S REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITE DAY FOOD AND BEVER 8/7/2025 LOPEZ, RUBEN G REIM: RLOPEZ - FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR COURSE 8/7/2025 LOPEZ, RUBEN G REIM: RLOPEZ - ARREST AND CONTROL INSTRUCTO 8/7/2025 LASER SAVER INC MOP #297130 / TONER CARTRIDGE 8/7/2025
LG DELTA LLC WHS CEILING FAN / PD WHS 8/7/2025
IDVILLE PRINTER RIBBON - ID MAKER EDGE 8/7/2025 IDVILLE PRINTER RIBBON - ID MAKER EDGE 8/7/2025 HUYNH, HANH REIM: HHUYNH - CRIMINAL INV. USING CELLULAR T 8/7/2025 HUYNH, HANH REIM: HHUYNH - ADV CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION 8/7/2025 GARCIA, CECILIA REIM: CGARCIA - BASIC SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFIC 8/7/2025 HIRSH, KEVIN REIM: KHIRSH - RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP AND SNIPER 8/7/2025 CYRACOM INTERNATIONA LANGUAGE LINE FOR DISPATCH FY 2026 8/7/2025 FITCHHORN, KYLE REIM: TRAFFIC COLLISIOIN 8/7/2025
CAMACHO, JOSEPH B WELLNESS FLOWERS, PEER SUPPORT 8/7/2025 CELLEBRITE INC CELLEBRITE MOBILE FORENSICS 8/7/2025
ACTION TARGET INC PAPER TARGETS FOR THE SHOOTING RANGE 8/7/2025 ACTION TARGET INC ACTION TARGET SERVICE REPAIR 8/7/2025 Police
ACTION TARGET INC PAPER TARGETS FOR THE SHOOTING RANGE 8/7/2025 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SVC 8/7/2025
Total for Neigh Svcs
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL S MOP 45742 LAUNDRY SVC 8/7/2025
5Page 195 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1000688 1,947.50
1000688 2,897.50
117,212.16
1000677 24.98
1000677 79.91
1000677 100.68
1000677 126.46
1000677 55.44
1000677 143.75
1000677 198.94
1000695 88.09
818.25
1000678 260,070.15
1000679 415.00
1000680 362.46
1000680 38.68
1000681 215.24
1000681 372.20
1000681 6,975.22
1000681 5,359.86
1000681 116.05
1000682 231.06
1000682 637.34
1000682 844.99
1000682 957.98
1000684 257.78
1000684 391.90
1000684 325.71
1000684 1,116.44
1000684 325.71
1000684 396.94
1000685 1,350.34
1000685 1,142.15
1000685 1,556.30
1000686 24,174.00
1000686 24,230.00
1000687 2,072.00
1000689 42,153.73
1000689 27,657.25
ROVE ENGINEERING INC CIP 24-21 3131 VALLEY ROAD STORM DRAIN REPL A 8/1/2025
ROVE ENGINEERING INC CIP 24-21 3131 VALLEY ROAD STORM DRAIN REPLA 8/1/2025 INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCT CIP 19-23 CENTRAL COMMUNITY MOBILE ENHANC. 8/1/2025 INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCT LAS PALMAS POOL SITE MAINTENANCE AND COOR 8/1/2025 HASA INC CHEMICALS FOR MUNICIPAL POOL FY26-PW/FAC 8/1/2025 INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCT CIP 22-26 ROOSEVELT AVE CORRIDOR SMART GRO 8/1/2025 HASA INC CHEMICALS FOR MUNICIPAL POOL FY26-PW/FAC 8/1/2025 HASA INC CHEMICALS FOR MUNICIPAL POOL FY26-PW/FAC 8/1/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 SEWER SUPPLIES FY25-PW/WW 8/1/2025
GRAINGER MOP 65179 STREET SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 8/1/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 SEWER SUPPLIES FY26-PW/WW 8/1/2025
GRAINGER MISC BUILDING SUPPLIES FY26-PW/FAC 8/1/2025
GRAINGER MOP 65179 STREET SUPPLIES FY25-PW/STS 8/1/2025 GRAINGER MOP 65179 STREET SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 8/1/2025 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE TIRES FOR CITY FLEET FY26-PW/EQM 8/1/2025 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE TIRES FOR CITY FLEET FY26-PW/EQM 8/1/2025 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE TIRES FOR CITY FLEET FY26-PW/EQM 8/1/2025 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE TIRES FOR CITY FLEET FY26-PW/EQM 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN ENV SVCS -PARADISE CREEK RESTORATION IN KIM 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN CIP 22-09 NTP -CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVI 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN FOR T&A 90626- UNION TOWER APARTMENTS 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN FY24 -FY25 STORM WATER SERVICES 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN NC WETLAND EXPANSION AND PARK SITE PROJ. 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN FOR T&A 90645- GRADING – U-HAUL AT 1300 WILSO 8/1/2025 CHEN RYAN ASSOCIATES LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT- PHASE 2 8/1/2025 D-MAX ENGINEERING IN CIP 21- 28 NC PC WETLAND EXPANSION AND PARK 8/1/2025 Eng/PW
AP GENERAL CORPORATI CIP 24-13 LAS PALMAS PARK IMPROVEMENTS 8/1/2025 T'S & SIGNS INC A FRAME SIGNS FOR SR CNTR OPENING/CSD 8/1/2025 Total for Comm Svcs
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI CLOCK, VACUUM & FILTERS/CSD 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI SIGN HOLDERS, CHARGER, 2026 CALENDAR FAB/C 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MESSY PLAY PROGRAMMING SUPPLIES/CSD 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI EAR HEADPHONES, DRUM THRONE CASA/CSD 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MICROPHONE FOR FAB PROGRAMMING/CSD 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI POOL TABLE COVER & PRIVACY SCREEN FAB/CSD 8/1/2025 Comm Svcs
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI AUDIO STEREO CABLE CAMACHO PROGRAMMING/C 8/1/2025 RHONDA HUTH CONSULTING SERVICES - PORT OF SAN DIEGO 8/1/2025 Total for City Atty
RHONDA HUTH PORT OF SAN DIEGO SERVICES 8/1/2025 6Page 196 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1000690 497.81
1000691 1,050.00
1000691 1,260.00
1000692 730.00
1000692 2,240.00
1000692 5,261.93
1000692 18,916.50
1000692 27,907.50
1000694 499.31
1000694 333.05
1000696 240.78
1000697 5.71
1000697 48.44
462,737.51
1000698 560.00
1000699 520.00
1000700 500.00
1000701 70.00
1000702 640.00
1000703 260.00
1000704 580.00
1000705 400.00
1000706 620.00
1000707 500.00
1000708 400.00
1000709 460.00
1000710 420.00
1000711 280.00
1000712 520.00
1000713 520.00
1000714 900.00
1000715 250.00
1000716 660.00
1000717 110.00
1000718 680.00
1000719 250.00
1000720 280.00
1000721 250.00
1000722 620.00
1000723 460.00ETZLER, JEFFREY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 EISER III, GEORGE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 ESPIRITU, DAVID RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DREDGE, JAMES RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DUONG, MINH RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DESROCHERS, PAUL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DIAZ, MIGUEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DANESHFAR, ZIA-E-DIN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DEESE, LESLIE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 COVARRUBIAS, ARACELI RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 DALLA, MICHAEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CONDON, DONALD RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CORDERO, ESTELA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CHELIUS, ANGELA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 COLLINSON, CURTIS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CASTELLANOS, DAVID RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CESNAUSKAS, STEVEN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CAMEON, CHRISTOPHER RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 CANEDO, RAMON RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 BOEGLER, CRAIG RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 BULL, PARRIS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 BEARD, PATRICIA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 BEVERIDGE, MARK RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 BALLARDO, DAMIAN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 BAVENCOFF JR, DAVID RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 Finance
AGUIRRE, OSCAR RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 WILLY'S ELECTRONIC S MOP 45763 AUTO SUPPLIES FY26-PW/EQM 8/1/2025 Total for Eng/PW
VISTA PAINT MOP 68834 PAINT SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 8/1/2025 WILLY'S ELECTRONIC S MOP 45763 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 8/1/2025 T MAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY MOP 76666 TRAFFIC SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 8/1/2025 T MAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY MOP 76666 TRAFFIC SUPPLIES FY26-PW/STS 8/1/2025 STC TRAFFIC INC ARDURA WASTEWATER TAX ROLL UPDATE 8/1/2025 STC TRAFFIC INC ARDURRA STORMDRAIN CMP 8/1/2025
STC TRAFFIC INC CIP 23-04 PROPOSAL FOR RETROREFLECTIVE BAC 8/1/2025 STC TRAFFIC INC CIP 22-33 8TH ST & HARBOR DRIVE BNSF CROSSING 8/1/2025 STC TRAFFIC INC CIVIL FOR E 20TH ST DRAINAGE 8/1/2025
STC TRAFFIC INC DESIGN SVS FOR KIMBALL PARK BALLFIELD LIGHTI 8/1/2025 SOUTH BAY FOUNDRY, ANGLE STORM DRAIN INLET-PW/WW 8/1/2025 STC TRAFFIC INC CIP 19-22 HSIP CITY PROTECT LEFT TURN PROJ. 8/1/2025 7Page 197 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1000724 220.00
1000725 400.00
1000726 540.00
1000727 600.00
1000728 700.00
1000729 480.00
1000730 680.00
1000731 660.00
1000732 500.00
1000733 680.00
1000734 400.00
1000735 200.00
1000736 680.00
1000737 60.00
1000738 480.00
1000739 50.00
1000740 300.00
1000741 480.00
1000742 660.00
1000743 160.00
1000744 100.00
1000745 290.00
1000746 640.00
1000747 460.00
1000748 120.00
1000749 360.00
1000750 400.00
1000751 340.00
1000752 300.00
1000753 140.00
1000754 280.00
1000755 190.00
1000756 400.00
1000757 240.00
1000758 260.00
1000759 660.00
1000760 310.00
1000761 300.00
1000762 340.00
1000763 520.00
1000764 440.00
SEWARD, GREGORY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SHEPHARD, STEVE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SAINZ, JOSE LUIS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SERVATIUS, JEFFREY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 ROUSTON, JEFFREY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 RUIZ, JAMES RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 RIOS, RAMONA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 RODRIGUEZ, MANUEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 RAY, STEVEN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 REDIKOP, BRIAN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 PEASE JR, DAVID RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 POST, ROGER RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 PAUU JR, PENU RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 PE, RAY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 OLIVERIA, HERMINIO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 PARRA, FRANCISCO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 NAGLE, DANIEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 NOTEWARE, DAVID RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 MCDANIEL, PATRICK RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 MUNOZ, LILIA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 LIMFUECO, MARIA TERE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 MATIENZO, MARIA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 KLOS, FRANK RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 LAFRENIERE, MICHAEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 JUNIEL, RODERICK RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 KIMBLE, RANDY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 JONES, ANGIL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 JONES, DEREK RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 HODGES, BRENDA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 JASMUND, DONALD RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 HERNANDEZ, JUDITH RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 HERNANDEZ, RICK RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 GONZALEZ, WILLIAM RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 HARLAN, MICHAEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 GONZALES, MANUEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 GONZALEZ, BEATRICE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 FLORES, RICHARD M RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 GAUT, ANTHONY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 FELIX, YOLANDA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 FIFIELD, KEITH RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 FABINSKI, DANIEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 8

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
1000765 480.00
1000766 580.00
1000767 320.00
1000768 560.00
1000769 400.00
1000770 700.00
1000771 250.00
1000772 480.00
1000773 480.00
1000774 520.00
1000775 700.00
1000776 220.00
1000777 540.00
1000778 560.00
34,520.00
1000677 1,907.46
1,907.46
1000677 51.07
1000677 78.89
1000677 161.06
1000677 677.59
1000677 79.90
1000677 134.80
1,183.31
1000676 213.29
213.29
1000693 32.83
1000693 11.22
1000693 104.00
1000693 335.24
1000693 60.42
1000693 125.40
1000693 389.07
1000693 138.99
1,197.17
1000676 (51.72)
Police
ACE UNIFORMS & ACCES UNIFORM AND ACCESSORIES FOR FY25 CREDIT ME 8/1/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 Total for Nutrition
SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 Total for Neigh Svcs
Nutrition
SYSCO SAN DIEGO INC DROPSHIP ITEMS FOR NUTR CTR FY25 8/1/2025 Neigh Svcs
ACE UNIFORMS & ACCES ACE UNIFORMS PARKING URQUIDEZ & COHEN 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MATERIALS & SUPPLIES- REUSABLE WATER CONTA 8/1/2025 Total for Library
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI AMAZON- FAMILY LITERACY 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI AMAZON- FAMILY LITERACY 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MATERIALS & SUPPLIES- 20TH ANNIVERSARY CELE 8/1/2025 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI SUMMER READING PROGRAM- 2ND ROUND OF PRIZ 8/1/2025 Total for Fire
Library
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI MATERIALS & SUPPLIES- WALL MOUNT 8/1/2025 Total for Finance
Fire
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVI WEBER GENESIS GAS GRILL/AMAZON 8/1/2025 YBARRA, ANTONIO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 YOUNG, GRAHAM RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 WRIGHT, MARIA ELENA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 YBARRA, ALFREDO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 VILLARIASA, STEVEN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 WILKINS, THOMAS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 TIPTON, BARBARA RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 VILLAGOMEZ, JULIAN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 STANICH, COLLEEN RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 TELLEZ, JOSE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SMITH, JOE RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SMITH, MATTHEW RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SHOEMAKER, MICHAEL RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 SILVA, LARRY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS - AUGUST 2025 8/1/2025 9Page 199 of 547

CHK NO AMOUNT
Warrant Register #6
8/1/2025 to 8/7/2025

PAYEE DESCRIPTION DATE
(51.72)
619,737.43
252180114 45,442.25
45,442.25
252120178 317.74
252120178 33.93
252120178 168.80
252120178 21.95
252120178 349.91
252120178 7.62
252120178 135.99
252120178 25.69
252120178 240.34
252120178 56.42
252120178 0.61
252120184 374,127.25
252160223 3,832.98
379,319.23
424,761.48
Section 8 Payments
HAP PAYMENTS FOR SECTION 8 1,498,581.38
1,498,581.38
3,481,140.81GRAND TOTAL
8/1/2025
Total for Section 8
Total for Finance
WIRED PAYMENTS Total
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMEN SERVICE PERIOD 07/08/2025 - 07/21/2025 8/1/2025 PUBLIC EMP RETIREMEN RELACEMENT BENEFIT FUNDS / PICAZO, IVAN 8/5/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 Total for Eng/PW
Finance
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMEN SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PERIOD APR-JUN 20 8/1/2025 Eng/PW
ARCO BUSINESS SOLUTI FUEL FOR CITY FLEET FY26-PW/EQM 8/7/2025 Total for Police
EFT PAYMENTS Total

WIRED PAYMENTS
10Page 200 of 547

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Planning
Prepared by: David Welch, Associate Planner
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Approved by: Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Continued Public Hearing: Consideration of Certification of a Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from (RS-2) to (MXC-1) for Properties Located at 3040, 3042- 3046, 3102-3104, & 3106-3108 E. 16th St. and 1540 S. Harbison Ave.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Entitled: “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Certifying a Negative Declaration, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), by Making a Finding of No Significant Environmental Effect and Approving a General Plan Amendment to Change the General Plan Land Use Designation from Low-Medium Density Residential to Low Mixed -Use for Properties Located at 3040, 3042 -3046, 3102-3104, & 3106- 3108 East 16th Street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue.”

and

Introduce the Ordinance Entitled: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Approving a Zone Change for Properties Located at 3040, 3042 -3046, & 3106-3108 East 16th street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue Changing the Zone from Small Lot Residential (RS-2) to Minor Mixed-Use Corridor (MXC-1).”

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

On August 18, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Variance, subject to the Conditions in the Draft Resolution by a vote of 5-1. One Planning Commission seat is currently vacant.

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

The City Council held a public hearing at their meeting of September 16, 2025 on the item. There was a motion to deny, which failed by a vote of two votes for and two votes against with one member recusing. The Council then vo ted to continue the item to October 7, 2025 in order to rehear the proposal and to reconsider whether any member recusals could be reconsidered.

EXPLANATION:

Executive Summary
The applicant is proposing to develop a property at 3040 East 16th Street with a five-unit multi-family residential building. The proposed development requires the existing single -family zoning to be changed to a zone that permits multi-family dwellings and a variance to allow for a reduced street wall to accommodate a two-way driveway on the property. The variance was approved by Planning Commission and will be forwarded to the City Council separately as a Notice of Decision. For

consistency with the existing development pattern and zoning in the area, the applicant has included neighboring properties with the request. This type of change requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC). The developer has applied for and has requested the changes. The Planning Commission recommended approval by Resolution of both requests at the August 18, 2025 meeting.

The applicant’s property is currently vacant and suitable for infill development. While the property could potentially be subdivided under the current zoning designation, the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for a multi-unit residential development on the property that is consistent with General Plan policies related to infill development and expanding housing opportunities. While the surrounding area is predominantly low density, single-family residential in character, the properties in close proximity to the applicant’s property are consistent with the Minor Mixed-Use Corridor zone district. The inclusion of the four neighboring properties with this request expands this district in a logical manner and provides for corridor development in close proximity to an existing transit route. This report serves as background for all components of the request.

Site Characteristics
The applicant intends to develop a 0.45-acre property located in the Small Lot Residential (RS-2) zone at 3040 East 16th Street. The block of East 16th Street, between South Lanoitan Avenue and Rachael Avenue, is unique in that it is bounded to the south by an undeveloped or “paper” street – East 17th Street. The applicant’s property is 66 feet wide and 295 feet deep, but has no useable right- of-way access at the rear. Most of the properties with frontage along East 17th Street have not made the necessary dedications for the right -of-way to be improved making it infeasible to utilize this frontage. In addition, the applicant’s property and the surrounding area generally slopes up to the east and down toward East 17th Street. The front of the applicant’s property is also a few feet higher than East 16th Street.

In addition to the applicant’s property, four neighboring properties in the RS-2 zone are included in the request for the ZC. All four additional property owners provided support for the request. The purpose for the inclusion is for consistency wi th the requested zone, Minor, Mixed -Use Corridor (MXC-1), and the creation of a cohesive district. All properties are also in close proximity to MTS bus stops at East 16 th and South Harbison Avenue, which contribute to potential corridor development. Each property is currently occupied by a use that would currently be considered non-conforming in the RS -2 zone. These four additional properties were zoned Limited Commercial and RS-3 under the previous code. The additional properties are as follows:

 3042-3046 East 16th Street
 3102-3104 East 16th Street
 3106-3108 East 16th Street
 1540 South Harbison Avenue

3042-3046 East 16 th Street and the adjacent 3102 -3104 East 16 th Street are currently occupied by multi-family residential buildings, which are not permitted within the RS-2 zone. The structures are considered legal, non-conforming. The applicant’s property is adjacent to 3042-3046 East 16th Street and is proposed to have a similar development. 3102-3104 East 16th Street is also occupied by a legal, non -conforming multi-family residential use, which takes up the majority of the lot; 3106-3108 East 16th Street is a mixed-use property with a legal, non-conforming liquor store and attached housing unit; 1540 South Harbison Avenue is across East 16 th Street from t he other properties and is occupied by a legal, non -conforming preschool. The applicant’s proposal for a zone change would expand an existing MXC -1 district to the south of the aforementioned properties across the undeveloped East 17 th Street right-of-way. The current boundaries of this district are East 17th Street to the north, Rachael Avenue to the east, East 19th Street to the south, and Interstate 805 to the west.

Proposed Use
The applicant intends to construct a five-unit, multi-family dwelling on the property located at 3040 East 16 th Street. Multi-unit dwellings are not permitted in the RS -2 zone and the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to the Medium, Mixed -Use designation and a Zone Change to the MXC -1 zone, which would permit the use. Should the property be re -zoned, the development would need to conform to all applicable standards of the zone as well as other applicable codes. The applicant is also requesting a variance for less than the required street wall to accommodate a two-way driveway along East 16 th Street, which will be forwarded to the City Council as a Notice of Decision at an upcoming meeting. Also of note, the Fire Department has identified requirements related to fire access that would restrict the location and height of proposed structure on the site. The applicant is only proposing a two-story building with five units to comply with comments provided by the Fire Department. No additional development is proposed for the other four properties in this request. However, the change in zoning could potentially allow for additional land uses or future development proposals in conformance with the standards of the proposed zone.

Analysis
When considering a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the City Council must take into account the surrounding land uses and neighborhood makeup, as well as consistency with the General Plan and other governing documents.

To describe the neighborhood makeup, it would be helpful to look at the densities of the properties within their existing use categories starting with th e predominant land use: single -family residential. Staff examined several blocks including and adjacent to the project area and had the following findings:

 The south side of East 16th Street, between South Lanoitan Avenue and Rachael Avenue, has an average lot size of 14,003 square feet resulting in a density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre. The block face is currently zoned RS-2.
 The north side of East 18th Street, between South Lanoitan Avenue and Rachael Avenue, has an average lot size of 13,607 square feet resulting in a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The block face is currently zoned MXC-1.
 The north side of East 16th Street, between South Lanoitan Avenue and Rachael Avenue, has an average lot size of 8,471 square feet resulting in a density of 5.3 dwelling units per acre.
 The block comprised of the east side of Earle Drive and the west side of Harbison Avenue has an average lot size of 8,921 square feet resulting in a density of 5 dwelling units per acre.
 The east side of Harbison Avenue, between East Plaza Boulevard and East 16 th Street has an average lot size of 17,368 square feet resulting in a density of 2.5 dwelli ng units per acre.

The land use designation Low-Medium Density Residential allows for residential development of up to nine dwelling units per acre. The current development pattern in the area, excluding multi - family and commercial uses, conforms with, an d is below the prescribed density of this General Plan designation as well as the standards of the RS-2 zone. The RS-2 zone generally allows one single-family residence per lot, although State law provides for opportunities to add up to three additional units.

There are relatively few properties occupied by commercial uses within the area. These include the liquor store and preschool within the area proposed for the Zone Change, a small office property located at the corner of East 16 th Street and Rachael Avenue, and another liquor store and SDG&E substation located on South Lanoitan Avenue, between East 17 th Street and East 18th Street. Most commercial land uses in the area are located half a mile to the north along East

Plaza Boulevard. It is notable that the applicant’s proposal would incorporate two of the three commercial properties within the RS-2 zone within the proposed Zone Change. Should this area be rezoned, they would also comply with the maximum floor area ratio requirement.

Finally, the area a lso has a few properties that are currently occupied by multi -unit residential properties. The only existing multi-family properties in the RS-2 zone with three or more units are included in the proposed area for the Zone Change. Approximately seven proper ties along East 18th Street in the MXC-1 zone have at least three units. The General Plan land use designation for this area, Medium-Mixed Use, as well as the zone district allow for up to 48 dwelling units per acre. The site with the most units and the highest density in the area is located at 3103-3107 East 18th Street with 24 units and a density of 29 dwelling units per acre. This development is within the existing MXC -1 zone and below the permitted density. The two multi -family properties proposed within the zone change area have six and seven units and range from 14 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant’s proposed project would have a density of approximately 11 dwelling units per acre.

While the existing density of the surrounding blocks is much lower than most of National City, the applicant’s proposal is unique in that it intends to incorporate properties that are inconsistent with their current zone district, the RS -2 zone. The City has already, through the General Plan and Zoning Map, established a Minor, Mixed -Use Corridor district in the area that is heavily under - utilized from a development perspective. By adding five properties to this zone, there will be relatively little change to the overall character and makeup of the neighborhood.

General Plan
There are several General Plan Policies within the Housing and Land Use Elements that are pertinent to this proposal, specifically:

Policy H-1.1: Provide an adequate supply of land zoned for residential development to meet the projected housing need.

Policy H-2.1: Promote residential development on underutilized land and remove barriers to infill development.

Policy LU-2.1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocations while enhancing the City’s community character.

Policy LU-3.1: Support the creation and expansion of mixed -use, commercial, and higher density residential development in transit priority areas and along mixed-use corridors.

The applicant’s property is currently vacant and lacks the street frontage that would be required for a subdivision consisting of multiple lots. The proposed Zone Change would allow for a medium density infill project on a property that would otherwise be undeveloped or underutilized and increase the amount of land in the City zoned for this type of housing. The area already has some diversity with regard to residential housing types as well as commercial buildings – there are apartment buildings, businesses, and single -family residences that comprise the area in which the project is located. Adjacent to the site to the east and south are medium density apartments.

The proposed expansion of the MXC-1 district will help promote the viability of this district as well as allow for more development in close proximity to public transit.

Land Use Code
The conceptual site plan provided by the applicant lacks the information needed to review for conformance with all aspects of Land Use Code. However, the proposed project does conform with most of the development standards related to a multi -unit development within the MXC -1 zone. The one exception to this is the street wall requirement for new development, which is 75%.

The applicant would not be able to meet this requirement while providing access to the property with a two -way driveway and requested a Zo ne Variance to accommodate a driveway for the proposed development, which will be forwarded to the City Council as a Notice of Decision.

Mailing
All property owners and occupants within a distance of 300 feet of the property are required to be notified of a public hearing for GPA s and ZC s. Notice of this public hearing was sent to 145 occupants and owners. Notices for the GPA and ZC were sent in advance of the notice for the ZV to accommodate a required 20-day noticing period for zone changes. As of the writing of this staff report, no public comments have been received. Three public comments were provided at the Planning Commission hearing, which are attached as Exhibit H.

Finding for Approval
The following finding is recommended for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change:

1. The proposal is consistent with General Plan Policies H-1.1, H-2.1, LU-2.1 and LU-3.1 because the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for an undeveloped and underutilized site to be developed with a residential infill project. The change would also promote the viability of the expanded MXC-1 zoning district.

Finding for Denial

The following finding is recommended by staff should the City Council deny the application:

1. The proposed development is not cons istent with the General Plan, because the proposed use and expansion of the MXC -1 zone would be out of character with that of the surrounding area.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Considerations related to conversion of single -family residential to mixed-use zoning as well as infill development of vacant lots include potential impacts to the natural environment and the existing surrounding urban development. In order to analyze any potential impacts resulting from the Zone Change and proposed development, a CEQA checklist (Initial Study) was prepared. Of note, the checklist addressed air quality and GHG from the potential for new development, possible impacts to biological resources, noise, and traffic. Findings of no impact for these areas of concern were largely due to the lack of any natural habitat within the subject properties and the limits on new development in the area. The only vacant property in the area is constrained by access issues and can only support five new units. Thus, addition al air quality, noise, and traffic issues are not anticipated.

Based on the analyses presented in the attached CEQA checklist, it is concluded that the project:
(a) would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, impact the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory; (b) would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable; and, (c) would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No significant impacts to the environment have been identified as a result of this project. Approval of the project is not expected to have any significant impacts, either long -term or short -term, nor will i t cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. As such, it is expected that project implementation would have no impact with respect to these mandatory findings of significance. Because no mitigation is required, the CE QA document converts to a Negative Declaration (ND).

The City established a 20-day public review and comment period from May 16, 2025 to June 15, 2025. During this period, the CEQA checklist (Initial Study or “IS”) was available for review. A Notice of Intent (NOI) for the ND was posted at City Hall.

Negative Declaration Analysis
In the CEQA checklist, there are four possible impacts: “Potentially Significant Impact”, “Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporation”, “Less Than Significant Impact”, and “No Impact.” Almost all sections on the checklist had checkmarks for “No Impact.” The remaining two sections were related to general earthquake hazards in the City and had a checkmark for “Less Than Significant Impact.”

The following are recommended findings for the certification of the Negative Declaration:

1. That the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, because the properties are mostly developed and/or disturbed and there is no sensitive habitat on site. The vacant lot is currently devoid of permanent vegetation, save for a handful of mature invasive pepper trees.

2. That the project does not have impacts that are individually limited bu t cumulatively considerable, because the project includes both existing development that would have been evaluated for impacts at the time of development and an infill development site on a historically disturbed property. The area is surrounded by urban development. The existing improvements and development pattern can accommodate the project without causing any impacts to the environment or to existing services.

3. That the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project includes both existing development and a proposed medium-density residential development comprised of only five units. Should the subject properties be fully redeveloped, the properties would generate less traffic than what exists currently. Therefore, there would be no impact on air quality either short- or long-term.

4. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA for which a Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared. The ND has determined that, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that no mitigation is required.

Comments
The project was routed to the Engineering and Fire Departments at the time of the submittal for the initiation of the GPA and ZC requests. Comments were provided by the Fire Department. The applicant revised plans for the proposed multi -family development in accordance with the Fire comments. These comments were included as conditions of approval for the ZV , which will be forwarded to the City Council as a Notice of Decision.

Conditions of Approval
Standard conditions of approval for development projects and Fire Department comments were included in the draft approval resolution for the ZV, which will be forwarded to the City Council as a Notice of Decision. GPA and ZC requests are generally passed by resolution without conditions.

Summary

The applicant’s property is currently vacant and suitable for infill development. While the property could potentially be subdivided under the current zoning designation, the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for a multi-unit residential development on the property that is consistent with General Plan policies related to infill development and ex panding housing opportunities. While the surrounding area is predominantly low density, single-family residential in character, the properties in close proximity to the applicant’s property are consistent with the Minor Mixed-Use Corridor zone district. The inclusion of the four neighboring properties with this request expands this district in a logical manner and provides for corridor development in close proximity to an existing transit route.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

An application fee of $5,500 was paid with the submittal of the subject General Plan Amendment, an application fee of $5,500 was paid with the submittal of the subject Zone Change, and additional fees of $735 and $2.50 were assessed for the purposes of updating the General Plan and photocopying application documents. Fees are anticipated to cover the cost of staff review time, processing of the permit, and maintaining and updating City records.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Housing and Community Development

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This is a project under CEQA and after Initial Study qualifies for a Negative Declaration. CCR 15371.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

The Agenda Report was posted at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

First Reading

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – PC Resolution
Exhibit B – 8-18-2025 PC PowerPoint slides
Exhibit C – Overhead
Exhibit D – Site Photos
Exhibit E – Zoning Map
Exhibit F – Conceptual Site Plan
Exhibit G – CEQA Checklist
Exhibit H – Public Notice
Exhibit I – Public Comments
Exhibit J – Draft Resolution
Exhibit K – Draft Ordinance

Public Hearing

CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

APPROVAL OF GPA AND ZC FOR
PROPERTIES ON E. 16TH ST.

DETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS

EXEMPT FROM CEQA (IN-FILL

DEVELOPMENT) AND A ZV REQUEST
FOR 3040 E. 16
TH ST.
2025-02 GPA, ZC, ZV, IS

EXHIBIT B

Overhead

Overhead

Overhead

Overhead

Images – 3040 & 3042-3046 E. 16 th St.

Images – 3102-3104 & 3106-3108 E. 16 th St.

Images – 1540 S. Harbison Ave.

Site Characteristics
0.45-acre vacant property (3040 E. 16th St.)
 Owner requested GPA, ZC, and ZV
 Currently zoned RS-2
 E. 17th St. at the rear is a “paper street”
 Site and overall area is moderately sloped

Site Characteristics
Four additional properties (all signed in favor of ZC)  Zoned RS-2
 3042-3046 E. 16th St.
 Six-unit, multi-family structure
 3102-3104 E. 16th St.
 Seven-units in two multi-family structures
 3106-3108 E. 16th St.
 Mixed-use; liquor store with unit in back
 1504 S. Harbison Ave.
 Preschool
 North side of E. 16th Street
Bus stop at E. 16th Street and S. Harbison Ave.
E. 18th Street zoned MXC-1; zone abutting properties across E. 17th Street

Proposal
The applicant intends to construct a five-unit, multi-family dwelling Not permitted in the current RS-2 zone
Request to change zone to MXC-1; Initiated by Planning Commission on November 18, 2024 A General Plan Amendment also required
Low-Medium Density Residential to Medium, Mixed-Use
Neighboring properties were included in the request
All properties are currently legal, non-conforming

Concept Plan
Proposed 2-
Story, 5-Unit
Residential
Building
Open Space

Proposal
Modified concept
Reduced from 3 to 2 stories
Reduced unit count: 7 to 5
Result of Fire Department comments

Proposal

Staff Analysis – Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding area is almost entirely single-family residential The typical density of the single-family residential uses ranges from 2.5 to 5.3 dwelling units per acre or 8,471 square foot to 17,368-square foot lots.
 Analysis includes areas zoned RS-2 and MXC-1
The current General Plan land use designation permits 9 dwelling units per acre. Commercial properties are very limited in the area
 Two located in the proposal
 Would become conforming
 Small office at E. 16th St. and Rachael (RS-2)
 Liquor store and SDG&E substation at S. Lanoitan Ave. and E. 18th St. (MXC-1)

Staff Analysis – Surrounding Land Uses
There are a few existing multi-unit residential properties. The only properties in the RS-2 zone in the vicinity with three or more units are included in the Zone Change request.
The MXC-1 zone along E. 18th Street has several properties with three or more units.  The General Plan land use designation of Medium, Mixed-Use allows up to 48 dwelling units per acre.  The largest and most dense multi-family property in the vicinity has 24 units and a density of 29 dwelling units per acre.  The two multi-family properties in the rezone have densities of 14 and 15 dwelling units per acre and would become conforming.
The applicant’s request incorporates properties that are inconsistent with their current zone, RS-2. There would be minimal change to the area with the rezone.

Staff Analysis – General Plan
Several General Plan policies are related to this request including:
 Policy H 1.1: Provide an adequate supply of land zoned for residential development to meet the projected housing need.
 Policy H 2.1: Promote residential development on underutilized land and remove barriers to infill development.  Policy LU 2.1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocations while enhancing the City’s community character.  Policy LU 3.1: Support the creation and expansion of mixed-use, commercial, and higher density residential development in transit priority areas and along mixed-use corridors The applicant’s property is currently vacant and lacks the necessary street frontage to develop lots. Property would otherwise go undeveloped or underutilized. Proposal promotes the viability of the MXC-1 district in the area by allowing for development near public transit.

Staff Analysis – Land Use Code
The proposal by the applicant is conceptual at this stage.  Conforms with most development standards related to a multi-unit project within the MXC-1 zone.  75% street wall requirement is not met. Applicant opted to request a Zone Variance to allow the property to be served by a two-way driveway.

California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
An Initial Study (IS) checklist was prepared for the General Plan and Zone Change amendments Staff is recommending certification of a Negative Declaration based on the results of the IS The requested Zone Variance was not included in the IS. Staff is recommending a categorical exemption (Class 32, In-Fill Development).
Items are being considered under separate resolution.
 GPA, ZC, and ND
 ZV and determination of a categorical exemption

Summary
Applicant’s property is currently vacant and suitable for infill development While the current RS-2 zone would allow a subdivision, it may be impractical and the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow a multi-unit residential development consistent with General Plan policies.
The surrounding area is vastly comprised of low density, single-family housing, but the properties is close proximity to this request are consistent with the requested Minor, Mixed-Use Corridor zone. The inclusion of the neighboring properties with the request would expand the district in a logical manner and provide for development in close proximity to existing public transit.

Options for the GPA and ZC
• Certify the Negative Declaration and recomm end approval of 2025-02 GPA, ZC, IS, subject to the conditions included in the Resolution, or other conditions, and based on the findings in the draft Resolution, or other findings determined by the Planning Commission; or • Find that the Negative Declaration for the Pr oposed Project is not in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, based on findings to be determined by the Planning Commission, and/or deny 2025-02 GPA, ZC, IS based on the attached finding, or findings determined by the Planning Commission; or
• Continue the item for additional information
• Staff recommending approval of the GPA and ZC

Options for the ZV
• Determine that the Zone Variance request is ca tegorically exempt from CEQA and recommend approval of 2025-02 ZV, subject to the conditions included in the Resolution, or other conditions, and based on the findings in the draft Resolution, or other findings determined by the Planning Commission; or
• Find that the Zone Variance request is not cat egorically exempt from CEQA, based on findings to be determined by the Planning Commission, and/or deny 2025-02 ZV based on findings determined by the Planning Commission; or
• Continue the item for additional information
• Staff recommending approval of the ZV

Next Steps:
• GPA and ZC will have a public hearing set for City Council. The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded as a resolution. • A Notice of Decision will be forwarded to City Council for the action taken on the ZV. A second public hearing is not required for the ZV. However, approval of the ZV would become unnecessary should the ZC request be denied by City Council.

EXHIBIT C

2025-02 GPA, ZC, ZV – 3040 East 16th Street, et al. – Overhead

N
3040 E. 16th St.
1540 S. Harbison Ave.
3042-3046,
3102-3104,
3106-3108
E. 16th St.

EXHIBIT D
Site Photos

Image 1: Aerial View of site and neighboring properties that would be affected by re-zone.

Image 2: Aerial View of site and neighboring properties that would be affected by re-zone.

Image 3: Aerial View of site and neighboring properties that would be affected by re-zone.

Image 4: 3D view of site and neighboring properties that would be affected by re-zone.

Image 5: 3D view of site and neighboring properties that would be affected by re-zone.

Image 6 (top) and 7 (bottom): Top -- Front view of H & H Townhomes and Imperial Liquor

currently legally non-conforming in RS-2 zoning. Bottom -- H and H townhomes and other multi-unit complexes next to 3040 E 16th.

Image 8: Front view of 3040 E 16th Street with RS-2 zoned neighbor.

Image 9: ECS HARBISON HEAD START Preschool across the street from the proposed site.

Image 10: Parcel Map of 3040 E 16th and neighbors.

EXHIBIT E

2025-02 GPA, ZC – 3040 East 16th Street, et al. – Map of Zone Districts

RS-2
MXC-1
RS-2 TO
MXC-1

5/16/2025

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Community Development Department – Planning Division
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950

1. PROJECT TITLE/PROJECT #: 2025-02 GPA, ZC, ZV – General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a property located at 3040 East 16 th Street and neighboring parcels to change the zoning from RS-2 (Small Lot Residential) to MXC-1 (Minor Mixed Use Corridor).

2. LEAD AGENCY: City of National City
Community Development Department – Planning Division
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Contact: Martin Reeder, AICP –Asst. Director of Community Development Phone: (619) 336-4313

3. PROJECT LOCATION: 3040, 3042, 3102, and 3106 East 16 th Street and 1540 Harbison Avenue, National City, CA 91950

4. 5.

6. PROJECT PROPONENT: Sushmitha Kudari
ZONI
NG DESIGNATION: Small Lot Residential (RS-2)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposin g to deve lop the property at 3040 East 16th Street with a five-unit
multi-family residential building. The proposed development requires the existing single-family zoning to be
changed to a zone th at permits multi-family dwellings. This requires a General Plan land use designation change from Low Density Residential to Low Mixed-Use and a zone change from RS-2 (Small Lot Residential) to MXC-1 (Minor Mixed Use Corridor). Medium consistency with the existing development pattern and zoning in
the area, the applicant has included five neighboring properties with this request. While not affecting the content of this Initial Study, the applicant is also applying for a Zone Variance for less than required street frontage. The MXC-1 zone requires a minimum of 75 percent of the building frontage be constructed within 10 feet of the front property line. However, due to the narrow width of the property (66 feet) and the requirement for a 20-foot driveway width, this would not be possible; therefore the applicant is requesting the variance. The current residential density in th e area proposed to be rezoned is six units per acre.

There are 14 existing units on the
subject properties where 21 would be allowed under the current RS-2 zoning (not including additional or bonus units permitted by state code). With the expected additional five units, the expected short term resid ential density would be eight units per acre, which is still less than what the area is currently zoned for. All
of the subject properties were previously zoned Limited Commercial (CL). This zoning allowed up to 22.7 units per acre, but was supplanted by the RS-2 zone in 2011 as part of a General Plan and Land Use Code update
at that time.

The southern half of the East 16 th Street properties are adjacent to East 17 th Street, which is a paper street and

EXHIBIT G

Initial Study - Page 2 of 19

not improved (it appears as a dirt road). Therefor e, no emergency access is available from East 17 th Street. As a result, any development on the 16 th Street properties located more than 150 feet from the street would require a Fire Department turnaround. This necessitates a minimum lot width of 70 feet, where all the lots on 16th Street are no wider than 66 feet. As such, only the fr ont 150 feet of each property is developable without combining lots and redeveloping existing structures, effectively halving the allowable density of the lots.

Due to topography, cost, and intervening structures, the likelihood of East 17 th Street being improved is next to zero. The only caveat would be as part of a community or specific plan being created that would allow for reconfiguration of the properties abutting East 17 th Street and a wholistic development plan being implemented .

This Initial Study is related to the General Plan La nd Use designation and Zone change portion of the project only.

7. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The project site is mostly surrounded by low-medium density residential uses at approximately half the allowa ble density in the RS-2 zone (9 units per acre). There are a handful of properties occupied by commercial uses within the area, including a liquor store, a preschool, a small office building, and a utility substation. Three of the noted commercial properties are in the RS-2 zone and are considered legal nonconforming. If the zone is changed, these properties would be considered conforming and would also comply with the maximum floor area ratio requirement of the MXC-1 zone.

8. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): N/A

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked belo w would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or is “Potentially Signifi cant Unless Mitigated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

 Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry Resources

 Air Quality

 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology / Soils

 Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology / Water Quality

 Land Use / Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise

 Population / Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation / Traffic  Utilities / Service Systems

 Mandatory Findings of
Significance

Initial Study - Page 3 of 19

DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial Evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or is “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect that remains to be addressed.



Signature
Date

May 15, 2025
Printed Name: Martin Reeder, AICP Title: Asst. Director of Community Development

Initial Study - Page 4 of 19

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers excep t “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parent heses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A “No Impact” answer should be explained wh ere it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact ma y occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significan t, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence than an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Signif icant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Signi ficant w/ Mitigation Incorporated” a pplied where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less then Significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to in corporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Refere nces to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This in only a suggested form, and lead agencies are fr ee to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist th at are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whichever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Initial Study - Page 5 of 19

ISSUES with Supporting Documentation & Sources

I – AESTHETICS - Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime Views in the area? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)

x

The project area is comprised of six properties, four of which are developed. The six properties are surrounded by other existing urban development. There are no scenic vistas or resources in the area that would be affected by the project. The vacant property has a handful of mature inv asive pepper trees, which are required to be preserved and, if removed, replaced by equal size and quality trees; therefore, no impact.

II – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impact s to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refe r to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measu rement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Uni que Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

Initial Study - Page 6 of 19

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)    x

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x
The City of National City does not contain farmland or agricultural resources, forest land, nor any land zoned for agricultural use. As such, approval of this project will have no impact on such lands or resources.

III – AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or stat e ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4)

x

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

The City does not have any applicable air quality plan or standards that would apply in this case. Air quality is under the purview of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The County of San Diego and National City are in attainment for all California Cl ean Air Act (CCAA) pollutants with the exception of ozone. Approval of this project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) to manage air qua lity in our region. The prescribed density of the project area (all six parcels) would allow up to 112 residential units if completely redeveloped. The two

Initial Study - Page 7 of 19

vacant parcels total approximately 0.7 acres, which would allow up to 32 units. With the development limitations on the properties, only five units are expected to be constructed in the short term, which would not trigger any threshold for a focused traffic study or tra ffic impact analysis. Additionally, the potential traffic generated by the maximum residentia l development on these six properties (112) would generate less traffic than what is on the properties currently; therefore no impact.

IV – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 5)

x

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:
6)

x

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 5, 6)

x

d) Interfere substantially with th e movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 5)

x

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1)

x

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1)

x

Four of the six properties are developed and disturbed residential or commercial properties, which do not have habitat of any kind. The vacant lot (3040 East 16 th Street) is currently devoid of permanent vegetation, save for a handful of mature invasive pepper trees, which will be preserved or replaced by equal quality specimens.

There are no adopted habitat conservation plans within th e City of National City and no riparian or wetland habitats identified; therefore, no impact.

Initial Study - Page 8 of 19

V – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Sources: 3, 7)

x

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Sources: 3, 7)

x

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources: 3)

x

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 3)

x

No historical or archaeological resources as defined in Section 15064.5 are known to exist on the proposed project site. However, there is one previously record ed cultural resource within a half-mile radius of the project area and two previously recorded historical stru ctures within a half-mile radius of the project area.

Even with the number of cultural resources recorded within a half-mile radius of the project area, there is a very low likelihood of encountering unrecorded cultural r esources within the project area at such time as any construction takes place. Four of the six properties ar e developed and disturbed residential or commercial properties. The vacant lot (3040 East 16 th Street) was previously developed with a single-family residence, which was demolished in 1977; therefore, no impact.

VI – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 8)

x

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 8)

x

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 8)

x

iv) Landslides? (Sources: 8)

x

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources: 2, 8)

x

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 8)

x

Initial Study - Page 9 of 19

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 8)

x

e) Have soils incapable of ade quately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources: 8)

x

California Geological Survey information indicates that, while within a half-mile of a quaternary fault (part of La Nacion Fault Zone), the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and there are no known active or potentially active faults that intercep t the project site; therefore, the potential for ground rupture at this site is considered low. The nearest ac tive fault to the site is th e La Nacion Fault, located approximately a mile to the northeast. Accordingly, the site is not considered to possess a significantly greater seismic risk than that of the surrounding area in genera l. The site is not within an area susceptible to landslides and not within a fault zone, slide prone area or an area susceptible to liquefaction; therefore there is no impact or increased exposure to landslides due to the proposed project.

It should be recognized that Southern California is an ar ea that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considered economically feasible nor technologically practical to build structures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related hazards. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code should minimize damage due to seismic events. Due to the number and nature of the active and non-active fault lines within the southern California region, it cannot be known when earthquakes will occur; therefore, there is a less than significant impact.

Any future design and construction would require conformance with City’s stormwater ordinance and grading regulations. Therefore, there is no impact or increased substantial erosion due to the proposed project.

The existing developed parcels are connected to traditi onal sewer laterals, which connect with the existing sewer system that serves the City. Any future design and construction would connect to the same system.

There would be no use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems; therefore, no impact.

VII – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
(Sources: 1, 9, 10)

x

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Sources: 1,9, 10)

x

GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to th e significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate cha nge and its associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulative impact. With th e development limitations on the properties, only five units are expected to be constructed in the short term ; therefore no impact. However, any future construction of the density likely in a currently developed area, a nd with six individually small properties, would occur over a short construction dur ation and would consist primarily of em issions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated w ith project-related new vehicular trips and indirect source emissions, such as energy usage.

Initial Study - Page 10 of 19

The construction of five units in the short term would not create noticeable GHG emissions (30 ADT increase). Additionally, the potential traffic generated by the maximum residential development on these six properties (112) would generate less traffic than what is on the properties currently; therefore no impact.

California has adopted several policies and regula tions for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32 that establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The proposed project is subject to compliance with AB 32, which is designed to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In April 2015, Executive Order B-30- 15 was signed, which established a new GHG emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

In addition, in 2024 the City of National City adopted its Climate Action Plan and associated targets to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 2018 levels by 2030 and 80 percent of 2018 levels by 2050. Some of the primary provisions of the Climate Action Plan are to promote greater density and infill development, water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction stra tegies. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions, as contained in the Climate Action Plan. Based on the above, therefore no impact.

VIII – HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:
1)

x

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the en vironment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1)

x

c) Emit hazardous emissions or ha ndle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with in one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1)

x

d) Be located on a site which is incl uded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1)

x

e) For a project located within an airport land us e plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the proj ect result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1)

x

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1)

x

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1)

x

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1)

x

Initial Study - Page 11 of 19

The existing project area is developed with 14 residentia l units on six properties, as well as a liquor store and a preschool. No transport, use, or disposal of h azardous materials is expected, due to no additional construction at this time other than five residential un its on a currently vacant property. At such time as the vacant lot is developed, the five a dditional residences would still be cons istent with the currently prescribed density of the RS-2 zone, although more density would be permitted thro ugh changing to the MXC-1 zone.

However, with the limitations on dens ity due to Fire Department access, no additional units are realistically expected. Therefore, there will not be any reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The project is not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in general, and is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The site is already mostly developed and future development would be residential in nature. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact.

There is no adopted emergency response plan or emer gency evacuation plan in the City, although there are local considerations that are included as appendices to the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization approved Annex Q of the Operational Area Emergency Plan. The project does not conflict with any of the considerations or plans in the Area Emergency Plan, thus no conflict.

The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; There are no airports or airstrips in the vicinity; the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and the proj ect is not adjacent to any wildlands or land subject to wildland fires; therefore there would not be any signifi cant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires.

Therefore, there is no impact.

IX – HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 1)

x

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Sources: 1)

x

c) Substantially alter the existing drai nage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substa ntial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Sources: 1, 3, 6, 7)

x

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Sources: 1, 3)

x

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1)

x

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 1)

Initial Study - Page 12 of 19

x

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1)

x

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1)

x

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1)

x

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1)

x

The project area is comprised of six properties, four of which are developed, and one previously disturbed/developed. At such time as the five-unit apartm ent project is proposed, the project will be subject to water quality and discharge requirements through the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP).

Future design of the potential five-unit apartment proj ect, and any other future development, will require compliance with all storm water handling, storage, dr ainage, and hydromodification regulations. The property is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or an area influenced by any le vee or dam failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; therefore, no impact.

X – LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 2, 6)

x

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 2)

x

The site is surrounded by existing mixed density reside ntial development, including apartment buildings as dense or denser than what would be permitted by any potential rezoning. The existi ng density already allows for up to 21 units and only five would be constructed under potential short term future conditions. This is less than what the area is currently zoned for. In the event that the properties to be rezoned are all developed at their maximum allowable density, this would result in 112 units (98 new units). Given that the back halves of the 16 th Street properties (five of the six properties) ar e practically undevelopable, the expected maximum density would be in the neighborhood of 30 units, which is less than the average density of the area (there are six apartment buildings located to the south and east of the project area. Because of the mixed and multi- family nature of the area, there would be no impact to an established community.

There are no applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans in the City, therefore no impact.

Initial Study - Page 13 of 19

XI – MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1)

x

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Sources: 1)

x

The project site is located completely within an urbanized area and surrounded by development. The site contains no known mineral resources on the proposed project site or delineated on a local plan for the site; therefore, there is no impact to mineral resources.

XII – NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1)

x

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

e) For a project located within an airport land us e plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ( Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worki ng in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

The proposed project area is in an urbanized area and is a residential use in an area of mostly residential development. No construction is pro posed at this time, although rezoning of the property will likely lead to the construction of five new residentials in the near future. Any new units them selves are not expected to generate any additional ambient noise in this area. Furt hermore, any development is subject to the limitations contained in the City’s Noise Ordinance; therefore, no impacts are expected.

Any associated construction in the future on the project site would create temporary noise impacts. Modern construction equipment, properly u sed and maintained, should not exceed the noise limits contained in the City’s Noise Ordinance. All noise generated by the project would be required to comply with the City’s Noise

Initial Study - Page 14 of 19

Ordinance and be limited to specific hours of operation. No significant impact from the project would occur.

The proposed project site is not located within an air port land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip; therefore, there is no impact to those people working on the project site.

XIII – POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 14)

x

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)

x

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

The property is currently zoned for a residential density of nine units per acre. The current actual residential density is six units per acre. There are 14 existing units on the subject properties where 21 would be allowed (not including additional or bonus units permitted by stat e code). With the expected additional five units, the expected short term residential density would be eight units per acre, which is still less than what the area is currently zoned for.

Because the southern half of the East 16
th Street properties are not developable without providing Fire Department turnaround (which is not feasible under the current scenario) or improving East 17th Street (which is also unlikely due to the reasons outlined in the pr oject description), the maximum density would not result in substantial population growth. In the event that the properties to be rezoned are all developed at their maximum allowable density, which would result in 112 units (98 new units), this would not be considered to be substantial population growth, in that the average people per household in the City is 3.122, more than County average of 2.74. Extrapolated to account for up to 98 additional units, this would be a potential total of 306 additional residents (assuming these would be new residents moving in to the City), an increase of a half percent of today’s current population of approximately 55, 236; therefore no impact.

In the unlikely event that all residential properties r ezoned are converted to pure ly commercial land use, the total number of units remove d would be 14. This would equate to a potential displacement of 44 residents, which would not be considered a substantial number (0.8% of the current population); therefore no impact.

XIV – PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Would the project result in s ubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the cons truction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance

Initial Study - Page 15 of 19

objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 3)

x

Police protection? (Sources: 1, 3)

x

Schools? (Sources: 1, 3)

x

Parks? (Sources: 1, 3)

x

Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 3)

x

The proposed project would not result in any impacts to public services, as no construction is proposed beyond the existing City limits and within an establis hed neighborhood. Additiona lly, only two lots are vacant, with one being currently developable. Any re development would replace existing uses and not have a significant effect on existing volumes of calls for service. Th e project site is currently and will continue to be served by the National City Fire and Police Departments. The closest Fire Station is approximately one-and-a- half miles away on East 4 th Street, and the Police Station at 12 th Street and National City Boulevard is approximately two miles away. Typical response time for this area would not be adversely impacted, as plans do not involve changes to public street s adjacent to the site. Any potential development of new residential or commercial uses will generate impact fees specifically slated for pub lic services that will supplement any additional requirements brought about by said developmen t; therefore, there is no impact. Park and school fees will also be paid as part of potential development to offset any increase in need generated by the project, thus no impact.

XV – RECREATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deteriorati on of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of r ecreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)

x

There are two parks (El Toyon and Las Palmas) within a mile of the project, which are currently underutilized and able to accommodate potential use by the potential addition of five new families that could be expected in the near term. Any future development would be subject to park fees to offset any increase in need generated by the project. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Initial Study - Page 16 of 19

XVI – TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 15)

x

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 15)

x

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous inter sections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)

x

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)

x

There are no plans, ordinances, or policies that m easure circulation system current effectiveness or performance, thus no impact. There is also no congestion management program that the project would conflict with.

This segment of East 16 th Street (Euclid Avenue to Harbison Av enue) has a project 2030 ADT (Average Daily Trip) rate of 8,300 and a capacity of 10,000 ADT. In 2030, the segment is expected to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) of D. According to trip gene ration rates published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), five new units could be expect ed to generate another 30 vehicle trips per day, which would not exceed the proposed (2030) maximum capacity; therefore, no impact.

No change in road design is proposed which would cause a safety risk or hinder emergency access. Potential development would not conflict with adopted policies, plan s, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performan ce or safety of such facilities, as there are no such activities existing or planned in this area; therefore, no impact.

With regard to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the project would screen out of VMT analysis related to CEQA, as the potential traffic generated by the maxi mum residential development on these six properties (112) would generate less traffic than what is on the pr operties currently. This is due to a preschool/childcare and liquor store on two of the properties. The liquor store (neighborhood market) in particular generates a

Initial Study - Page 17 of 19

significant amount of traffic. Redevelopment to a mixe d use style of development would also screen out, as the minimum project size would need to be five acres, wh ere the total of all six properties in this case is 2.3 acres.

XVII – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1, 11)

x

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 12)

x

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 12)

x

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1, 12)

x

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Sources: 1, 12)

x

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
(Sources: 1, 12)

x

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1, 12)

x

Any potential project would be designed and constr ucted using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to appropriately handle wastewater and not exceed wast ewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; therefore, there is no impact.

The existing property is located within an urbanized ar ea and served by existing water facilities. There is an existing 16-inch PVC water main in the East 16 th Street right-of-way that services the property. Also, all necessary improvements would be included with potential development and project approval and construction would be undertaken in accordance with the Nationa l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations; therefore, there would be no impact.

The existing area is served by EDCO, the local waste co llection and recycle company. EDCO has a contract with the City to handle City residents’ waste disposal and recycling needs. According to EDCO staff, the company utilizes several landfill sites for the disposal of waste collected in National City, with the most common being Otay Mesa, Sycamore, and Miramar Landf ills, with an additional 12, 26 and 9 years of capacity remaining respectively; therefore, there is a less than significant impact. There are two other landfill sites in San Diego County – the Ramona landfill, which is full, and Borrego Springs landfill, which has an additional 30 years capacity remaining. In addition, potential development be required to comply with all

Initial Study - Page 18 of 19

federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste.

XVIII – MANDATORY FINDINGS of

SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation

Less Than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

a) Does the project have the poten tial to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the numbe r or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or an imal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? (Sources: 1)

x

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“ Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effect s of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Sources: 1)

x

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1)

x

Discussion: No significant impacts to the environment as a result of this project have been identified.

Approval of the project is not expected to have any si gnificant impacts, either long-term or short-term, nor will it cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Initial Study - Page 19 of 19

REFERENCE SOURCES:

Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:
1 National City General Plan
National City Planning Division
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
2 City of National City Municipal Code

https://library.municode.com/ca/
national_city/codes/code_of_ordi
nances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT1
8ZO
3 Case File 2024-18 GPA, ZC, ZV National City Planning Division 4 SANDAG trip generation by land use www.sandag.org
5 US Fish and Wildlife Service https://www.fws.gov/
6 US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Mapper System https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/d ata/mapper.html
7 South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) cultural
resources records search National City Planning Division 8 California Department of Conservation http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/fam/
9 City of National City Climate Action Plan National City Planning Division 10 Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/energy/gree
nhouse-gas-equivalencies-
calculator
11 Comments received from National City Fire Department National City Planning Division 12 California Integrated Waste Management Board http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ 13 Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/energy/gree
nhouse-gas-equivalencies-
calculator

14 San Diego Association of Governments https://www.sandag.org

15 DATA USA (National City) https://datausa.io/

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
N OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of National City will hold a Public Hearing after the hour of 6:00 p.m. , Tuesday, September 16, 2025, in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1243 National City Blvd., N ational City, CA., to consider:

CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RS-2 (SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL) TO MXC-1 (MINOR MIXED-USE CORRIDOR) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3040, 3042-3046, 3102-3104, & 3106-3108 EAST 16TH STREET AND 1540 SOUTH HARBISON AVENUE
CASE FILE NO. 2025-02 GPA, ZC
APNS: 558-162-18, 558-220-06, 558-220-07, 558-220-35, 558-220-42, 558-220-11 T
he Planning Commission conducted a Public Hea ring at their meeting of August 18, 202 5 and voted to recommend approval to the City Council of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, by a vote of 5 to 1. The applicant is proposing to develop the property at 3040 East 16th Street with a five- unit multi -family res idential building. The proposed development requires the existing single- family zoning to be changed to a zone that permits multi -family dwellings. For consistency with the existing development pattern and zoning in the area, the applicant has included five neighboring properties with this request. This type of change also requires a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use from Low -Medium Density Residential to Medium Mixed-Use. The City conducted an Environmental Initial Study that determined the proposed project would not have a potentially significant environmental impact and qualifies for a Negative Declaration per Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines.

I nformation is available for review at the City’s Planning Division, City Hall, 1243 National City Blvd., during normal business hours. Anyone interested in this matter may appear at the above time and place and be heard. The City Council will also accept written public comments regarding this matter. Written comments or testimony from the public must be submitted via e -mail to [email protected] by 2:00 P.M. on the day of the City Council Meeting. For information on registering to provide public comment vi a Zoom please visit the City Clerk’s webpage at https://www.nationalcityca.gov/government/city- clerk/public-comments
I
f you challenge the nature of the proposed action i n court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice via e-mail, or through written correspondence delivered to the undersigned prior to the Public Hearing.

Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
Published in the Star News: Friday, August 22, 2025

EXHIBIT H

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE AND SUMMARY OF INTENT TO ADOPT PROPOSED ORDINANCE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of National City will hold a Continued Public Hearing for In troduction and First Reading after the hour of 6:00 p.m. , Tuesday, October 7, 2025, in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA., to consider:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3040, 3042-3046, & 3106-3108 EAST 16TH STREET AND 1540 SOUTH HARBISON AVENUE CHANGING THE ZONE FROM SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) TO MINOR MIXED-USE CORRIDOR (MXC-1).

Anyone interested in this matter may appear at the above time and place and be heard.

The City Council will also accept written public comments regarding this matter. Written comments or testimony fr om th e public must be submitted via e -mail to [email protected] by 2:00 P.M. on the day of the City Council Meeting. For information on registering to pr ovide public comment via Zoom pl ease visit the City Clerk’s webpage at https://ww w.nationalcityca.gov/government/city-clerk/public- comments

The City Council will have the Second reading of this ordinance wherein they will consider its adoption at its Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. via LIVE WEBCAST in the City Council Chamber, 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, California.

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

Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
Published in the Star News: Friday, September 19, 2025

From: Ema Letuli
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Hearing for 3040 East 16th St building
Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 3:06:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

To Whom it May Concern:

I live at 2945 E. 16th St and we already have an issue with parking. A lot of times people from the condos or the apartments park on Earle Dr or here on 16th St.

With 5 units going in, that will possibility require at least 10 parking spots, 2 per unit.

I hope that will be provided on their property.

If these are 2 story units, the neighbor stands to lose all of their privacy.

Thanks,
Ema Letuli
Item 3. Public Comment

EXHIBIT I

From: Beverly C Bingham
To: Planning Commission
Subject: public hearing 8/18/2025 3040 E 16th Street National City, CA Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:25:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Rezoning this property to allow multiple units is not in the best interest of the neighborhood.

When you look at housing in this area of National City you will see that for blocks along E 16th St west to Euclid, So Harbison E 16th Street north to Plaza Blvd and Earle Dr. E 16th St north to Harbison it consists primarily of single family homes.

By adding additional units at this location it will cause more traffic in an already congested area. It is also likely to add additional vehicles parking on the streets. That is already a challenge given the excess of cars from the apartment building and the condominium units just east of this location. On any given day cars are left for days without being moved causing issues for the local homeowners.

Lastly if this project is approved and rezoning takes place I would hope that genuine consideration be given to the fact that any structure above a single level will result in the complete loss of my privacy on the east side of my home.

Thank you
Beverly C Bingham
Item 3. Public Comment

1 Sarah Esendencia
From: Alisha Morrison < >
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 2:04 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Alisha Morrison
Subject: Planning Commission Item 3 - 2025.08.18
Attachments: 2025.08.18 Planning Commission Item 3.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good Afternoon,
Please see attached public comment
Thank you,
Alisha
Item 3. Public Comment RECIEVED AFTER DEADLINE (AMENDED)

2025.08.18
Planning Commission – Item 3
Good E
vening Commissioners,
Va
lues are very important to the Public, it can be easy to overlook the fundamental fact that the Public expects and deserves its public servants to serve the public’s interest – not private or political interests.

Value
s are very important to the Public. As public officials you have to sort through competing considerations and determine “the right thing to do?”
I
would like to oppose the zone change on the grounds of negative impact and that it is non consistent and is out of character with the surrounding area.

Be
ing someone who resides in a residential community knows first hand what happens when there is mixed use spot zoning in a residential community. I have enclosed photos that show how spot zoning with mixed use will negatively impact a residential community.

Hig
h density traffic
Noise pollution
Healthy & Safety risks
Disturbing the peace requires extra law enforcement resources Pl
ease see attached photos
Item 3. Public Comment RECIEVED AFTER DEADLINE (AMENDED)

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

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

CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), BY MAKING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW MIXED -USE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3040, 3042 -3046, 3102-3104 & 3106-3108 EAST 16TH STREET AND 1540 SOUTH HARBISON AVENUE.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City considered a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the rezoning of properties located at 3040, 3042-3046, 3102- 3104, & 3106 -3108 East 16th Street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue (APNS: 558 -162-18, 558-220-06, 558 -220-07, 558 -220-35, 558 -220-42, 558 -220-11), from Small Lot Residential (RS-2) to Minor Mixed-Use Corridor (MXC-1), which included changing the General Plan Land Use Designation from Low -Medium Density Residential to Low Mixed-Use, at a duly advertised public hearing held on October 7 , 2025, at which time oral and documen tary evidence was presented; and

WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report contained in Case File No. 2025-02 GPA, ZC, IS maintained by the Ci ty and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City initiated said applications at a duly advertised public hearing held on November 18, 2024, at which time t he Commission considered oral and documentary evidence; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered the proposed Negative Declaration No. 2025 -02 IS, together with any comments received during the public review process, and found on the basis of the whole record (including the Initial Study and any comments received) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commiss ion of the City of National City considered said applications at a duly advertised public hearing held on August 18 , 202 5, at which time the Commission recommended approval of the General Plan Amendement and Zone Change; and

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

WHEREAS, the action hereby taken is found to be essential for the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare.

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

Section 1: That the evidence presented to the City Council at the public hearing held on September 16, 2025, support the following findings:

FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. That the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exampl es of the major periods of California history or prehistory, because the prope rties are mostly developed and/or disturbed and there is no sensitive habitat on site. The vacant lot is currently devoid of permanent vegetation, save for a handful of mature invasive pepper trees.

2. That the project does not have impacts that are individ ually limited but cumulatively considerable, because the project includes both existing development that would have been evaluated for impacts at the time of development and an infill development site on a historically disturbed property. The area is surrounded by urban development. The existing improvements and development pattern can accommodate the project without causing any impacts to the environment or to existing services.

3. That the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project includes both existing development and a proposed medium-density residential development comprised of only five units. Should the subject properties be fully redeveloped, the properties would generate less traffic than what exists currently. Therefore, there would be no impact on air quality either short- or long-term.

4. That the proposed project has be en reviewed in compliance with CEQA for which a Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared. The ND has determined that, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that no mitigation is required.

FINDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

1. That the proposal is consistent with General Plan Policies H-1.1, H-2.1, LU-2.1 and LU-

3.1 because the proposed General Plan Amendment and associated Zone Change would allow for an undeveloped and underutilized site to be developed with a residential infill project. The change would also promote the viability of the expanded MXC-1 zoning district.

Section 2: That the application for a General Plan Amendment of the aforementioned properties from Small Lot Residential (RS-2) to Minor Mixed-Use Corridor (MXC-1), subject to the following conditions:

General

1. Within four (4) days of approval of this General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 711.4 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5, the applicant shall pay all necessary environmental filing fees for the San Diego County Clerk.

Checks shall be made payable to the County Clerk and submitted to the National City Planning Department.

Indemnification Agreement
The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless 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, 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 ot her 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.

Section 3: That the City Council her eby certifies the Negative De claration and approves the General Plan Amendment for the properties located at 3040, 3042 -3046, 3102- 3104, & 3106-3108 East 16th Street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue from small lot residential (RS-2) to minor mixed-use corridor (MXC-1), supported by the findings identified above.

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

PASSED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 2025.
__________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Barry J. Schultz.

City Attorney

ORDINANCE NO. 2025 –

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3040, 3042-3046, & 3106- 3108 EAST 16TH STREET AND 1540 SOUTH HARBISON AVENUE CHANGING THE ZONE FROM SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) TO MINOR MIXED-USE CORRIDOR (MXC-1).

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Government Code of the State of California, proceedings were duly initiated for the rezoning of the parcel s of real property located at 3040, 3042-3046, & 3106 -3108 East 16th Street and 1540 South Harbison Avenue (APNS: 558 -162-18, 558 -220-06, 558 -220-07, 558 -220-35, 558 -220-42, 558 -220-11), and for the amendment of the City of National City Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to legal notice, hearings were held by the Planning Commission of National City and also by the City Council of National City, and all persons interested were given the opportunity to appear and be heard before said Planning C ommission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of National City has regularly and duly certified to the City Council its report and has recommended such rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that on the basis of the Initial Study 2025-02 IS and Negative Declaration, and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the rezoning consistent with and necessar y to implement the General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the City Council of the City of National City hereby approves the rezoning of all real property described below from Small Lot Residential (RS-2) to Minor Mixed- Use (MXC-1):

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 558 -162-18, 558-220-06, 558-220-07, 558-220-35, 558-220-42, AND 558 -220-11; ALL IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, COUNT Y OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the date of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage , it or a summary of it, shall be published once, with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same, in the Star News, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of San Diego, California.

Section 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall publish in accordance with the law.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of National City, California, held on the 7th day of October, 2025.

PASSED and ADOPTED this ___ day of ________, 2025.
___________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Barry J. Schultz
City Attorney

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Planning
Prepared by: Sophia Depew, Assistant Planner
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Approved by: Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Adoption and Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Table 18.24.040 A and Table

18.24.040 D of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code Related to Maximum Height and Number of Stories in the MXC-1 and MXD-1 Zones.

RECOMMENDATION:

Hold the Public Hearing and Adopt the Ordinance Entitled: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Amending Table 18.24.040 A and Table 18.24.040 D of Title 18 (Zoning) of the National City Municipal Code Related to Maximum Height and Number of Stories in the MXC-1 and MXD-1 Zones.”

PRIOR ACTION:

City Council introduced this item at their meeting on September 16, 2025.

EXPLANATION:

Background
Table 18.24.040 A and Table 18.24.040 D in the Land Use Code (Zoning Ordinance) regulate building form and placement (development standards) within the MXC-1 (Minor Mixed-Use Corridor) and MXD -1 (Minor Mixed -Use District) zones, respectively. The tables include minimum and maximum standards for development, such as: setbacks, stepbacks, height, lot size, floor area ratio, and density. The maximum height listed in the tables is 50 feet and 3 stories.

While all zones within the National City Land Use Code measure maximum height in feet and number of stories, the difference in height (in feet) and number of stories in the MXC-1 and MXD-1 zones is inconsistent with the City’s other zones. For example, the Mixed-Use Transition (MXT) zone, which was added to the Land Use Code as part of the Focused General Plan Update in 2024, has a height limit of 45 feet and 4 stories.

The maximum story height in the California Building Code (CBC) is 14 feet (ceiling to ceiling).

Therefore, the usable square footage of a three-story building would never exceed a height of 42 feet. The CBC also has a minimum ceiling height of seven feet-six inches, meaning a building under 50 feet in height could potentially include five or six stories depending on how the structure was designed.

Generally, height is defined in the Land Use Code (LUC) as “the vertical distance from the highest point of any structure to the ground level directly below, except as otherwise provided in this section. On sloped lots, the height shall be measured from the average grade to the tallest point of the structure”. However, story is defined by the Uniform Building Code as “the

vertical distance from top to top of two successive tiers of beams or finished floor surfaces and, for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters”.

In 2023, height measured on sloped lots was amended to an “average grade” measurement, reducing the need for discretionary approvals (variances) and overall building costs while improving consistency with State law and the Focused General Plan Update. Increasing the number of permitted stories would be complimentary to this previous code update on height measurement and provide additional relief for lots with topographical challenges. Projects could be designed so portions of a building could accommodate a higher number of stories than other portions of the same structure (i.e. sloped lots).

Additionally, there are other development standards in place that limit the size an d bulk of buildings in the MXC -1 and MXD -1 zones: the maximum height of a building is 50 feet, the minimum third -story stepback is eight feet, the maximum floor area ratio is 1.0 for single -use projects and 2.0 for mixed-use projects, and the maximum density is 48 dwelling units per acre.

These standards already restrict the scale of new projects within the zones.

Proposal
The applicant, under National City Municipal Code Section 18.12.140, has proposed to increase the maximum number of stories permitted in the MXC-1 zone from three stories to four stories. Staff has also recommended that there be an increase of the maximum number of stories permitted in the MXD-1 zone to four stories. There are no proposed changes to maximum height (in feet), floor area ratio (FAR), or density.

The applicant’s request is based on a proposed 120-unit 4-story multifamily housing development within the MXC-1 zone. The project is meeting the maximum height (in feet) and maximum FAR with a four-story design. The three-story maximum is limiting the project’s ability to provide the desired density allowed by right in the zone.

The pertinent portions of Table 18.24.040A and Table 18.24.040D currently read as follows:

Development Standard Minimum Maximum
Height None 50’ and 3 stories

Staff is suggesting the following changes (shown as underlined):

Development Standard Minimum Maximum
Height None 50’ and 4 stories

Analysis
The intent of the standards in the MXC-1 and MXD-1 zones are to ensure excellence in site planning and building design in order to create a vibrant and well -defined public realm that is pedestrian- friendly and supportive of a sustainable way-of-life. Increasing the number of permitted stories from three to four is in line with the intent of the zones by providing greater site design flexibility. It gives projects the opportunity to build up, instead of out, creating new space that can be utilized for the benefit of the residents like green space, common open space, and parking.

The current height requirement in the City’s MXC-1 and MXD-1 zones provides for a maximum height that would never be achieved by a conventional building design. The large gap between height (in feet) and number of stories is an unnecessary burden to new developments that could otherwise construct usable square footage in an efficient and practical manner. Onerous requirements on the number of stories a project may incorporate can also take away from flexible site design and deter projects on smaller or sloped lots, which conflicts with the General Plan policies related to infill development.

It should also be noted that the MXT zone, which was intended to be a transition to lower density residential zones, allows for up to four stories even though it has a lesser maximum height of 45 feet.

With an additional five feet of height limit, it is not expected that allowing four stories in the MXC-1 and MXD-1 zones will be any more impactful.

With no changes to maximum height (in feet), floor area, or density, there will be no increase to the amount of building area granted. All projects will be required to meet the development standards in the zone that contribute to the MXC-1 and MXD-1 zones character.

Findings
There are two findings required for approval of a Code Amendment: (1) – consistency with the General Plan: and (2) compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

(1) General Plan Consistency
The proposal to amend Table 18.24.040A and Table 18.24.040D is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-5.4 and Policy H 2.1 due to increasing the likelihood of development of in -fill lots and promoting development of underutilized land by providing greater design flexibility for small lots and lots with topographic challenges.

Policy H 2.1: Promote residential development on underutilized land and remove barriers to infill development.

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

(2) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The ordinance being proposed is considered exempt from CEQA because it is not a project as defined in Section 15378. No increase in density, height (in feet), or additional permissions will be granted and there would therefore be no potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Summary
Staff is recommending that t he City Council approve amending the code sections related to maximum height and number of stories in the MXC-1 and MXD-1 zones to allow four stories. The amendment provides greater design flexibility for properties to be developed to their maximum potential, conforming with General Plan Policies. The change also improves consistency with other zones throughout the City. The recommendation of the Planning Commission has been provided above.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

An application fee of $5,500 was paid with the submittal of the subject Code Amendment. Fees are anticipated to cover the cost of staff review time and processing of the permit.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Housing and Community Development

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 at least 72 hours in advance of the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours in advance of a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

ORDINANCE:

Second Reading

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Redlined NCMC Tables 18.24.040 A and 18.24.040 D Exhibit B – Draft Ordinance

Table 18.24.040A
MXC-1 Zone Building Form and Placement
Development Standard Minimum Maximum
Street wall 75% 100%
Building setbacks
Street 0' 15' - 1st and 2nd story None -
3rd story
Other 0' None
Other, adjacent to residential
zone
Same as the equivalent
setback in the adjacent
residential zone
None
Building stepbacks
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story street wall
8' None
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story walls adjacent to RS
zone
15' None
Building volume
Height None 50' and 3 4 stories
Height, adjacent to
residential zone
None Same as adjacent zone
(within 50 feet)
Floor area ratio, mixed-use
(a)
None 2
Floor area ratio, single-use None 1
Lot area (lots on the bulb of a
cul-de-sac)
5,000 SF
Lot street frontage (lots on
the bulb of a cul-de-sac)
50'/36'
Residential density (net
rights-of-way)
None 48 du/acre
Parking setback adjacent to
street (b)
40' None

Table 18.24.040D
MXD-1 Zone Building Form and Placement
Development Standard Minimum Maximum
Street wall 75% 100%
Building setbacks
Street 0' 15' - 1st and 2nd story None -
3rd story
Other 0' None
Other, adjacent to residential
zone
Same as the equivalent
setback in the adjacent
residential zone
None
Building stepbacks
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story street wall
8' None
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story walls adjacent to RS
zone
15' None
Building volume
Height None 50' and 3 4 stories
Height, adjacent to
residential zone
None Same as adjacent zone
(within 50 feet)
Floor area ratio, mixed-use
(a)
None 2
Floor area ratio, single-use None 1
Lot area (lots on the bulb of a
cul-de-sac)
5,000 SF
Lot street frontage (lots on
the bulb of a cul-de-sac)
50'/36'
Residential density (net
rights-of-way)
None 48 du/acre
Parking setback adjacent to
street (b)
40' None

ORDINANCE NO. 2025 –

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 18.24.040A AND TABLE 18.24.040D OF TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE

NATIONAL CITY MUNICIPAL CODE RELAT ED TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES IN THE MXC-1 AND MXD-1 ZONES.

WHEREAS, the City of National City (the “City”), pursuant to the police powers delegated to it by the California Constitution, has the authority to enact or amend laws which promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Government Code of the State of California, proceedings were duly initiated for the amendment of the National City Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a published 10 -day notice of the adoption of said ordinance, a public hearing was held by the City Council on September 16, 2025, and at said public hearing, all persons interested were given the opportunity to app ear and be heard before the City Council; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY , CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. All protests, if any, against said ame ndment to the Munic ipal Code and each of them be and hereby are denied and overruled.

Section 2. Tables 18.24.040.A and 18.24.040D are hereby amended to read as follows:

Table 18.24.040.A
MXC-1 Zone Building Form and Placement
Development Standard Minimum Maximum
Street wall 75% 100%
Building setbacks
Street 0' 15' - 1st and 2nd story None -
3rd story
Other 0' None
Other, adjacent to residential
zone
Same as the equivalent
setback in the adjacent
residential zone
None
Building stepbacks
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story street wall
8' None
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story walls adjacent to RS
zone
15' None
Building volume
Height None 50' and 4 stories
Height, adjacent to residential
zone
None Same as adjacent zone
(within 50 feet)

Floor area ratio, mixed-use
(a)
None 2
Floor area ratio, single-use None 1
Lot area (lots on the bulb of a
cul-de-sac)
5,000 SF
Lot street frontage (lots on
the bulb of a cul-de-sac)
50'/36'
Residential density (net
rights-of-way)
None 48 du/acre
Parking setback adjacent to
street (b)
40' None

Table 18.24.040.D
MXD-1 Zone Building Form and Placement
Development Standard Minimum Maximum
Street wall 75% 100%
Building setbacks
Street 0' 15' - 1st and 2nd story None -
3rd story
Other 0' None
Other, adjacent to residential
zone
Same as the equivalent
setback in the adjacent
residential zone
None
Building stepbacks
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story street wall
8' None
3rd story stepback from 2nd
story walls adjacent to RS
zone
15' None
Building volume
Height None 50' and 4 stories
Height, adjacent to residential
zone
None Same as adjacent zone
(within 50 feet)
Floor area ratio, mixed-use
(a)
None 2
Floor area ratio, single-use None 1
Lot area (lots on the bulb of a
cul-de-sac)
5,000 SF
Lot street frontage (lots on
the bulb of a cul-de-sac)
50'/36'
Residential density (net
rights-of-way)
None 48 du/acre
Parking setback adjacent to
street (b)
40' None

Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and

adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in f orce thirty (30) days from the date of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, it or a summary of it, shall be published once, with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same in the Star News, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of San Diego, California.

INTRODUCED this 16th day of September, 2025.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 2025.
__________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Barry J. Schultz, City Attorney

AGENDA REPORT

Department: Planning
Prepared by: David Welch, Principal Planner
Meeting Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Approved by: Scott W. Huth, Interim City Manager

SUBJECT:

Public Hearing to Consider of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility Within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way on BNSF Property.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approving the appeal and adopting separate resolutions entitled: “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility (San Diego Clean Fuels LLC) within BNSF Railroad Right-of-Way and BNSF-Owned Property, Located West of the 1800 Block of Cleveland Avenue and North of West 19th Street, North to Civic Center Drive.” and “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility (San Diego Clean Fuels LLC) within BNSF Railroad Right -of-Way and BNSF -Owned Property, Loc ated West of the 1800 Block of Cleveland Avenue and North of West 19th Street, North to Civic Center Drive.”

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:

The Planning Commission certified a Final Environmental Impact Report by unanimous vote and subsequently denied the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit by the following vote:

Ayes: Armenta, Castle, Quinonez, Sanchez Nays: Miller Absent: Valenzuela

EXPLANATION:

Executive Summary
Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 15, 2025 and denied the request for a CUP and CDP based on the findings in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-

14. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission and is thereby afforded the opportunity to present their appeal to the City Council. The requested action by City Council is to either uphold or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission (grant or deny the appeal request).

The applicant’s appeal asserts that the findings in the Planning Commission denial were not accurate:

Findings for Denial of the Conditional Use Permit

#1 asserts that the facility is not essential or desirable because there are cleaner methods of delivery of the clean fuels. We do not believe that the cleaner methods mentioned are practically available at the current time.

#2 indicates that the project would be detrimental to the public in the vicinity due to the anticipation that the ‘last mile’ delivery trucks will be petroleum diesel fueled and contribute to negative air quality in the area. Given that the truck operators are hauling renewable diesel, it would make sense that these truck operators would use the fuel that they haul.

Furthermore, USD Clean Fuels was willing to accept a condition that these vehicles would be required to use renewable diesel within a reasonable period of time after the facility is operational; making this finding void. It should also be noted that the EIR found air quality impacts based on petroleum diesel truck emissions as is required for air quality modeling, to be less than significant.

Finding for Denial of the Coastal Development Permit
#1 says that the project is in conflict with the Community Emissions Reduction Plan because it increases the number of diesel trucks within the Portside Community. Again, the finding’s concern is based on the trucks using petroleum diesel rather than renewable diesel. Furthermore, these short haul delivery truck trips rep lace long haul carriers, improving the air quality in the entire area. If the short haul trucks are conditioned to use renewable diesel fuel instead of petroleum diesel, the air quality is improved still further.

At the public hearing the Planning Commission heard comments from over 30 speakers, of which only two were in support of the proposed project. Five written public comments were also submitted in opposition. Among the concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing were air quality and public h ealth impacts from the operation of up to 72 diesel trucks a day entering the proposed facility and the inadequacy of the voluntary economic benefit to offset potential impacts on the City. City Council may consider adopting new or modified conditions of a pproval should they decide to approve the appeal in response to public concerns. The Community Emissions Reduction Plan discussed in the appeal can be accessed at https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/capp/cerp/Portside-Environmental- Justice-CERP-July-2021.pdf.

Prior to the denial of the project, Planning Commission voted to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). However, the standard of review for the appeal is de novo, which means the matter is heard anew and without being bound by the previous decision of the Planning Commission. Therefore, the City Council becomes the approving authority for the project and will be required to also act on a resolution to certify the FEIR.

The applicant proposes to construct and operate a fuel transfer facility to be operated by San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC within an approximately 7.5-acre site located on and adjacent to existing Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) railway tracks. The location is between Civic Center Drive and West 19th Street and to the west of Cleveland Avenue. Rail cars will be delivered to the facility utilizing an existing rail spur that will be reconfigured to provide capacity for up to 21 rail cars. Clean renewable and biofuels (renewable diesel, ethanal, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)) will then be transloaded from the rail cars to trucks with an above -ground pump system.

No fuel will be stored on site. Overall transloading capacity will be approximately 13,800 barrels of fuel per day. The site would receive up to 72 trucks daily, which would deliver the fuel to retail clients in the metropolitan San Diego area. The property is located within the City’s Coastal Zone (CZ) overlay and subject to the development regulations outlined in the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Since the Implementation Plan of the LCP has not been formally updated, properties within the CZ are still regulated by the previous Land Use Code (LUC). The zoning designation of the property is Medium Manufacturing (MM).

Land uses that either store or distribute fuel in the MM zone are required to obtain approval of a CUP prior to operation. All projects in the CZ that require approval of a CUP must also have an approved CDP. The City of National City maintains permit jurisdiction for the subject property and, therefore, is able to approve a CDP without a permit application to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC retains the authority to hear appeals on CDPs when specific conditions or characteristics are present. This project is considered a “major energy facility”1 and, therefore, appealable pursuant to Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. Due to the characteristics of the proposed project, staff requested an Initial Study (IS) checklist pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to be prepared, which was submitted to the City with a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The City, as lead agency, decided that the draft MND document was not a sufficient environmental review document for the project and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was subsequently prepared.

Site Characteristics
The 7.5-acre site is located along the east side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way between West 18th and 19th Streets. Railway improvements in conjunction with this project extend north to the Civic Center Drive crossing. Immediately to the east of the property is an alleyway and industrial property with frontage on Cleveland Avenue. Most of the uses in the surrounding area are industrial in nature. However, there are City -owned properties planned for tourist -supporting commercial uses less than a half mile to the south as well as a newly opened cannabis lounge, restaurant, and hotel adjacent to Paradise Marsh. Several legal, non -conforming residential properties also exist within the vicinity of the subject property including the McKinley Apartments approximately 380 feet east and single -family homes approximately 900 feet to the south 2. It is unclear how many single -family residences remain west of Interstate 5 in the City since some structures have been incorporated i nto commercial businesses. The nearest school is Kimball Elementary School, which is more that 1,500 feet from the site, on the east side of Interstate 5.

The site itself is comprised of three different sections. First, there is the existing BNSF railway.

This a spur that terminates within Port of San Diego properties to the south. The main Port-related operations are Pasha Group, which receives shipments of new automobiles, and Dixieline Lumber, which receives shipments of new lumber and wood products. Ad jacent to the subject site, there are two operational tracks that transition to one rail track to the north, just south of the Civic Center Drive crossing. With anticipation of this proposed project, BNSF has been working on the design and implementation o f a second track across Civic Center Drive to maintain operational capacity. Ultimately, BNSF rail traffic enters and exits the region to the north through downtown San Diego and along the coast to Orange County. Second, the middle portion of the site that is proposed for up to eight new tracks leading to the transfer facility is a former Pacific Steel, Incorporated (PSI) remediation site. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is still actively working on remediation from PSI operations, but the land within the subject site has been substantially remediated as of the writing of this report. Finally, the area of the subject site between West 18th Street to the north, the alley to the east, West 19th Street to the south, and the existing tracks to the west is proposed to be developed with the transfer facility. This land was previously occupied by industrial operations and Harrison Street right -of-way that has already been vacated3. All former structures have been demolished and the land in its current state would be considered disturbed.

1 Coastal-dependent developments like refineries, power plants, and offshore petroleum facilities that are subject to strict regulation and permitting by the California Coastal Commission due to their potential adverse effects on coastal resources.
2 New residential uses are not permitted in the MM zone. Existing lawfully constructed residences may remain, subject to NCMC 18.11 (Nonconforming uses, structures, and parcels). 3 Harrison Avenue in this location was a “paper street”, which only existed on the Assessor’s Parcel Map.

No developed right-of-way was located here.

Proposed Use
The applicant proposes to improve the 7.5 -acre site for the purposes of operating a fuel transloading facility. This site is located along existing BNSF railroad and on adjacent BNSF - owned land. The fuel transfer operations would take place on the portion of land between West 18th and 19 th Streets, between the existing railroad and industrial properties along Cleveland Avenue. The facility would operate 24 hours a day with 72 trucks per day primarily e ntering and exiting the site during off -peak hours (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). Land uses that either store or distribute fuel are required to obtain approval of a CUP and CDP prior to the commencement of operations. There are no additional specific use regulations in the LUC for this type of facility.

The proposed operator, San Diego Clean Fuels Facility LLC, intends to build the facility to achieve objectives related to increased access to renewable fuels in the San Diego region. The project hopes to achieve or contribute to the following:

 Contribute to the State’s commitment to a transition to carbon neutrality by 2045.

Renewable fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve benchmark reductions.
 Expand the availability of renewable fuels to the region by advancing the goal of the State’s Low-Carbon Fuels Standard, which is a component of the 2022 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan, and solving geographic imbalances in the availability of cleaner, lower carbon fuel.
 Lowering of emissions compared to existing supply chains by utilizing rail to deliver fuel to the San Diego market.
 Increase the speed at which cleaner fuels can be delivered to the market.  Generate employment opportunities for National City and surrounding communities.  Develop underutilized and/or previously contaminated properties while minimizing conflicts with surrounding existing uses.
 Provide an appropriately sized facility that balances business performance while minimizing necessary truck trips.
 Locate the facility in an appropriately zoned property with direct access to Interstate 5 (I - 5).
 Provide infrastructure improvements to meet project needs and improve safety along the BNSF railroad.
 Provide additional firefighting capacity in the project area to address quick responses to hazards and emergencies.

The applicant’s proposed physical improvements for the project include:

 Construction of railway tracks and turnouts/crossovers to facilitate car movement in/out and within the transload facility.
 Installation of concrete slap pump pads at each transload spot.  Installation of truck load slabs sloped to drain in the center at each transload spot.  Installation of pumps and piping to move fuels from rail cars to truck loading spots.  Containment enclosures for additive totes.
 Concrete-lined containment basin and pipe each load slab drain to the basin.  Track pans for containment at the rail transloading cars.  A small office building with control center, restrooms, and driver check-in area.  All weather paving for the facility and circulation.
 Lighting, as needed.

The approximate throughput capacity of the proposed facility will be 13,800 barrels of fuel daily.

While the capacity of the facility was not initially stated by the applicant, there has been a reduction from what was originally proposed in 2023. Additionally, the proposal initially estimated 115 trucks per day would be entering the facility to transport fuel. However, the current proposal is for approximately 72 trucks daily. Therefore, the capacity of the project was reduced by more than a third during the environmental review process. The proposed circulation of the site is for trucks to enter from West 18 th Street and exit onto West 19 th Street. The site is in close proximity to I -5.

The general circulation pattern would be Civic Center Drive to Tidelands Avenue, West 19th Street to Cleveland Avenue and then West 18th Street into the site, returning the same way.

In addition to the transfer of fuel, the project includes measures to increase safety and preven t contamination from fuel spills. A 37,700 -gallon concrete containment basin is proposed to be constructed below the rail car unloading and truck loading area. The volume of the basin is 110 percent that of a rail car. An Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fluorine Free Firefighting platform and additional fire hydrants will also be installed on site for use in the event of a fire. A Facility Response Plan (FRP) will also be developed to prevent or address spills.

Alternative Fuels and Environmental Considerations
The proposed project is in response to the State of California’s commitment to improving air quality, reducing emissions from fossil fuels including greenhouse gases (GHG). Achieving State goals can help improve public health and reduce risks related to human-induced climate change.

The landmark state bill AB 32, or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, required California to reduce its GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020. Implementation of AB 32, and subsequent legislation, is primarily the responsibil ity of the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While zero-emission technology is highly desired, CARB also encourages interim measures to help reduce emissions from current levels. One of these measures is the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which encourages the use of alternative fuel types that can achieve lower emissions.

The applicant proposes to construct the fuel transfer facility to improve the delivery of these fuel types to the San Diego market while also reducing emissions within the supply c hain. The proposed fuel for distribution are biofuels, which include renewable diesel, biodiesel, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Renewable diesel and SAF can be produced with new or recycled vegetable oils, animal fats, greases, algae, as well as cro p residues or woody biomass.

Renewable diesel and SAF are also designated as a “drop -in” biofuel allowing them to fully replace petroleum-based fuels with zero modification to stage facilities or engines. Biodiesel is a renewable, biodegradable fuel manufa ctured domestically from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant grease. When used in diesel engines, renewable diesel can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80%. Renewable diesel and a blend of renewable diesel and up to 20% biodiesel can also be used to replace petroleum diesel with no changes to an engine.

With the ability to produce biofuels from a wide variety of sources, they are considered 100% sustainable, as opposed to petroleum-based fuels.

While there can be a net benefit from an increase in availability of biofuels in the San Diego region, the same assertion cannot be made for the City of National City, Westside communities, and nearby receptors in the MM zone. There have been multiple efforts within the City to improve the health of residents and reduce dangerous pollutants associated with industrial and light industrial uses. Previous actions include the passage of the Westside Specific Plan and Amortization Program, early adoption of a Health and Environmental Justice Element within the General Plan, designation of the AB 617 Portside Community and passage of the Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP), and adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Primarily due to, but not limited to, the project’s proposed utilization of diesel-powered truck trips for operations of the facility and the related impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and air quality, City staff requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project.

Analysis
The project was analyzed for impacts pertaining to CEQA in the attached EIR. Some of the more specific details in the EIR will not be discussed in this document, but instead the project will be analyzed as it pertains to existing plans and policies related to the proposed development.

General Plan
The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial (I). The project proposed is an industrial use. The proposal is also well below the floor area ratio of 2.0 intended for this designation. The General Plan is comprised of several “elements”, of which some have been recently updated through the Focused General Plan Update that was completed in 2024. Several policies from various elements of the General Plan pertain to this project, including:

Land Use (LU) Element
Policy LU-1.3 pertains to urban greening efforts, LU-4.2 encourages various pedestrian-scale urban design strategies, LU-4.4 pertains to the maintenance of sidewalks and bicycle routes, LU-5.3 encourages businesses to e mploy National City residents, LU 6.5 requires development to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable specific plans, LU-6.5 pertains to consistency tithe the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)

The Land Use Element of the General Plan has several policies related to new development. This project relates to public realm improvements regarding sidewalk maintenance, landscaping and other greening efforts, and consistency with various codes and policies as discussed in this report.

Conditions of approval ensure that pedestrian areas around the project will remain well-maintained and enhanced with appropriate landscaping elements and tree canopy. The project and associated right-of-way improvements at the railroad crossing at Civic Center Drive will enhance portions of the public realm and avoid conflict with bicycle routes, such as the Bayshore Bikeway. Consistency with the CAP and policies related to community enhancements such as LU -1.3 will be evaluated in subsequent sections of this report.

Transportation (T) Element
Policy T-3.6 relates to the enhanced transit services, Policy T-8.1 pertains to enhancements of infrastructure to facilitate timely movement of goods, particularly intermodal transfers, Policy T-8.4 pertains to the movement of goods by rail, Policy T-9.4 pertains to noise and pollution abatement associated with goods movement.

The project proposes to utilize existing rail to transfer fuel for delivery to retail outlets within the City and in the greater region. Elements of the project ensure that the delivery of fuel will be conducted in an efficient manner such as an improved rail crossing, operations at off-peak hours, and proximity to major truck routes. Truck movements will largely avoid residential properties and other areas with sensitive uses in the City. Policy T -3.6 is related to community enhancements, which will be discussed later in this report.

Safety (S) Element
Policy S-7.3 pertains to the ability to effectively respond to hazardous materials emergencies, S-8.1 pertains to the clean-up and reuse of contaminated sites.

The project proposes to reduce risk from fire hazards will be accomplished through the inclusion of a specialized firefighting platform and additional fire hydrants, as required by the National City Fire Department (NCFD). The project will be located on a vacant, under -utilized, and previously contaminated site, which is encouraged by policy S-8.1.

Noise and Nuisance (NN) Element
Policies NN-1.9, NN-1.10, NN-2.5, NN-3.1, NN-3.3, and NN-3.4 pertain to impacts related to noise levels and ground borne vibrations via construction, on -site activities, and off -site transportation. Policy NN-4.2 related to the reduction in offensive odors and other noxious substances.

Impacts related to noise and nuisance were evaluated for the proposed project in the EIR. Primarily, a Noise Analysis determined noise thresholds in the City’s Noise Ordinance would be met for activities related to the construction and operation of the proposed project. The project location has existing ambient noise levels from nearby freeway traffic and other industrial uses. Staff has proposed conditions of approval requiring adherence to truck routes in the City to prevent increases in traffic-related noises and a six-foot high, solid fence or wall to reduce the potential for noise impacts to adjacent and nearby properties.

The applicant asserts that offensive odors associated with fuels and additives mostly come from combustion, which is not related to the proposed on-site activities. Nuisance odors are also regulated and enforced by San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 51 (Public Nuisances). A Condition of Approval is recommended requiring adherence to SDAPCD regulations.

Open Space and Agriculture (OS) Element
Policies OS-1.1, OS-1.2, OS-1.4, OS-2.1, OS-2.2, OS-2.3, OS-2.5, and OS-2.7 pertain to the preservation of open spaces, habitat, biological resources, and environmentally sensitive areas. Policy OS-1-3 encourages the planting of native plants near open spaces. Policies OS-4.2 and OS-4.4 encourage the planting of street trees and promotes the planting of shade trees with substantial canopies. Policies OS-8.4 and OS-8.8 pertain to the preservation of historic and cultural resources.

The EIR analyzed the potential for project i mpacts to open spaces, biological resources, and environmentally sensitive areas in detail. Adherence to mitigation measures discussed in the report are included as a condition of approval. In addition, staff is recommending Conditions of Approval that require additional landscaping, including the planting of street trees that will enhance the urban tree canopy. Mitigation measures are also required for the monitoring of paleontological or other cultural resources in the event they are discovered during grading or construction.

The Initial Study checklist prepared for this project also identified a potential wetland feature on this site. However, staff has confirmed that the discussed feature no longer exists. This is further discussed in the EIR.

Conservation and Sustainability (CS) Element
Policy CS-1.1 pertains to the reduction of the urban heat island effect. Policy CS-1.2 pertains to the development of industries that benefit the environment. Policies CS-3.1 and CS-3.3 pertain to stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and low-impact development (LID) practices.

As previously discussed, staff is recommending a condition of approval for the project that would require enhanced street trees to support policy CS-1.1. The project proposes to transport clean fuels, which were discussed in the previous section of this report. The improved access to these alternative fuel types will have benefits for both the local economy and regional air quality. New construction projects are required to meet stormwater requirements and BMPs discussed in the conditions of approval from the Engineering Department.

Health and Environmental Justice (HEJ) Element
Policy HEJ-1.2, Policy HEJ-1.5, Policy HEJ-2.5, and HEJ-2.6

The HEJ was created to identify public heal th risk and environmental justice concerns and improve living conditions to foster the physical health and well-being of National City’s residents.

National City was an early adopter of this category of general plan element and the HEJ precedes the passage of SB 1000, which now requires this type of element for all general plans in the state.

At the time of the adoption of the HEJ, National City had some of the worst health outcomes in San Diego County, including high rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Both breathing disorders have correlation with poor air quality, which is caused by industrial pollution and vehicle emissions. The Westside of National City is particularly impacted by its close proximity to industrial areas wes t of I-5, port activities, Naval Base San Diego, and freeway traffic. In more recent years, studies have also identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a known carcinogen. This has furthered health concerns in areas with heavy truck traffic. Both the Westside and the industrial areas in the City have existing non-conforming uses, which means there are residential uses and sensitive receptors in close proximity to industrial operations, as well as polluting businesses in the middle of residential areas. While the proposed project is not located in a Specific Plan area, impacts to the Westside Specific Plan (WSP) area should also be considered.

Policy HEJ-1.2 states “consider environmental justice issues as they are related to potential health impacts associated with land use decisions, including enforcement action, to reduce the adverse health effects of hazardous materials, industrial activities, and other undesirable land uses on residents regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location.” In this instance, health concerns have been identified for communities in National City at both the local and state levels pertaining to new industrial uses and increased truck traffic.

However, the EIR that was prepared for the proposed project included a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that concluded that such impacts from the project specifically were less than significant.

The three primary assessments were cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and acute health hazards.

Cancer risk is calculated by exposure periods with 70-year (lifetime risk calculation) and 30-year (individual risk calculation) periods for residents and 25-year periods for workers. Health risks for residents were based on the nearest residential use, the McKinley Apartments at West 18th Street and McKinley Avenue. Findings from the assessment are found in Table 3.1.7 of the EIR, which shows activities from construction and operation of the proposed fuel transfer facility. Results show the project would n ot result in a significant contribution to cancer risk to this community.

Findings of significance were the same for chronic and acute health hazards, as shown in Table

3.1.8 of the EIR.

This policy encourages the City to consider actions to reduce potential health impacts. It is the opinion of staff that the policies related to the City’s updated CAP and the AB 617 Portside Community’s CERP are best suited to determine conformance with this HEJ policy, which are discussed below.

Policy HEJ-1.5 promotes the inclusion of potentially affected community residents in the decision- making process. The Planning Division has followed standard guidelines for both the environmental review process and the ongoing public hearing process. In addition, information on the project has been posted on the City website and staff had frequent email communications with interested parties. Both the applicant and the District 1 Councilmember, Luz Molina, have also worked to provide the public information and updates on the proposed project.

The project was initially submitted in 2023 with a draft Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by an environmental consultant. Planning staff posted these documents for a 30 -day public review period on the State Clearinghouse website beginning on June 2, 2023 in accordance to CEQA guidelines. Several comments were provided to the City during this period. After further discussions with the environmental consultant and modifications

to the draft MND, the City ultimately decided a more thorough review of the project was required and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was requested. While the review process was being worked on with the consultant, Councilmember Molina also invited City staff to provide information on the project at town hall meetings in September and October of 2023. The public documents from the original MND generated significant interest in the project even though no public hearings had been announced at the time.

The earliest meeting that was noticed to the general public was a scoping meeting for the Draft EIR held on May 23, 2024, which coincided with the posting of the revised Initial Study and Notice of Preparation on the State Clearinghouse website. The purpose of this meeting was to soli cit feedback on the scope of the review to be conducted for the Draft EIR. 27 comment cards were submitted by the public at this meeting as well as another 11 comment letters. Comments were summarized within the draft EIR.

The latest meeting with the general public was a Community Open House held August 14, 2024.

This meeting was prompted by the applicant and their desire to have more community engagement in advance of any public hearings. Once again, Councilmember Molina collaborated with this event since the project is proposed within District 1.

Staff has been in regular communication with other agencies, organizations such as the Environmental Health Coalition, and interested residents throughout the review process. In particular, the public has been concerned with the timing of public hearings as staff worked with the environmental consultant and applicant to complete revisions to the draft documents. At the same time, the applicant has also had numerous meetings with City leaders and organizations regarding this project. The first public hearing was ultimately noticed for the Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2025. However, the item was pulled due to significant concerns presented in a public comment by the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

The topic of environmental justice was one of the concerns of the CCC, which stated in its letter that they were recommending “a more thorough analysis of environmental justice impacts and improved outreach for this project”. As summarized, outreach for this project has been consistent with the City’s policy HEJ-1.5, although not always through the Planning Division, in that residents have been provided with consistent access to information regarding the project and how to participate in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the primary forum for public participation is the public hearing for which this report has been drafted. The project is also potentially subject to an appeal to the California Coastal Commission after the City Council has taken action.

Policy HEJ -2.5 encourages the protection of existing sensitive land uses through feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/clears, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impact s from air pollution.

While this policy discusses existing land uses, it also speaks to the importance of setbacks, landscaping, and other measures that can be utilized by a new project.

Policy HEJ-2.6, similarly to HEJ -1.2, requires to City to consider air quality impacts, including cumulative impacts, from existing and new development when making land use decisions and limit the number of industrial facilities or uses to prevent cumulative air pollution impacts. While the EIR includes findings that the proposed project will not result in significant health impacts, it cannot be ruled out that the operations and truck traffic associated with the proposed fuel transfer facility will not contribute to cumulative impacts resulting from existing and new indus trial developments within the City. Once again, the CAP and CERP are the best mechanisms by which to evaluate this proposal.

Local Coastal Program (LCP)

The LCP is comprised of two sections: the Implementation Plan and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan was recently updated in 2023 and certified by the CCC in March of this year. However, the Implementation Plan update, which is currently underway, is yet to be approved.

The Implementation Plan of the LCP discusses permit jurisdiction, applicability of CDPs, required findings, and applicable development standards. The proposed project is located within the City’s adopted exclusion area, where new development is generally exempt from a CDP. However, the need for a discretionary permit (e.g., CUP) triggers the need for a CDP. The Implementation section also requires that new development provide coastal access, where required, and to not impede coastal access. The site is in the middle of the City’s industrial area and does not require, or have the possibility to interfere with, access to coastal areas. Applicable development standards in the current adopted LCP reference Municipal Code sections related to new structures, uses, parking, landscaping, etc. Since these references pertain to the previous version of the LUC, development standards that would be considered defunct in the rest of the City remain in effect. Conformance with these standards are discussed in the following section. The two required findings of approval for CDPs are as follows:

 That granting said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City.
 That the granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with an implements the Certified Local Coastal Program.

The Land Use Plan of the LCP provides both policy recommendations and a land use plan map.

Significant concerns for this plan include coastal access, preservation of habitat areas, supportive land uses, and coastal hazards. In addition, the Land Use Plan requires that development in the CZ adhere to policies found in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The industrial section of the CZ is largely regulated by the existing development standards in the LUC for the manufacturing zones. These standards are relied upon to ensure that new development is visually appropriate. In addition, there is a policy stating that new development should consider proximity to the Bayshore Bikeway for the purposes of maximizing the recreational potential of the area. The project proponents h ave coordinated with City staff to ensure the upgraded rail crossings at Civic Center Drive will not interfere with improvements to this bikeway.

The City’s LCP mostly relies upon the previous LUC to regulate industrial uses to ensure they do not cause nuisances, both through the CUP approval process and through adherence to existing development standards. Other than additional policies noted in this section, the project’s conformance with the two required findings for approval of a CDP are analyzed in other sections of this report.

California Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act
The proposed project requires the approval of a CDP and is therefore subject to the Coastal Act and appeal procedures of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Though the City retains permit jurisdiction, projects with certain characteristics remain appealable to the CCC. In this instance, the project is considered a “major energy facility” and can be appealed to the CCC within 10 working days of a final local action notice. Final action is not taken until the project is approved or denied by the City Council by consent or at a public hearing.

Policies of the City’s LCP are inclusive of more general policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. In some instances, the LCP adds more specificity. Overall policies in the Coastal Act address public access, recreation, the marine environment, land resources, and development. The LCP included City-specific policies on public access, recreation, marsh preservation, visual resources, industrial development, and environmental hazards.

The project is located within the middle of the City’s existing and zoned industrial properties. Both the project site and all adjacent properties are zoned Medium Manufacturing (MM). The nearest recreational amenities are more than 1,500 feet to the south of the site and access to San Diego Bay to the west is largely restricted by Naval Base San Diego and Port of San Diego properties. While both the LCP and Coastal Act have polices related to public access, it is not required for this project or impeded by this project. No facilities related to coastal access are provided or needed.

Chapter IV of the LCP and Sections 30220 through 30224 of the Coastal Act have specific polices related to recreation. As previously mentioned, the subject site is in an industrialized area and the Land Use Plan for the LCP encourages the provision of recreational opportunities in other areas of the City’s CZ.

The marine environment, land resources, and marshes are largely u naffected by the proposed development. The project location is not adjacent to any marine resources and there are no known land resources such as habitat, agricultural land, or archaeological or paleontological resources. The project proposes a new development in an existing industrial area. Storm Water Best Management Practices will be required by the Engineering Department, which will ensure that nearby waterways, including the bay and marsh, are protected from pollutants. Mitigation requirements will be in place to protect archaeological or paleontological resources should they be present during construction activities.

The Coastal Act and Chapter VI of the LCP calls for the protection of the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas. The proposed new development will improve visual quality of the area by cleaning up a blighted property. Screening fences/walls will also be required to reduce the visibility of the transfer station in a reasonable manner.

Wetland
In a comment letter provided by the CCC on June 2, 2025, it was stated that the project site includes at least one single-parameter wetland. Wetlands in coastal areas can be designated by the presence of just one indicator. A wetland on the project site would have resulted in the following: the presence would establish appeal jurisdiction with the CCC for the project, the project would become infeasible due to buffering requirements found in the LCP, and t he EIR would have needed to discuss justifications for the fill of the wetland and mitigation measures. As discussed earlier, the project is already appealable to the CCC since it includes a proposed “major energy facility”.

An Aquatic Resources Delineation was completed for the proposed project in July of 2022, which is included as Appendix D of the Draft EIR. This study discussed “Feature 3”, which was a depressional feature indicated by aerial imagery and site visits. Dried algal mats were present, but the EIR described this feature as “an isolated puddle.” Staff visited the site on January 30, 2025 and the depression was no longer present. Soil remediation activities have been occurring on the northern portion of the site due to the presence of pollutants from the neighboring metal recycling facility and heavy earth-moving equipment is presumed to have altered the ground level since the original survey of the depression was conducted. Due to concerns from the CCC, the environmental consultant conducted an additional field survey and assessment of “Feature 3” on July 31, 2025 and concluded the feature is no longer present on site and the “location met neither vegetation, soils, or hydrologic parameters of being a wetland under its current condition.”

Environmental Justice
The CCC also expressed concerns about the analysis of the project’s environmental justice impacts.

An Environmental Justice Policy was adopted by the CCC in 2019 that includes, among other statements, the following: The Commission will use its legal authority to ensure equitable access to clean, healthy, and accessible coastal environments for communities that have been disproportionately overburdened by pollution or with natural resources that have been subjected to

permanent damage for the benefit of wealthier communities. Coastal development should be inclusive for all who work, live, and recreate on California’s coast and provide equitable benefits for communities that have historically been excluded, marginalized, or harmed by coastal development.

Staff’s analysis of this project largely addresses environmental justice concerns through the City’s Health and Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan, the updated Climate Action Plan, and the AB 617 Portside Community’s Community Emissions Reduction Plan. These documents are supportive of the CCC’s policy and staff has modified this report for clarity.

Coastal Hazards
Chapter VIII of the Land Use Plan discusses environmental hazards, as required by Section 30253 of the Coastal Act. This chapter includes several policies related to the specific hazard of sea level rise (SLR), which require additional discussion due to the location of the proposed project. The following are relevant sections of the Coastal Act that should be taken into consideration as they relate to SLR:

Section 30235 of the Coastal Act states:

Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible.

Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states:

New development shall do all of the following:
a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs

Section 30270 of the Coastal Act states:

The commission shall take into account the effects of sea level rise in c oastal resources planning and management policies and activities in order to identify, assess, and, to the extent feasible, avoid and mitigate the adverse effects of sea level rise.

The project location is more than 1,500 feet from the shoreline of San Diego Bay, which is mostly occupied by Naval Base San Diego and the Port of San Diego within National City. The proposed improvements for the fuel transfer facility do not include any shoreline protection devices due to the project location. It is unknown if, at any time during the life of the proposed project, nearby facilities would pursue or implement any modification of the coastline that could alter the possibility of hazards effecting the subject site.

Based on information provided by the applicant, the project’s design life is 30 years. The statewide SLR guidance for critical infrastructure recommends taking a precautionary approach by considering and planning for higher-end SLR scenarios and long-term (e.g., 100-year) planning horizons. In the past century, the average global temperature has increased by about 1.1°C, and global sea levels have increased by 7 to 8 inches (17 to 21 cm). In addition, SLR has been accelerating in recent decades, with the global rate of SLR tripling since 1971 (IPCC, 2021). There is strong scientific consensus that SLR will continue over the coming millennia regardless of future human actions, but

the exact rate and amount will depend on the amount of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as the exact contribution from sources such as the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which are areas of continuing research. While planning coastal development under this uncertainty presents challenges, it is widely documented that underestimating SLR could result in costly damages and adverse outcomes to coastal resources. Planning and development decisions on the California coast must, therefore, be appropriately precautionary and made with the full understanding that SLR will change coastal landscapes and hazard conditions. Not only will siting and design decisions regarding proposed coastal development influence the future safety of the development and overall resiliency of the California coast, but such decisions will also affect the way that coastal resources protected under the Coastal Act respond to changing sea levels over time.

Currently, the best available science on SLR projections in California is provided in the State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance (OPC 2024). The state guidance adopts the same framework and approach used by the Federal government and provides five sea level rise scenarios that have been regionalized for California-specific use. The state guidance also includes a decision framework to guide selection of appropriate sea level scenarios, primarily recom mending evaluation of the intermediate, intermediate-high, and/or high scenarios depending on the context of the planning effort/project. This information is reflected in the Coastal Commission’s Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance (CCC 2024). The table below shows the sea level rise scenarios for the San Diego tide gauge, the closest tide gauge to the project site.

The existing elevation throughout the Project Site ranges from approximately 8 to 13 feet above mean sea level. Based on CoSMoS, as shown on the Our Coast Our Future Hazards Map, the project site could begin to experience flooding impacts starting with 2.5 feet of SLR combined with a 100-year storm. Starting with 4.1 feet of SLR, portions of the site may be flooded under normal, non- storm conditions. Based on the same mapping, the main pathway for flooding appears to be from the 7th Street Channel to the north, such that the northern portions of the project site would be impacted sooner/with less SLR. With increasing SLR (or with increasing SLR plus storm conditions), more portions of the project site could be flooded. CoSMoS/OCOF also provides information on groundwater changes resulting from sea level rise. The project site is already in an area with a

shallow groundwater table, and SLR could result in an emergent groundwater table (i.e., groundwater flooding) in portions of the project site with 2.5 feet of SLR.

As the table above shows, 2.0 to 3.0 feet of SLR could occur somewhere between 2060 and 2070 under the High scenario, or closer to 2090 (or later) under the more likely Intermediate Scenario.

Similarly, 4.1 feet of SLR could occur as soon as 2080 under the High Scenario, or after 2110 under the Intermediate Scenario. As noted above, the Project lifetime is expected to be 30 years, but could have a potential useful life of up to 100 years.

It should be noted that the proposed project is largely influenced by State policies in place or under consideration. The Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations are proposed by CARB to accelerate a large- scale transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and works in conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, the Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Regulation to meet statewide air pollution reduction g oals including economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. The Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations was adopted by CARB in April 2023; however, the Office of Administrative Law has not yet approved the regulation.

The Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations are a set of rules proposed by the CARB to ban the sale of internal-combustion passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2035 and require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) starting from the 2026 model year. The regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on November 22, 2022 and effective the same day.

The purposes of the regulations are to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector and are aligned with Governor Newsom’s 2020 Executive Order N -79-20.

Given the aggressive schedule to comply with CARB’s ZEV program and ultimately phase out all internal combustion trucks and cars with ZEVs, it is reasonable to assume that the Project lifetime would not be 100 years.

As such, it appears as though the project site and the proposed development would not be exposed to hazards over the anticipated 30-year lifetime, but could start to be exposed to flooding soon after under a high scenario. Even under the High Scenario though, initial risks to proposed development may not be significant. As identified above, initial flooding impacts would occur as a result of 2.5ft of SLR combined with a 100-year storm. Thus, flooding would be a rare, short-duration event rather than a routine, prolonged condition. Moreover, these earliest impacts would be primarily confined to the northern portion of the project site (north of W. 16th Street). This portion of the project site would only include construction of railroad tracks, which would likely be able to withstand occasional storm flooding impacts.

Additionally, some project design features incorporated into the Project already take into account SLR adaptation strategies, including the relocation and elevation of utility infrastructure and placement of the fuel transload facilities and equipment to areas outside of the risk for coastal flooding conditi ons. Specifically, fuel transload facilities and equipment and other proposed development are primarily located on the eastern portions of the project site, which would not be exposed to flood impacts under 2.5 feet of SLR (even with a 100-year storm).

Overall, the proposed development will adequately minimize risks associated with flooding, including as exacerbated by sea level rise, over the proposed 30-year anticipated lifetime. However, coastal hazards risks would increase in the following years with additional sea level rise. As such, it is appropriate to limit the authorization of the proposed development to 30 years and to require the development of a coastal hazards adaptation and implementation plan by the end of that time horizon that identifies any strategies necessary for protecting, relocating, or otherwise adapting the development authorized by the CDP as necessary to maintain safety from flooding and other coastal hazards. Special conditions of approval related to coastal hazards are included in the draft resolution.

Land Use Code (LUC)
As discussed in the preceding section, the project is located in a section of the CZ where the City retains permit jurisdiction and the development standards applied to the proposed development are contained within the previous version of the LUC. The project is located within the MM zone, which is regulated by Chapter 18.18 of the previous LUC. Land uses in the previous code are listed as permitted or permitted with a CUP under “use groups” that organize similar land uses into broader categories. Use Group 23 – Medium Manufacturing, which is allowed in the MM zone, permits the storage and distribution of oil-based products with the approval of a CUP.

The proposal has also been reviewed for conformance with applicable design regulations. The site is sufficient in size for the proposed use and meets the minimum required lot area and frontage. The proposed development adheres to all required minimum setbacks. The office for the facility is proposed to be a small, 512 square-foot pre-manufactured structure. Per the conditions of approval, this structure will need to be reviewed and permitted by the Building Division as a permanent structure. The proposed elevations of the office do not meet the minimum aesthetic standards of Section 18.18.240 of the (previous) Land Use Code and will need to be upgraded with additional exterior materials when plans are submitted for permits. Since the use primarily takes place using industrial equipment outdoors, the project is well below both the maximum height and floor area ratio.

As previously discussed, staff is recommending increased screening since most on-site activities will take place outside of an enclosed structure.

The applicant is proposing five parking spaces on site with at least one ADA van accessible space and one EV -ready space. Parking is not required per State law AB 2097, due to the project’s proximity to the 24th Street Trolley Station. Most of the area surrounding the fuel transfer facility is open, paved surface to maximize the maneuverability of trucks and fire access. Landscaping is required for setback areas in the MM zone and the site provides approximately 8 to 12 feet of landscaping along the West 18th and 19th Street frontages and the adjacent alley, where only four feet would be required for front and exterior side yard setbacks. No landscaping is currently proposed for the four-foot setback on the west side of West 18th Street. Planning staff will need to consult with the applicant and the Engineering Department during permitting on the feasibility of adding landscaping in this location. Other general design regulations required by the (previous) LUC are related to outdoor lighting, the screening of mechanical equipment, and trash and recycling.

Conditions of Approval are included in the draft resolution ensuring conformance with these additional sections.

A Note on Non-Conforming Land Uses
The proposed project is a new construction fuel transfer facility on a site zoned for medium intensity manufacturing uses. The storage and distribution of fuel is permitted in the MM zone with approval of a CUP. In National City, many industrial uses are close to sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and day care facilities. This proximity exacerbates air quality and health issues within the City and the proposed fuel transfer facility raises concerns about increased cumulative impacts.

However, incompatible land uses are largely the result of land use decisions in the past and most of the examples in the City would not currently be permitted. Today, there are several residential properties within industrial zone districts, including the McKinley Apartments. Should any of these residential properties be redeveloped, they would not be allowed to remain residential. Similarly, the Westside Specific Plan Area of the City is home to dozens of nonconforming commercial and industrial properties. The Westside Specific Plan was created to help resolve the most egregious examples of land use incompatibility within the City and includes stricter requirements on non - conforming land uses. Air quality issues within this portion of the City should decrease over time as incompatible businesses cease operation. An amortization program exists in the City to help expedite this process and so far two nonconforming businesses have been amortized. However, this program

requires dedicated funding and staff to implement, and no new businesses have been amortized in recent years.

Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City’s first CAP was first adopted in 2011 to align with State goals related to the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As of 2018, the City had only achieved 40% of the reduction goal for 2020. In 2023, the Climate Action Plan Update (subsequently referred to as CAP) was adopted with renewed goals and an updated emissions inventory. New goals are to reduce GHG from 2018 baseline levels 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 in alignment is current Statewide targets. The proposed project w ill result in a release of approximately 282 metric tons/year of GHG during construction activities and approximately 1,633 metric tons/year from operations of the fuel transfer facility. Almost all emissions from the facility will be from mobile sources ( truck and rail). The amount of GHG emissions anticipated by the facility is below the threshold to be considered significant for a singular project in accordance with the methodologies recommended in the CAP. The project will also deliver a higher volume o f cleaner diesel fuels to the market, which can significantly reduce GHG from emissions (up to 70% from standard diesel fuels) regionally. An estimate of the project’s overall contribution to GHG reductions has not been provided. For the purposes of this report, the project will be evaluated based on specific strategies in the CAP.

As discussed above, the project is not considered significant for the purposes of GHG emissions.

Thresholds are discussed in detail in the attached EIR. However, it should be noted that industrial developments, such as the proposed project were incorporated into the GHG analysis used to develop the CAP based on existing General Plan land use categories. The project does not exceed the intensity of use for the types of development permitted on the subject site and that was analyzed and evaluated in the CAP and the General Plan. Due to the anticipated emissions from this project, while not considered significant, opportunities to incorporate CAP strategies should be greatly encouraged for this project. The EIR includes Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 to ensure consistency with the strategies that have been identified as applicable to the project. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR are included as conditions of approval in th e draft resolution. In addition, there are other strategies in the CAP that are outside the scope of this project that will be discussed below.

Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP)
State Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) was passed in 2017 and led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to create a new community-focused and community-driven action to reduce air pollution and improve public health in communities that experience disproportionate burdens from exposures to air pollutants. San Diego Air Polluti on Control District (SDAPCD) nominated the Portside Community for the AB 617 program, which is comprised of the neighborhoods of Barrio Logan, Logan Heights, and Sherman Heights in the City of San Diego and West National City within the City of National Ci ty. At the time, the State’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool was used to evaluate the communities most vulnerable to the effects of pollution based on environmental, health, and socioeconomic data for AB 617. All census tracts for the Portside Community ranked at or above the 85th percentile for vulnerability using this tool.

The most recent version of this tool, version 4.0, continues to indicate a very high pollution burden within these communities. As discussed earlier, pollution and poor air quality in National City and the adjacent San Diego neighborhoods are the result of mobile sources such as heavy truck traffic serving the port and along I -5 as well as stationary sources such as heavy industries. Harbor vehicles and activities at Naval Base San Diego also contribute. DPM, a known carcinogen, is an acute concern due to the wide variety of diesel-powered vehicles and equipment operated within and near the Portside Community. The census tract within National City experiences DPM exposure that is greater than 91% of the census tracts in the state. As a result, measurable health

impacts such as the number of residents suffering from asthma far exceed other communities.

The Portside Community is also disadvantaged economically with significantly higher rates of poverty and households that are cost-burdened with housing. Residents, are therefore, less likely to have the resources to pay additional costs associated with health problems, move to areas with less pollution exposure, or upgrade their residences with high quality air filters or other improvements that could improve their quality of life.

AB 617 was intended to be a community-driven program and the SDAPCD assisted with a robust community outreach and engagement initiative to help the Portside Community with the development a Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP). Th e plan was adopted in 2021.

As a member of the Steering Committee, the City of National City participated in the adoption of this plan. The LCP Implementation Plan requires for the granting of a CDP that the permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City. Although the CERP is not an official plan of the City, staff strongly encourages the consideration of this plan in determining the Project’s consistency due to the City’s direct participation in the CERP’s adoption.

As stated in the EIR, most of the action items associated with the CERP strategies direct agencies such as SANDAG, SDAPCD, and local cities to develop and implement the outlined strategies.

The document presents a pathway to reduced air pollution in the Portside Community, but some of the specific programs or projects necessary to do so still need to be worked out. Of the more concrete action items in the CERP, the EIR identifies adherence to truck routes as applicable to the fuel transfer facility pro ject. A recommended Condition of Approval for this Project requires the applicant to provide an operations plan that identifies the truck routes all trucks servicing the facility are required to utilize.

Notable goals of the CERP include a reduction in DPM levels to 80% of baseline levels from 2018 by 2031 and 100% zero emissions vehicles for medium and heavy -duty trucks five years ahead of State requirements (currently 2045). The City of National City is identified in the CERP under the implementation responsibility of encourage prioritization of deployment of ZEVs. National City currently contributes funding to the operation of the Free Ride Around National City (FRANC) Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) on-demand shuttle service. National City’s most significant contribution to the CERP to date has been the continued planning and implementation of important active transportation projects.

While the proposed project can be found in conformance with the CERP based on the action and strategies listed in th e plan, it is also in conflict with the overall goals of the plan to reduce air pollution and improve health outcomes. 72 additional heavy -duty, diesel-powered trucks will be traversing the Portside Community should this project be approved in addition to emissions related to the on-site operations and movement of rail cars. While not significant according to the evaluation in the EIR, the project does contribute to an increase in emissions while the CERP was created with the intention to decrease emissions over time. Staff concludes that, despite the findings of insignificant impacts by the EIR, the proposed project is nevertheless not fully consistent with all plans the project would be subject to, based on the overall goals of the CERP.

Uniquely for this project, there is also a conflict between two state laws that National City must contend with. While the project does not fully meet the aspirational goals of the CERP, it does help to achieve the goals of AB 32 through the LCFS program, as discussed under the “Alternative Fuels and Environmental Considerations” heading under the “Proposed Use” section above.

Other Considerations
As stated in the beginning of this staff report, the staff recommendation is the approval of this project subject to the Condi tions of Approval in the attached draft resolution. However, this recommendation is not fully based on the analysis above, which identifies concerns with the project’s consistency with the CERP, but also voluntary commitments made by the project

applicant to provide community benefits. The project proponent, in addition to the construction and operation of the fuel transfer facility, has agreed to enter into an economic benefit agreement with the City of National City in the amount of $200,000 per year for the life of the project. This is included in the draft resolution as a Condition of Approval. Should these funds be added to the City’s General Fund, they could potentially be spent on pensions, new hires, office supplies, or other resources related to the day-to-day operations of a municipality. However, staff is recommending that the applicant’s proposed economic benefit be directly used to implement strategies aimed at the reduction of emissions and the improving the quality of life within neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed facility. General Plan policies and programs related to urban greening, enhanced transit options, development of pedestrian and bike networks could all be funded or implemented using the economic benefit. As an example, the FRANC could receive consistent funding for the life of the proposed project to ensure continued operations, or even an expansion of the program. Another possibility would be funding the City’s amortization program, which would allow for an accelerated time line for the discontinuance of polluting business operating next door to residences in the Westside. Both programs are related to and further the goals of the CAP and the CERP.

Mailing
All property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property are required to be notified of a public hearing for CUP and CDP applications. Notice of this public hearing was sent to 122 occupants and owners.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 5.1 of the attached FEIR discusses the findings that, with the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, impacts from the construction and/or operation of the proposed project would be reduced to below the level of significance or eliminated. Mitigation measures are included as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All mitigation measures have also been included as separate Conditions of Approval in the draft resolution. Potential significant impacts from the project that were identified include the following:

Biological Resources
 Substantial Adverse Effect on any Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species o Direct impacts to Nuttall’s Acmispon (Acmispon Prostratus), a special status plant species, may occur as a result of the proposed project due to ground-disturbing and vegetation removal activities in the project area.
o There is a low likelihood of ospreys nesting within the project area or buffer of the project area, which use the nearby bay for foraging. Project activities could cause indirect impacts while under development.
o Palm trees within the project area may provide roosting habitats for bat species including the western yellow bat, a species of special concern. Direct impacts could result from ground-disturbing and vegetative removal activities. o The vegetation within the proposed project and infrastructure adjacent to the project area could provide nesting habitat for nesting birds and raptors and also provide foraging habitat for songbird and raptor species. Ground -disturbing construction activities could directly affect protected birds and their nests through the removal of habitat on the proposed project, and indirectly through increased noise, ground vibrations, and increased human activity.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulat ion for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o At the time of submittal of the proposed project, the City’s CAP Update had not been completed. The project would need to incorporate all applicable actions from this

adopted plan to demonstrate consistency with th e City’s climate action planning efforts.

Tribal Cultural Resources
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object of cultural value to a California Native American tribe o A small area located in the southeastern portion of the project area is mapped as young alluvial floodplain deposits dating from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene.

The Holocene surface sediments are consistent with the strata that precontact archeological deposits have been previously identified and documented in the region.

Due to the presence of sediments contemporaneous with human occupation of the region and the presence of previously recorded precontact resources in the surrounding area and within the project area, the potential for subsurface resources in previously undisturbed soils is considered moderate. Therefore, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to result in the discovery of, or inadvertent damage to, archaeological contexts.

The proposed mitigation measures include salvage of rare plants, pre-construction survey for nesting birds, compliance with tree-trimming procedures to ensure protection for roosting bats, compliance with specific GHG-reducing measures identified in the City’s CAP Update, and archaeological and Native American monitoring during construction activities.

Environmental Review Process
The applicant was advised by staff during preliminary application discussions that an Initial Study (IS) checklist would be required for the project submittal. Air quality was an early concern due to the number of diesel-powered trucks that would be serving the site. The project proposal originally called for 115 trucks entering the site daily, which was later reduced to 72. A completed IS was submitted along with a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The IS screened out the following resources that the project would have either a Less than Significant or No Impact finding: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife. Due to the heavily urbanized nature of the City, potential impacts from most projects are likely to be narrow in scope.

In accordance with CEQA procedures, the draft MND documents were posted for public review and comment for 30 days beginning on June 2, 2023. Several comments were submitted including letters from San Diego Air Pollution Control Board (SDAPCD), the CCC, CAR B, Caltrans, and the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC). Staff worked with the environmental consultant to address these comments in the draft MND, but ultimately it was decided that an EIR would be needed for the project with specific concerns about air quality, GHG emissions, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

As part of the review process and comment period for the EIR, the document was reviewed both internally and externally. Internal City reviews were done by the Planning Division and the City Attorney’s office. The EIR was also routed for external professional review by a neutral third party, who provided feedback and comment on the draft EIR. All comments were considered and addressed in the Final EIR document.

A scoping meeting was held for the DEIR on May 23, 2024 along with a 30-day comment period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and IS. At the scoping meeting 27 comment cards were submitted along with 11 comment letters from the comment period. These comments are summarized in the DEIR. The areas of controversy, or primary issued raised, were in regard to air quality, GHG

emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation. The areas of biological resources, energy, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources w ere also evaluated for potential environmental effects from the proposed project. The EIR also analyzed project alternatives including a no project alternative, a reduced intensity alternative, and an offsite location alternative.

The DEIR was published o n December 6, 2024, and had a 54 -day public review and comment period. An extended review period was provided due to the overlap with the City’s two-week holiday furlough. With the mitigation measures discussed above, the EIR determined that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on the resources discussed in the report. In the analysis of project alternatives, the reduced intensity alternative was considered to be environmentally superior because it would decrease the m agnitude of impacts. However, this alternative would not meet project objectives and the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. During the review period, seven comments letters were received. No subsequent changes were made to the EIR. Responses to the comment letters can be found in the FEIR.

Environmental Summary
Through an extensive review process conducted under CEQA, the proposed project has not been found to result in any significant environmental impacts with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. The EIR was prepared by an environmental professional and staff concurs with the findings in the report and supporting documents. While the Planning Commission voted to certify the EIR at a public hearing on September 15, 2025, due to the appeal of the project denial, the City Council will be required to take action on the EIR. The draft resolution to certify the Final EIR is attached as Exhibit H and includes the same findings as the resolutio n adopted by the Planning Commission.

Recommended Findings for the CUP and CDP should City Council Approve the Appeal

Required Findings for Approval
The (previous) Municipal Code contains four required findings for CUPs:

1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape: The project is proposed for an approximately 7.5-acre site comprised of railroad right-of-way and adjacent property owned by BNSF railway. While the site exceeds the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for the Medium Manufacturing (MM) zone, only one small office structure is proposed with the majority of the site being occupied by new railways, pumping equipment to transfer fuel, and an appropriately-size paved service to allow for the ingress and egress of trucks. All proposed improvements adhere to minimum setback and site design requirements.

2. The site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use: The project location is on the west side of the City where adequate truck routes exist along Bay Marina Drive, Civic Center Drive, and Tidelands Avenue. Interstate 5 is directly accessible from these streets. In addition, the site has access from West 18th and West 19th Streets for ingress and egress of truck traffic. As a condition of approval, the West 18th Street right-of- way is required to be improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A traffic impact study was completed for the proposed project and the trip generation of the proposed use was determined to be minimal.

3. The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties: The proposed project is an industrial use consistent with the Medium Manufacturing (MM) zone description in the General Plan and will be subject to conditions of approval that ensure safe operation of the facility. Adjacent and abutting properties are occupied by similar industrial and manufacturing uses. As a condition of approval, the project is required to include a

screening wall or fence and enhanced landscaping to reduce visual impacts. The project is also required to conform to all development standards and design guidelines of the MM zone, as well as all the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program developed for this Project and incorporated as conditions in the CUP.

4. The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare:

The project proposes to further advance State goals to reduce the carbon-based emissions in the transportation sector. The proposed fuel transfer facility will bring approximately 13,800 barrels of biofuels to the regional market daily. Renewable biofuels can contribute to up to an 80% decrease in emissions from standard diesel fuel. The public will benefit from access to a cleaner-burning fuel as well as increased air quality and a reduction of GHG emissions.

The use is consistent with the MM zone description, which is intended for uses in areas in which activities involve some degree of noise, vibration, air pollution, radiation, glare phenomena, and/or fire and explosive hazards. In addition, the project proponent will enter into an economic benefit agreement with the City that will generate funds for the purpose of reducing emissions and improving the quality of life for residents.

In addition, projects in the Coastal Zone require two conditions related to CDPs:

1. The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City: The proposed use is permitted, subject to a CUP, by the Land Use Code, which is consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in the staff report, several policies in the Land Use, Transportation, Safety, Noise and Nuisance, Open Space and Agriculture, and Conservation and Sustainability Elements of the General Plan are being met by the project. The project, subject to the condition of approval related to the establishment of an economic development agreement, is consistent with the policies of the Health and Environmental Justice Element because the additional funds can be used for the implementation of policies and programs to reduce emissions and improve the welfare of residents in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed economic benefit can also be used to further the goals of the AB 617 Portside Community’s Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP). The project, subject to th e approved mitigation measures requiring conformance with specific Climate Action Plan (CAP) policies, is also consistent with the CAP Update.

2. The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with and implements the Certified Local Coastal Program: The project is located in an area generally exempt from a Coastal Development Permit; involves a fuel storage and distribution use, which is conditionally allowed in the MM zone; and will not prohibit coastal access or obstruct views.

Department Comments and Conditions of Approval
Comments were received from the Building Division, Engineering Department, and Fire Department. The Building Division provided a standard comment related to conformance with applicable codes, which is included as a condition of approval. The Engineering Department provided standard requirements related to new developments and grading. Comments also addressed required right-of-way improvements for the proposed project, which are included as conditions of approval. The Fire Department provided comments related to required access and the design of fire -suppression equipment. Specialized equipment in the event of fire is also required due the presence of hazardous materials at the proposed facility. The Planning Division has also included comments related to development standards and design requirements for new developments in the MM zone. Additional conditions are related to compliance with the mitigation measures required by the EIR, the project proponent’s economic bene fit agreement, and operational standards for the proposed facility. All comments have been incorporated as

conditions of approval as well as general conditions related to CUPs and CDPs and can be found in the attached draft resolution for approval.

Summary
The proposed project is a fuel transfer facility to be located on and adjacent to an existing BNSF railway that will help bring clean, renewable biofuels to the San Diego market. The project was evaluated for potential environmental impacts in the attached EIR and impacts were found to be less than significant with incorporation of the proposed fully enforceable mitigation measures. While the project will introduce new emissions from rail activity and up to 72 diesel-powered trucks entering the site daily, the emissions do not exceed applicable thresholds and can potentially be offset by other implementation measures identified in the City’s General Plan, CAP Update, and the AB 617 Portside Community CERP. The project proponent will be required to enter into an economic benefit agreement that could fund programs such as amortization or the Free Ride Around National City (FRANC).

Options for Certification of the EIR

1. Certify that the Final EIR for the Proposed Project has been completed and processe d in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; the City Council, as the decision-making body for the City, reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Proposed Project; and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis, based on findings included in the Resolution, or findings to be determined by the City Council; or

2. Find that the Final EIR for the Proposed Project has not been completed and processed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA ba sed on findings to be determined by the City Council; or

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

Options for the Appeal

1. Approve the appeal, reversing the Planning Commission decision, thereby approving 2023-03 CUP, CDP , subject to the conditions listed within the resolution to approve or modified conditions, and based on the findings listed in the resolution to approve , or findings to be determined by the City Council; or

2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Pl anning Commission decision to deny 2023-03 CUP, CDP based on the Planning Commission findings as listed in the resolution to deny, or findings to be determined by the City Council; or

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

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:

Application fees in the amount of $5,602.50 was paid with the submittal of the subject CUP and CDP and costs associated with the preparation and review of supporting environmental documents were paid by the applicant at cost . An appeal fee of $1,500 was also paid by the applicant. Fees are anticipated to cover the cost of staff review time and processing of the permit.

RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

Balanced Budget and Economic Development

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

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

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

The Agenda Report was posted at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act

ORDINANCE:

Not Applicable

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Overhead Map
Exhibit B – PC Resolution No. 2025-13
Exhibit C – PC Resolution No. 2025-14
Exhibit D – PC Public Comments
Exhibit E – Appeal Request Letter
Exhibit F – Exhibit A to the PC Report – Plans
Exhibit G – PowerPoint Slides from PC meeting
Exhibit H – Final EIR without Appendices –
Link to view the Appendices and Studies:
https://fc.nationalcityca.gov/url/FINALEIRSDCLEANFIELDSLLC Exhibit I – Resolution – CERTIFY EIR
Exhibit J – Resolution – AFFIRM APPEAL
Exhibit K – Resolution – DENY APPEAL

EXHIBIT A

2023-03 CUP, CDP, IS – Project Area – Overhead

N

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

From: Ted Godshalk
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Ted Godshalk
Subject: Comment for Item #3 for the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 2025 from Mr. Ted Godshalk Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:45:47 PM
Attachments: 90.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00063.htm
Untitled.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00066.htm
Detail-Pump-Over-Soybeans-Shutterstock.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00069.htm
Comments Regardng Scope of Draft EIR.doc
Untitled attachment 00072.htm
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Comment for Item #3 for the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 2025 from Mr.

Ted Godshalk:

Commissioners,
Today you will hear and read testimony from both sides of a very contentious issue facing residents of National City. It is clear that there is no desire to have a fuel transfer station in National City. The facts are clear. The residents do not think conditions of approval will be enforced. The residents do not feel they will be protected from noise, fumes, train and diesel emissions or possible fire events, regardless of conditions of approval. There is a powerful land owner involved. The BNSF Railroad, that is owned by a billionaire Warren Buffett's firm, wants to make money at our expense. National City has dealt with negative effects of the railroad and similar industries for a very long time.

This is the same story that is facing the people in L.A. County who live near landfills that are accepting ash and fire debris from the Palisades and Altadena fires.

Tonight’s issue is the same story as the Native American people who have fought pipelines running through their homelands.

The story is the same as the people in Barrio Logan who fight against Biofuels in their neighborhood..https://www.kpbs.org/news/environment/2023/10/04/san-diego-biodiesel-plant- still-stirring-up-opposition-from-barrio-logan-neighbors ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

EXHIBIT D

From: Claire Groebner
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment for 9/15: Fuel transfer facility Date: Thursday, September 11, 2025 5:15:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good afternoon,
I'd like to submit a public comment for the 9/15 Planning Commission public hearing on the fuel transfer facility - USDG Fuels project.

My name is Claire Groebner and I am the Associate Director at Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center here in National City and a member of the National City Healthy Culturas Coalition. I am writing to urge the

Planning
Commission to recommend that the proposed USDG fuel transfer facility project be denied.

This Texas-based company’s project would concentrate Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions from truck trips in West National City, where there is already a significant pollution burden and residents breathe more polluted air than 91% of the state. Diesel emissions are responsible for 85% of the cancer risk associated with air pollution in National City and contribute to other adverse health outcomes including premature death, hospitalizations, and respiratory issues like asthma. Our community already experiences disproportionately higher levels of asthma hospitalization than other neighborhoods in San Diego because of high levels of pollution. In fact, the air quality data used in the project's EIR is from Sherman Heights - an area that we know has better air quality than Westside National City - and paints an inaccurate picture of the impact this proposed project would have on air quality and health - which will in reality compound on pre-existing poor quality.

The proposed project is less than 600ft from residential homes and within .3 miles from Kimball Elementary, St. Anthony Padua Church, and Paradise Creek Family Garden.

National City’s 2024 Climate Action Plan calls for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 2050. Key strategies include implementing and supporting the transition to electric vehicles - with a goal of 7% of light duty vehicles electric by 2030 and 100% light duty and 75% heavy duty electric by 2050. The City’s 2024 Land Use Element outlines guiding principles that include a commitment to Quality of Life and Health and Safety for residents - and includes policies and goals such as ‘Prioritizing the establishment of businesses owned and/or operated by National City residents’’ and ‘Encouraging and facilitating land uses that ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

are compatible and environmentally sustainable while avoiding those that are incompatible’.

Developing new infrastructure that continues the transport of GHG producing fuels is counterproductive to the goals we have set as a City both in the short and long term. Biofuels, while touted by USDG Fuels as an energy transition solution, have been shown to have significant negative environmental impacts. Either way - why should our community continue to bear the burden of pollution for the County? Is this what we want for National City? Let’s put our energy towards projects that actually improve the quality of life in our community - and the air that you and I, our kids, and families breathe every day.

On behalf of Olivewood Gardens & Learning Center, the National City Healthy Culturas Coalition, and myself - I ask that the Planning Commission take a stance for community health, defend the integrity of the city’s Health and Environmental Justice Element, Land Use Element, and Climate Action Plan; and reject the USDG Fuels project proposal.

Thank you,
Claire
--
Claire Groebner (she/her/hers/ella)
Associate Director
Olivewood Gardens and Learning Center
619-434-4281
www.olivewoodgardens.org
Celebrating 15 years of growth, impact, and community!
Acknowledging, honoring, and extending gratitude to the Kumeyaay peoples whose land we occupy.

Olivewood's mission is to nourish communities and cultivate a deep connection to the environment through nutrition education, sustainable urban agriculture, collective advocacy, and intergenerational leadership.

Olivewood is committed to Community-Centric Fundraising. Learn more about the 10 Principles and join us in the conversation!

From: Jake Zindulka
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - Planning Commission Hearing on 9/15/25 Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:04:52 PM
Attachments: Pre Read Packet UPDATED FINAL.pdf
EPA still cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash – San Diego Union-Tribune.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Planning Commission:

I strongly encourage you to deny the application for the following reasons:

The health risks associated with the project
significantly outweigh any potential benefit.

The project would result in 72 fuel trucks driving on
our city's streets
every day. Each truck would carry

~
8,000 gallons of fuel, totaling ~579,000 gallons per
day. Although the applicant calls it "clean" fuel, it is still combustible/highly dangerous. It also puts our
environment at risk due to truck accidents. Last year,
a fuel truck crashed in El Cajon at an intersection
near Grossmont College, resulting in 8,600 gallons of
fuel spilling into the soil and storm drains. It also
led to evacuations of nearby residents.

(See EPA still
cleaning up gas spill in El Cajon 2 months after crash, San Diego Union Tribune, December 4, 2024,
attached). If you approve the project, the
ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT

community will be at risk of a similar accident
multiplied by 72 trucks by 365 days.

When the community asked the applicant about
risks associated with the trucks, they stated the
trucks will be operated by third-parties. The
applicant will likely do everything possible to
minimize their liability for accidents occurring
off the facility.

Per the Environmental Impact Report, the project
will be required to use the City's primary and
alternate truck routes. I encourage you to review
the truck route in the EIR (Figure C-8). The
primary truck route includes traveling up 24th
St, down National City Blvd, up 30th St, down
Euclid Ave, then on Plaza Blvd. The alternate
route includes trucks driving up National City
Blvd past City Hall and Kimball Park. The
applicant may claim they only intend to drive to
Highway 5, but nothing will prevent them from
driving throughout our city per the city's primary
truck route.

The Commission should promote a safe, healthy,
vibrant economy for the City. There is ample
opportunity for growth that would help raise

revenue for the City, like new hotels or restaurants.

Increased revenue would allow the City to provide
more services to community members. However, the
fuel transfer station (i.e., 72 fuel trucks driving past businesses including Kimball's Eatery and Sessions
at the Bay every day) will deter companies or
individuals seeking to invest and revitalize the
Westside, especially near the marina. The City
should not allow outsiders to pollute our community
for their own gain.

Contrast this with the Chula Vista bayfront. They
recently opened a large resort that will generate
millions in tax revenue. National City is taking
steps to improve our port area. City leaders have
discussed encouraging hotels and restaurants to
open. Having a fuel transfer station and 72 trucks
on the streets every day will deter more healthy,
positive development in the area.

The fuel facility will likely not generate any
revenue for the City.

The Commission may be encouraged to approve the
project based on job opportunities for truck drivers.

But with the rapid growth of AI, truck companies
will likely pursue self-driving trucks in the near

future. This is likely to happen during the project's 30 year term.

I also encourage you to ask City staff about the
applicant's $200,000 economic benefit agreement. In
June, I submitted a PRA requesting all records related to the economic benefit agreement (PRA Request No. 25-
401). The City only provided me with a 15 page packet
(attached) prepared by the applicant that states they will pay $200,000 per year of the project. It appears City staff did not negotiate that amount. It is miniscule compared to how much the applicant will make from the project.

Thank you for your consideration and service to the
public.

Best,
Jake Zindulka
Westside Resident

Questions? Contact us at
[email protected]

San Diego Clean
Fuels Facility LLC
Project
Cleaner Air
through
Cleaner Fuels
delivered with
2,400,000 Fewer Truck
Miles/Year!
1

The National City Energy Transition Project
("The Project") will bring a clean fuels
transloading facility to an existing railroad
site in National City, helping California
achieve its stated goal of carbon neutrality by
2045 and improving air quality.

This project reduces overall truck traffic by approximately 2,400,000 miles per year by eliminating lengthy truck trips from LA/Inland Empire locations, resulting in the removal of the tailpipe emissions from the air in Southern California.

Every fuel railcar removes 3.6
trucks from our local highways.

National City
Energy
Transition
ProjectCleaner Air through Cleaner Fuels
X
USD Clean FuelsUSD Clean Fuels (USDCF) is a premier developer of clean fuels logistics solutions throughout North America. In National City, the vision is to create a solution for efficient delivery of clean fuels from producers in the U.S. Midwest and Gulf regions to local customers. USDCF is excited to play a key role in facilitating the energy transition to reduce carbon in California and throughout North America.

The ProjectThe Project will create a more efficient and sustainable logistics solution for low-carbon clean fuels, including renewable diesel, biodiesel, and ethanol. These products are made from non- petroleum, renewable sources such as biomass, tallow, and used cooking oil. They replace fossil fuels and will minimize carbon emissions in public and personal transportation, off-road equipment, and other applications in National City and the surrounding area.

The facility will occupy a small footprint on an existing BNSF railroad site. An existing rail spur will be reconfigured, adding rail track for receiving, discharge, and unloading, four truck loading spots, and small equipment to transload cleaner fuels. The process of transferring product directly from railcars to trucks is referred to as “transloading” and eliminates the need for tanks and storage.

The railcar unloading and truck loading areas will be equipped with vapor controls that meet the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s requirements, spill containment, and fire safety features designated by the National City Fire Department. Construction impacts will be minimal.

Operations are controlled and safe. BNSF Railway will deliver railcars to the facility and place them on designated receiving tracks. Once safety checks are completed, facility operators will attach the railcars to a system of short pipes connected to small pumps and meters. As trucks arrive, they will connect a loading hose to their fuel trucks, load the clean fuels, then disconnect and depart to deliver their load. Once railcars are emptied, the railroad will remove cars and replace them with full ones as needed. Trucks will use city designated truck routes.
2

The National City Energy Transition Project will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas, carbon, and other air
emissions by:

Past FuturePresent
The facility will incorporate redundant containment and safety systems, such as:

Project Site Transformation
• Eliminating the need for approximately 2,400,000 miles of truck deliveries annually
• Using lower emissions rail transit to replace longer truck trips
• Reducing California’s reliance on fossil-based fuels
• Accelerating the availability of renewable fuels, offering lower emission fuels to the public and California’s
construction, industrial, and agricultural industries • Emergency shut-off valves with both automatic and manual triggers
• Special disconnect valves which prevent liquid from
escaping during the transloading process
• Drip pans located under each railcar offloading position • Containment basin to catch and isolate liquid in the
unlikely event of a release
• Facility firefighting sy stem approved by the National City Fire Department, including a Mobile Fire Fighting
Platform (Foam)
• Create 24 full-time, well-paying jobs, providing local employment opportunities
• Employ a highly skilled and trained construction
workforce
• Improve pedestrian and driver safety at Civic Center
Drive rail crossing by improving rail crossing signal
visibility, traffic direction control, and crosswalks
• Generate local buying power, using a property that
is only available for railroad use
Additional BenefitsThe project will:

Commitment to SafetyThe USD Clean Fuels team has operated fuels transloading facilities with zero reportable releases and zero recordable injuries since 2008. Its proven Safety Management System dictates how safety and environmental matters are managed in Project operations to protect operators, communities, and the environment. All facility operators will be trained in the facility’s Emergency Response Plan that will be created in consultation with local emergency responders to ensure effective
communication, training, and response in the unlikely event of a release, fire, or other emergency.

To learn more about USD Clean Fuels, visit usdcleanfuels.com Questions? Contact us at [email protected]
The Traffic Impact Study shows project-related traffic from construction and operation is well below the daily trip threshold for the region and is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The truck management pla n will also minimize impact by avoiding residential areas, schools, churches, and congested areas such as 24th street. Approximately 70% of the truck trips will occur between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM to avoid peak traffic periods.

Initial modeling using approved methods from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (S DAPCD) and the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Ass essment (OEHHA)
demonstrates that all project-related construction and
operational emissions will be well below applicable emissions thresholds.

No Significant Traffic Impacts
Environmental Benefits
3