Written Public Comment — National City City Council, November 4, 2025

From: Alexander Gutterud
To: Shelley Chapel; Clerk
Cc: Maria Severson; Michael Aguirre
Subject: City Council Meeting (11/4/2025) Written Public Comment for Agenda Item 9.4 Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 11:33:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

The truth is catching up with the falsehoods made by the Mayor and his Assistant.

We have learned that the Mayor is an authoritarian bully with no respect for the California Constitution, the right of the public to redress their grievances, the open meeting laws, the Public Records Act, and the National City Municipal Code. As a result, over 5 legal actions are now pending, arising out of the Mayor and his Assistant’s misconduct.

The former City Manager, who stood up to the falsehoods, was knocked down and replaced.

The former head of Human Resources enforced the harassment rules, and she was forced to abandon her post. The Mayor’s Assistant improperly touched and commented on the physical attributes of a City Employee and the investigation finding wrongdoing was dismissed and the Mayor's Assistant was allowed to go undisciplined.

And tonight, it appears the Mayor has the unmitigated gall to propose increases in his Assistant’s pay. She should not be rewarded for her misconduct; she should be held accountable.

Thank you,
Alexander Gutterud, Esq.

Associate Attorney

AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
501 W Broadway, Ste. 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Office (619) 876-5364, Ext. 3
[email protected]
Item 9.4
From: Esther Clemente
To: Shelley Chapel
Cc: Tonya Hussain
Subject: FW: Proposed Amendments to National City Municipal Code § 9.38 Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:23:52 AM
Attachments:

Hi Shelley,
FYI . . .

Esther

ESTHER CLEMENTE
Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950
T: 619.336.4244 ❘[email protected]
Website ❘ Facebook ❘ Instagram ❘ Twitter ❘ LinkedIn
From: Arkan Somo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:51 PM
To: Ron Morrison <[email protected]>; Luz Molina <[email protected]>; Marcus Bush <[email protected]>; Jose Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Ditas Yamane <[email protected]>
Cc: CMO <[email protected]>; Community Development <[email protected]>; Robin Madaffer <[email protected]>; Jim Madaffer
Subject: Proposed Amendments to National City Municipal Code § 9.38 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

November 3, 2025
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Re: Proposed Amendments to National City Municipal Code § 9.38 — Support for Revisions to Protect Existing Lawful Retailers
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Item 10.1
Imagine you are a small family business that lawfully sells tobacco products, operating for years with no enforcement issues and a spotless record of compliance. One day, your landlord declines to renew your lease, forcing you to relocate. Or perhaps your store is taken by eminent domain, or worse, destroyed by fire, flood, or another natural disaster. Should a responsible, long-standing retailer lose its ability to operate in National City because of circumstances beyond its control? We don’t believe so—and neither should you. These are the types of real-life situations that impact the market owners we represent.

On behalf of the Neighborhood Market Association (NMA) and the hundreds of small, locally owned businesses we represent, we write in support of the changes proposed by our attorney, Robin Madaffer, on Friday to amend the City’s Tobacco Retail Ordinance. These changes strike a reasonable balance between protecting youth from tobacco exposure and ensuring that longstanding, law-abiding small businesses are not punished for events outside their control.

We appreciate that the City Council has already made meaningful adjustments to the ordinance.

However, the 1,000-foot buffer zone continues to unfairly impact existing retailers who may be forced to relocate due to reasons entirely unrelated to public health or policy. The proposed clarification allowing existing, lawfully operating retailers to relocate while maintaining eligibility for a license is essential to fairness and to preventing unnecessary business closures and job losses.

We further urge the Council to clarify that ownership transfers pursuant to Section 9.38.110 are exempt from both the separation-distance and maximum-license limitations contained in Section

9.38.040. Without this clarification, ordinary business transactions, such as succession to a family member or the sale of a store to a new operator, could trigger unintended consequences and undermine the stability of established neighborhood retailers.

In addition, we support revisions ensuring that an accidental missed renewal or short lapse does not result in permanent license revocation. Small family businesses often operate on thin margins and limited administrative capacity—rules should protect against abuse, not penalize inadvertent errors.

The NMA remains committed to working collaboratively with City staff and the Council to achieve an ordinance that upholds youth protection goals and preserves economic fairness for existing responsible operators. We believe the revisions presented on Friday accomplish exactly that.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and for your continued willingness to engage with our members in good faith.

Respectfully submitted,
Arkan Somo
Government Relation
Neighborhood Market Association
6367 Alvarado Court
Suite 204
San Diego, CA 92120
Phone: 619-313-4400
www.neighborhoodmarket.org
Follow us
6367 Alvarado Court Suite 204, San Diego, CA 92120 – 619-313-4400 – www.neighborhoodmarket.org Board Of
Directors
Rony Georges
Executive Chairman
Tony Konja
Vice Chairman
Remon Mansour
Executive Treasurer
Chris Zora
Executive Secretary
Mark Kassab
Past Chairman
Executive Board
Ghassan Namou
Executive Member
Molly Sylvester
Executive Member
Wisam Moshe
Executive Member
Patrick Kachi
Executive Member
Steve Abbo
Executive Member
Ivan Zetouna
Executive Member
Richard Garmo
Executive Member
Emeritus Directors
Arkan Somo
Co-Founder
Basil Zetouna
Executive Member
Firas “Russ” Soro
Executive Member
Samir Salem
Executive Member
Naseem Saleem
Executive Member
Chief Executive
Officer
Rony Georges
Government
Relations
Arkan Somo
General Counsel
David Jarvis
November 3, 2025
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Re: Proposed Amendments to National City Municipal Code § 9.38 — Support for Revisions to Protect Existing Lawful Retailers
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Imagine you are a small family business that lawfully sells tobacco products, operating for years with no enforcement issues and a spotless record of compliance. One day, your landlord declines to renew your lease, forcing you to relocate. Or perhaps your store is taken by eminent domain, or worse, destroyed by fire, flood, or another natural disaster. Should a responsible, longstanding retailer lose its ability to operate in National City because of circumstances beyond its control? We don’t believe so—and neither should you. These are the types of real-life situations that impact the market owners we represent.

We appreciate that the City Council has already made meaningful adjustments to the ordinance. However, the 1,000-foot buffer zone continues to unfairly impact existing retailers who may be forced to relocate due to reasons entirely unrelated to public health or policy. The proposed clarification allowing existing, lawfully operating retailers to relocate while maintaining eligibility for a license is essential to fairness and to preventing unnecessary business closures and job losses.

We further urge the Council to clarify that ownership transfers pursuant to Section 9.38.110 are exempt from both the separation-distance and maximumlicense limitations contained in Section 9.38.040. Without this clarification, ordinary business transactions, such as succession to a family member or the 6367 Alvarado Court Suite 204, San Diego, CA 92120 – 619-313-4400 – www.neighborhoodmarket.org Board Of
Directors
Rony Georges
Executive Chairman
Tony Konja
Vice Chairman
Remon Mansour
Executive Treasurer
Chris Zora
Executive Secretary
Mark Kassab
Past Chairman
Executive Board
Ghassan Namou
Executive Member
Molly Sylvester
Executive Member
Wisam Moshe
Executive Member
Patrick Kachi
Executive Member
Steve Abbo
Executive Member
Ivan Zetouna
Executive Member
Richard Garmo
Executive Member
Emeritus Directors
Arkan Somo
Co-Founder
Basil Zetouna
Executive Member
Firas “Russ” Soro
Executive Member
Samir Salem
Executive Member
Naseem Saleem
Executive Member
Chief Executive
Officer
Rony Georges
Government
Relations
Arkan Somo
General Counsel
David Jarvis
sale of a store to a new operator, could trigger unintended consequences and undermine the stability of established neighborhood retailers.

In addition, we support revisions ensuring that an accidental missed renewal or short lapse does not result in permanent license revocation. Small family businesses often operate on thin margins and limited administrative capacity— rules should protect against abuse, not penalize inadvertent errors.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and for your continued willingness to engage with our members in good faith.

Respectfully submitted,
Arkan Somo
Government Relations Director, Neighborhood Market Association 619-313-4400
[email protected]
From: Leigh Martin
To: Clerk
Cc: Ron Morrison; Ditas Yamane; Luz Molina; Marcus Bush Subject: CFCA Follow Up Letter on Tobacco Retail License Ordinance Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:18:57 PM
Attachments: Outlook-A blue and.png
Outlook-A logo of .png
Outlook-A blue cir.png
Outlook-A white x .png
Outlook-A blue cir.png
Outlook-A yellow a.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Please find attached California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (CFCA) letter regarding the reintroduced tobacco retail license ordinance. Please let me know if you need any additional information or clarification.

Thank you,
Leigh Martín
Policy Analyst
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Main: (916) 646-5999 | Fax: (916) 646-5985 | www.cfca.energy Advocates for the fuels and convenience store industries since 1952 November 3, 2025
National City City Council
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Subject: Proposed Clarifications for the Tobacco Retail Ordinance Dear Members of the National City City Council,
On behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (CFCA), we write to formally express our appreciation for the City Council's thoughtful consideration of the proposed tobacco retail license ordinance. As the Council prepares for the second reading and adoption, we welcome this opportunity to work together on policy that balances public health goals with support for local businesses.

While the revised ordinance represents significant progress, we respectfully request clarifications regarding ownership transfers and location transfers are essential to protect business investments and prevent unintended economic consequences for National City's small business community.

We respectfully urge the City Council to consider the following amendments:

1. Ownership Transfer Clarification: Clarify the language in Section 9.38.110 to state that “Transfers of ownership of a tobacco retailer license shall be exempt from the separation distance and maximum number of licenses restrictions contained in Section 9.38.040.” This makes it clear that ownership transfers are not subject to the limitations.

2. Relocation Allowance for Existing Retailers: Add a provision allowing existing licensed retailers in good standing to relocate when circumstances beyond their control require it, such as lease termination, destruction of premises, or governmental action.

This relocation right should include an exemption from the separation distance and maximum license provisions of Section 9.38.040.

CFCA is committed to collaborating with National City on workable, effective policy solutions that serve the interests of both the community and the business operators who help sustain it. We share the City's commitment to responsible retailing and youth protection, and we urge you to incorporate the above amendments so that the ordinance achieves its intended purpose without punishing compliant retailers.

Sincerely,
Alessandra Magnasco
Sr. Director, Government Affairs
California Fuels & Convenience Alliance
From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: 10.1 TRL
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 10:09:24 AM
Attachments: video000000.mp4
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good morning, City Clerk,
My name is Manuel Andrade, manager for the National City Coalition for Better Health.

Last hearing I sent the video attached from Kingsmen Middle students in support of the Tobacco Retail License Program. Unfortunately, they sent the video about an hour before the hearing.

The group of kids are from Tobacco Prevention Program (TUPE) designed to educate and prevent kids to engage on tobacco usage. The duration of the video is 56 seconds.

I would like to ask you to you please share the video on item 10.1 at public comment tonight, can this be possible?
Thank you so much for your prompt response.

M. Andrade
From: Manuel Andrade
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7:27 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 10.2
Good afternoon, City Clerk,
My name is Manuel Andrade from the National City Coalition for Better Health.

I just received this video made in support of the Tobacco Retail License Program from students from the National Middle School - Tobacco Prevention Program. The duration of the video is 56 seconds.

We know it might be too late for you to share it when item number 10.2 comes up but we can only try.

We would appreciate if you do!
Thank you so much.

M. Andrade
From: +
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 7:18 PM
To:

Sub
Please check attachment video000000 for Additional MMS content From:

To: Tonya Hussain
Cc: Shelley Chapel
Subject: Re: Kingsmen Middle - Tobacco-Use Prevention Education Program (TUPE) Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:50:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello Ms. Hussain,
I have a correction. The youth involved in the videos are from National City Middle School (Kingsmen) and not in elementary.

My apologies from my mistake!
Manuel
From: Manuel Andrade <
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:30 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Kingsmen Middle - Tobacco-Use Prevention Education Program (TUPE) Kingsmen_TUPE_Press_Vice_Mssge.MOV IMG_4649.MOV IMG_4648 1.MOV Hello Ms. Thussain,
Please find attached the rest of the videos from the Tobacco Prevention Program from Kingsmen Elementary advocating for the Tobacco Retail License Program.

Thank you so much for sharing it in the City's website and to council members.

Manuel Andrade
National City Coalition for Better Health
From: Kyle Alderman
To: Barry Schultz; Clerk; Jose Rodriguez; Ditas Yamane; Marcus Bush; Luz Molina; Ron Morrison; CMO Cc: Robin Madaffer
Subject: Proposed Clarifications to the Tobacco Retail Ordinance (NCMC Chapter 9.38) Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 4:54:49 PM
Attachments: img-831f8ea9-6669-4f32-8cae-7d15792324cd
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello,
Please see the attached letter from Robin Madaffer on behalf of the Neighborhood Market Association.

Thank you,
Kyle Alderman
Manager of Public Affairs
Madaffer Enterprises, Inc. | San Diego Land Lawyers
1620 Fifth Avenue Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101
Office: (858) 627-0727
www.Madaffer.com
www.SDLandLaw.com
October 31, 2025
Mayor Ron Morrison and Members of the City Council
City of National City
1243 National City Boulevard
National City, CA 91950
Subject: Proposed Clarifications to the Tobacco Retail Ordinance (NCMC Chapter 9.38) Dear Mayor Morrison and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the Neighborhood Market Association (NMA) and its members, we would like to thank the City Council and staff for their thoughtful consideration and dialogue, which led to revisions in the City’s proposed tobacco retail licensing ordinance. We appreciate that several of the changes incorporated into the most recent draft reflect input from NMA and other small business representatives. However, while the revised ordinance is an improvement, it still needs clarification regarding ownership transfers and location transfers.

To ensure fairness and regulatory balance, NMA respectfully requests that the City adopt the following amendments:

1. Ownership Transfer Clarification
Clarify the language in Section 9.38.110 to state that “Transfers of ownership of a tobacco retailer license shall be exempt from the separation distance and maximum number of licenses restrictions contained in Section 9.38.040.” This makes it clear that ownership transfers are not subject to the limitations.

2. Relocation Allowance for Existing Retailers
Add a provision allowing existing licensed retailers in good standing to relocate when circumstances beyond their control require it, such as lease termination, destruction of premises, or governmental action. This relocation right should include an exemption from the separation distance and maximum license provisions of Section 9.38.040.

These adjustments would help preserve local jobs, protect long-standing small businesses, and maintain consumer access — while ensuring that youth access prevention remains the City’s guiding goal.

A redline version of the ordinance with these proposed amendments is attached to this letter. Please see page 12 for NMA's proposed changes.

NMA and its members share the City’s commitment to responsible retailing and youth protection. We urge you to incorporate the above amendments so that the ordinance achieves its intended purpose without punishing those who have consistently played by the rules.

Thank you again for your time, consideration, and willingness to engage with the business community on this important issue.

Respectfully submitted,
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Neighborhood Market Association
VIA
NMA PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CITY’S REDLINE
Section 9.38.010 Purpose and intent.

It is the intent of the City Council, in enacting this ordinance, to ensure compliance with the business standards and practices of the City and to encourage responsible tobacco retailing and to discourage violations of tobacco-related laws, especially those which prohibit or discourage the sale or distribution of tobacco products to youth, but not to expand or reduce the degree to which the acts regulated by federal or state law are criminally proscribed or to alter the penalties provided therein. Accordingly, the City Council enacts the following regulations as not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 U.S. Code sec. 1332, et seq.

Section 9.38.020 Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter:

A. "Arm's Length Transaction" means a sale in good faith and for valuable consideration that reflects the fair market value in the open market between two informed and willing parties, neither of which is under any compulsion to participate in the transaction. A sale between relatives, related companies or partners, or a sale for which a significant purpose is avoiding the effect of the violations of this chapter is not an Arm's Length Transaction.

B. "Applicant" means the Person applying for a permit pursuant to this chapter.

C. “Cannabis” has the meaning set forth in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001, as that section may be amended from time to time.

D. “Cannabis Product” has the meaning set forth in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001, as that section may be amended from time to time.

E. “Cannabis Retailer” means any retail establishment in which cannabis or cannabis products are sold or offered for sale to persons that do not hold a license to engage in commercial cannabis activity issued by the State of California in accordance with the Business and Professions Code Section 26000 et seq., as that section may be amended from time to time.

F. “Child-Resistant Packaging” means packaging that meets the definition set forth in Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, section 1700.15(b), as in effect on January 1, 2015, and was tested in accordance with the method described in Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, section 1700.20, as in effect on January 1, 2015.

G. “Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing more than 4.5 pounds per thousand.

VIA
H. “Cigarette” means: (1) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco; and (2) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described herein.

I. "City" means City of National City, California.

J. “Compliance checks” means systems the department uses to investigate and ensure that tobacco retailers are following and complying with the requirements of this chapter.

Compliance checks may involve the use of persons between the ages of 18 and 20 who purchase or attempt to purchase tobacco products. Compliance checks may also be conducted by the department or other units of government for educational, research, and training purposes or for investigating or enforcing federal, state, or local laws and regulations relating to tobacco products.

K. “Coupon” means any voucher, rebate, card, paper, note, form, statement, ticket, image, or other issue, whether in paper, digital, or other form, used for commercial purposes to obtain an article, product, service, or accommodation without charge or at a discounted price.

L. “Delivery sale” means the sale of any tobacco product to any person for personal consumption and not for resale when the sale is conducted by any means other than an in-person, overthe-counter sales transaction in a tobacco retail establishment. Delivery sale includes the sale of any tobacco product when the sale is conducted by telephone, other voice transmission, mail, the internet, or app-based service. Delivery sale includes delivery by licensees or third parties by any means, including curbside pick-up.

M. “Department” means the Community Development Department and any agency or person designated by the City to enforce or administer the provisions of this chapter.

N. "Electronic Smoking Device" means an electronic device that may be used to deliver any aerosolized or vaporized substance to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an e-cigarette, e-cigar, e-pipe, vape pen, or e-hookah. “Electronic Smoking Device” includes any component, part, or accessory of the device, and also includes any substance that may be aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine. “Electronic Smoking Device” does not include “drugs,” “devices,” or “combination products,” authorized for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act." O. "Flavored Tobacco Product" means any tobacco product that imparts:

1. a taste or odor distinguishable by an ordinary consumer, other than the taste or odor of tobacco, either prior to or during the consumption of such tobacco product, including but not limited to tastes or odors relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, mint, wintergreen, menthol, herb, or spice; or VIA

2. a cooling or numbing sensation distinguishable by an ordinary consumer during the consumption of such tobacco product.

P. “Full Retail Price” means the displayed price plus all applicable taxes and fees if such taxes and fees are not included in the displayed price. For the purposes of this chapter, “Displayed Price” means the price displayed for a tobacco product on its packaging or on any related shelving, advertising, or display where the tobacco product is sold or offered for sale.

Q. "Little Cigar” means any roll of tobacco other than a cigarette wrapped entirely or in part in tobacco or any substance containing tobacco and weighing no more than 4.5 pounds per thousand. Little Cigar includes, but is not limited to, tobacco products known or labeled as small cigar, little cigar, or cigarillo.

R. “Manufacturer” means any person, including any repacker or relabeler, who manufactures, fabricates, assembles, processes, or labels a tobacco product, or imports a finished tobacco product for sale or distribution into the United States.

S. “Moveable Place of Business” means any form of business that is operated out of a kiosk, truck, van, automobile or other type of vehicle or transportable shelter and not a fixed address store front or other permanent type of structure authorized for sales transactions.

T. "Person" means any human being, partnership, cooperative association, corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity.

U. “Pharmacy” means any retail establishment in which the profession of pharmacy is practice by a pharmacist licensed by the State of California in accordance with the Business and Professions Code and where prescription pharmaceuticals are offered for sale, regardless of whether the retail establishment sells other retail goods in addition to prescription pharmaceuticals.

V. “Proprietor” means a person with an ownership or managerial interest in a business. An ownership interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has a 10% or greater interest in the stock, assets, or income of a business other than the sole interest of security for debt. A managerial interest shall be deemed to exist when a person has or shares ultimate control over the day-to-day operations of a business.

W. “Recreation Facility” means an area, place, structure, or other facility that is used either permanently or temporarily for community recreation, even though it may be used for other purposes, and includes but is not limited to, a gymnasium, playing court, playing field, and swimming pool.

X. “Sale” means any transfer, exchange, barter, gift, offer for sale, or distribution for a commercial purpose, in any manner or by any means whatsoever.

VIA
Y. "Self-Service Display" means the open display or storage of tobacco products in a manner that is physically accessible in any way to the general public without the assistance of the retailer or employee of the retailer and a direct face-to-face transfer between the purchaser and the retailer or employee of the retailer. A vending machine is a form of Self-Service Display.

Z. “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, or pipe, or any other lighted or heated product containing, made, or derived from nicotine, tobacco, marijuana, or other plant, whether natural or synthetic, that is intended for inhalation. “Smoking” includes using an electronic smoking device.

AA. ''Tobacco Product" means:

1. Any product containing, made of, or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption or is likely to be consumed, whether inhaled absorbed, or ingested by any other means, including but not limited to, a cigarette, cigar, little cigar, pipe tobacco, snuff, snus, or chewing tobacco;

2. Any electronic smoking device and any substances that may be aerosolized or vaporized by such device, whether or not the substance contains nicotine; or

3. Any component, part, or accessory of (1) or (2), whether or not any of these contains tobacco or nicotine, including but not limited to filters, rolling papers, blunt or hemp wraps, hookahs, mouthpieces, and pipes. ''Tobacco Product" does not mean “drugs,” “devices,” or “combination products,” authorized for sale by the United States Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

BB. ''Tobacco Retailer" means any person who sells, offers for sale, or exchanges or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco products.This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco products sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange.

CC. “Tobacco Retailing” means engaging in the activities of a tobacco retailer.

DD. “Youth-Oriented Facility” means a parcel in the city that is occupied by:

1. a private or public kindergarten, elementary, middle, junior high, or high school;

2. a library open to the public;

3. a playground open to the public;

4. a youth center, defined as a facility where children, ages 6 to 17, inclusive, come together for programs and activities;

5. a recreation facility open to the public, defined as an area, place, structure, or other facility that is used either permanently or temporarily for community recreation, even though it may be used for other purposes;

6. a park open to the public or to all the residents of a private community;

7. a licensed child-care facility or preschool (other than a small-family day care home or a large-family day care home [as defined in California Health & Safety Code § 1596.78]).

VIA
Section 9.38.030 General requirements and prohibitions.

A. Tobacco retailer’s license required. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in tobacco retailing in the City without first obtaining and maintaining a valid tobacco retailer’s license for each location at which tobacco retailing is to occur.

B. Lawful business operation. In the course of tobacco retailing or in the operation of the business or maintenance of the location for which a license issued, it shall be a violation of this chapter for a licensee, or any of the licensee’s agents or employees, to violate any local, state, or federal law applicable to the sale of tobacco products.

C. Smoking prohibited. Smoking, including smoking for the purpose of sampling any tobacco product, is prohibited within the indoor area of any retail establishment licensed under this chapter. Smoking also prohibited outdoors within 25 feet of any retail establishment licensed under this chapter.

D. Minimum Legal Sales Age. No person engaged in tobacco retailing shall sell a tobacco product to a person under 21 years of age.

E. Display of License. Each tobacco retailer license shall be prominently displayed in a publicly visible location at the licensed location.

F. Positive identification required. No person engaged in tobacco retailing shall sell a tobacco product to another person without first verifying by means of government-issued photographic identification that the recipient is at least 21 years of age.

G. Self-service displays prohibited. Tobacco retailing by means of a self-service display is prohibited.

H. On-site Sales. All sales of tobacco products shall be conducted in-person in the licensed location.

It shall be a violation of this chapter for any tobacco retailer or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees to engage in the delivery sale of tobacco products or to knowingly or recklessly sell or provide tobacco products to any person that intends to engage in the delivery sale of the tobacco product in the City.

I. Posting of Signs. Every tobacco retailer shall post conspicuously in their place of business at each point of purchase a notice stating that the sale of tobacco products and cigarettes to persons under twenty-one years of age is prohibited by law and subject to penalties. The notice shall also state that photo identification is required to purchase tobacco products. The letters of the sign shall be at least one-half inch in height. a. Any sign meeting the content requirements of California Business and Professional Code Section 22952(b) and regulations promulgated thereunder, and the posting requirements of California Penal Code Section 308(c), satisfies Subsection I of this Section.

VIA
Section 9.38.040 Limits on eligibility for a tobacco retailer license.

A. Mobile Vending. No license may be issued to authorize tobacco retailing at other than a fixed location. No tobacco retail license will be issued to a moveable place of business.

B. Licensed cannabis businesses. No license may be issued, and no existing license may be renewed, to authorize tobacco retailing at a location licensed for commercial cannabis activity by the State of California under Business and Professions Code Division 10.

C. Pharmacies. One year after the effective date of this ordinance, no license may be issued, and no existing license may be renewed, to authorize tobacco retailing in a pharmacy.

D. Proximity to youth-oriented facilities. No newly established business requesting to be licensed for the sale of tobacco may be within 1,000 feet of a youth-oriented facility as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the youth-oriented facility is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the applicant’s business is located.

E. Proximity to other tobacco retailers. No newly established business requesting to be licensed for the sale of tobacco may be within 1,000 feet of a tobacco retailer location already licensed pursuant to this chapter as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the applicant’s business is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which an existing licensee’s business is located.

F. Proximity to cannabis retailers. No new license may be issued to authorize tobacco retailing within 1,000 feet of an existing cannabis retailer as measured by a straight line from the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which the applicant’s business is located to the nearest point of the property line of the parcel on which an existing cannabis retailer is located.

G. Measure of distance. The distance between any tobacco retail store and any school, playground, recreation center or facility, childcare center, library, or other tobacco retailer, or cannabis retailer, shall be measured in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures, from the exterior of the tobacco retail store to the closest property line of the school, playground, recreation center or facility, childcare center, or library.

H. Maximum number of licenses. The issuing of tobacco retailer licenses is limited as follows:

1. The total number of tobacco retailer licenses within the city shall be limited to 54.

2. No new license may be issued to authorize tobacco retailing if the number of tobacco retailer licenses already issued equals or exceeds the total number authorized pursuant to subsection (1).

VIA
I. Existing retailers. A tobacco retailer operating lawfully on the date this ordinance is adopted may receive an exemption from Subsection D, E, F, and H, as long as all of the following conditions are met:

1. the license is timely obtained and is renewed without lapse or revocation;

2. the tobacco retailer is not closed for business or otherwise suspends Tobacco Retailing for more than sixty (60) consecutive days;

3. the tobacco retailer retains the right to operate under other applicable laws.

J. Change of business dispute. If the City determines that a tobacco retailer has substantially changed their business premises or operation and the tobacco retailer disputes this determination, the Tobacco Retailer bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that such change(s) do not constitute a substantial change.

Section 9.38.050 Restrictions on location of tobacco products, and tobacco advertising displays.

A. It is unlawful for any tobacco retailer to place, maintain or cause to be placed or maintained any tobacco product or tobacco advertising display within two feet of any candy, snack, or non-alcoholic beverage display inside a tobacco retail store located within one thousand feet (1,000) of any youth-oriented facility.

B. Except as allowed in subsection A, it is unlawful for any person to advertise tobacco products visible to the outside within one thousand feet (1,000) of any youth-oriented facility.

C. Subsection A does not apply to commercial establishments where access to the premises by persons under twenty-one years of age is prohibited by law.

Section 9.38.060 Sale of flavored tobacco products prohibited.

The sale of flavored tobacco products shall be regulated by state law.

Section 9.38.070 Tobacco product pricing and packaging.

A. Packaging and labeling. No tobacco retailer shall sell any tobacco product to any consumer unless the tobacco product: (1) is sold in the manufacturer’s packaging intended for sale to consumers; (2) conforms to all applicable federal labeling requirements; and (3) conforms to all applicable child-resistant packaging requirements. Upon request by the City, a licensee must provide a copy of the certificate of compliance or full laboratory testing report for the packaging used.

B. Display of price. The price of each tobacco product offered for sale shall be clearly and conspicuously displayed on the tobacco product or on any related shelving, posting, advertising, or display at the location where the item is sold or offered for sale.

Commented [MR1]: CAO – There was talk of adding
“outside” in this section, I believe. However, that seems to be superfluous, or else I am confused. I will defer to your guidance.

Commented [BS2R1]: See highlighted language in “B”
below.

VIA
C. Distribution of tobacco samples or promotional items. It is unlawful for any person to distribute free or nominally priced tobacco products.

D. Prohibition of tobacco coupons and discounts. No tobacco retailer shall:

1. honor or redeem, or offer to honor or redeem, a coupon to allow a consumer to purchase a tobacco product for less than the full retail price;

2. sell any tobacco product to a consumer through a multiple-package discount or otherwise provide any such product to a consumer for less than the full retail price in consideration for the purchase of any tobacco product or any other item; or

3. provide any free or discounted item to a consumer in consideration for the purchase of any tobacco product.

E. Prohibition on the sale of individual cigarettes. No tobacco retailer shall sell cigarettes individually or in packages containing less than 20 cigarettes.

Section 9.38.080 License application procedure.

A. An application for a tobacco retailer’s license shall be submitted in the name of each proprietor proposing to conduct retail tobacco sales and shall be signed by each proprietor or an authorized agent thereof. All applications shall be submitted on a form supplied by the Department.

B. A license issued contrary to this Chapter, contrary to any other law, or on the basis of false or misleading information shall be revoked pursuant to this Chapter. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to vest in any person obtaining and maintaining a tobacco retailer’s license any status or right to act as a tobacco retailer in contravention of any provision of law.

C. Applicant submissions must contain the following information:

1. The name, address, and telephone number of each proprietor of the business seeking a license.

2. The business name, address and telephone number of the location for which a license is sought.

3. The name and mailing address authorized by each proprietor to receive all communications and notices required by, authorized by, or convenient to the enforcement of this Chapter.

VIA

4. Proof that the location for which a tobacco retailer’s license is sought has been issued all necessary state license for the sale of tobacco products.

5. Whether or not any proprietor or any agent of the proprietor has admitted violating, or has been found to have violated, this Chapter or any other local, state, or federal law governing the sale of tobacco products and, if so, the dates and locations of all such violations within the previous five years.

6. A signed affidavit affirming that the proprietor has not sold and will not sell any tobacco product without a license required by this Chapter.

7. Such other information as the Department deems necessary for the administration or enforcement of this Chapter as specified on the application form required by this section.

8. Copies of applications for licenses and licenses issued pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 22970 et seq., the "Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003." If an application for a license pursuant to the "Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003" has been denied, copies of documentation regarding the reason for the denial of such license.

D. Change in information. A licensed tobacco retailer shall inform the Department in writing of any change in the information submitted on an application for a Tobacco Retailer's license within 10 business days of a change.

E. All information specified in an application pursuant to this section shall be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) or any other applicable law, subject to the laws' exemptions.

Section 9.38.090 License issuance and renewal.

A. Issuance of license. Upon the receipt of a complete and adequate application for a tobacco retailer's license and the license fee required by this chapter, the Department may grant or deny the application for license, or it may delay action for a reasonable period of time to complete any investigation of the application of the applicant deemed necessary.

B. Denial of application. The Department may deny an application for a tobacco retailer’s license based on any of the following reasons:

1. The information presented in the application is inaccurate or false. Intentionally supplying inaccurate information shall be a violation of this chapter;

2. The application seeks authorization for tobacco retailing at a location for which this chapter prohibits a license to be issued;

3. The application seeks authorization for tobacco retailing for a proprietor to whom this chapter prohibits a license to be issued; or
VIA

4. The application seeks authorization for tobacco retailing in a manner that is prohibited pursuant to this chapter, that is unlawful pursuant to any other chapter of this Code, or that is unlawful pursuant to any other law.

5. Any other suitable reason the granting of a license to the applicant is not consistent with the public health and welfare, including the applicant’s history of noncompliance with this Chapter and other laws relating to the sale of tobacco products.

6. The applicant is under the age of twenty-one.

Section 9.38.100 License renewal and expiration.

A tobacco retailer's license is invalid if the appropriate fee has not been timely paid in full or if the term of the license has expired. The term of a tobacco retailer license is one (1) year. Each tobacco retailer will apply for the renewal of their tobacco retailer’s license and submit the license fee no later than thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the current license. A retailer that fails to timely submit a renewal application and fee is ineligible for license renewal and must submit a new application pursuant to this Chapter.

Section 9.38.110 Licenses transferrable, past violations at retail location.

A. Licenses transferrable. A tobacco retailer's license may not be transferred from one Person Proprietor to another or from one location to another. Any license transferred under this section is exempt from Section 9.38.040, Subsections D, E, F, and H.

B. A new tobacco retailer's license is required whenever a tobacco retailer has a new tobacco retailing location, except if an existing tobacco retailer, in good standing, must relocate due to circumstances beyond their control, such as lease termination, destruction of premises, governmental action, or similar force majeure situations. This limited right to transfer to a new location is exempt from Section 9.38.040, Subsections D, E, F, and H.
or a location has a change in proprietors.

C. Past violations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, prior violations at a location shall continue to be counted against a location and license ineligibility periods shall continue to apply to the location unless:

1. The location has been transferred to the new Proprietor(s) in an Arm's Length Transaction; and

2. The new proprietor(s) provide the City with clear and convincing evidence that the new Proprietor(s) have acquired the location in an Arm's Length Transaction.

Deleted: not
Deleted: not
Commented [BS3]: Delete the last sentence.

VIA
Section 9.38.120 License conveys a limited, conditional privilege.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to grant any Person obtaining and maintaining a Tobacco Retailer's license any status or right other than the limited conditional privilege to act as a Tobacco Retailer at the location in the City identified on the face of the permit. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to render inapplicable, supersede, or apply in lieu of, any other provision of applicable law
Section 9.38.130 Fee for license
The fee to issue or to renew a tobacco retailer's license shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. The fee shall be calculated so as to recover the total cost of administration and enforcement of this chapter, including, but not limited to, issuing a license, administering the l program, retailer education, retailer inspection and compliance checks, documentation of violations, and prosecution of violators, but shall not exceed the cost of the regulatory program authorized by this chapter. All fees and interest upon proceeds of fees shall be used exclusively to fund the program. Fees are nonrefundable except as may be required by law.

Section 9.38.140 Compliance monitoring.

A. Compliance with this chapter shall be monitored by the Department. In addition, the City may designate additional persons to monitor compliance with this chapter. All licensed premises must be open to inspection by city staff or designated persons during regular business hours.

B. The Department shall inspect each tobacco retailer at least one (1) time per 12-month period.

C. The city shall conduct one compliance check per two-year period that involves the participation of persons between the ages of 18 and 20 to enter licensed premises to attempt to purchase tobacco products, with additional compliance checks as required.

D. Nothing in this section shall create a right of action in any licensee or other person against the city or its agents
Section 9.38.150 Suspension or revocation of permit.

A. Notice. Upon discovery of a suspected violation, the Department shall issue the alleged violator, either personally or by first class mail addressed to the authorized address, an administrative citation that sets forth the alleged violation and which shall inform the alleged violator of their right to be heard on the accusation. The administrative citation shall comply with the requirements of Section 1.44.030 of the National City Municipal Code.

VIA
B. Hearings. Upon issuance of an administrative citation, a person accused of violating this Ordinance may request in writing a hearing on the matter in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sections 1.44.070 – 1.44.120 of the National City Municipal Code.

C. Costs. If this administrative citation is upheld by the hearing officer, the city’s actual expenses in holding the hearing up to a maximum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) must be paid by the person requesting the hearing.

D. Continued violation.

1. Each day on which a tobacco product is distributed, sold, or offered for sale in violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter; and

2. Each individual tobacco product that is distributed, sold, or offered for sale in violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation of this Chapter.

E. Revocation of License Wrongly Issued. A tobacco retailer's license shall be revoked if the Department finds, after the Licensee is afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard, that one or more of the bases for denial of a license under this Chapter existed at the time application was made, or at any time before the permit issued, or one or more of the bases for denial of a renewal permit under this Chapter existed at the time the renewal permit was issued. Notice and appeal of the revocation shall be conducted in accordance with this section.

F. If a license issued under this chapter is suspended or revoked, all tobacco products at the suspended or revoked tobacco retailer's location shall be removed from public view for the duration of the suspension or revocation.The tobacco retailer additionally shall not display any advertisement relating to tobacco products that promotes the sale or distribution of such products from the tobacco retailer's location or that could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that such products can be obtained at that location for the duration of the suspension or revocation.

Section 9.38.160 Violations and penalties.

A. Any licensee who is found to be in violation of this Ordinance with regard to selling violations, whether such violation is determined by a hearing officer or superior court; or the Licensee has pleaded guilty, "no contest," or its equivalent, or admitted to a violation, will be charged an administrative fine and as well as their license suspended or revoked follows:

1. Upon a finding by the Department of a first violation of this chapter at a location, the Licensee shall be issued a warning.

VIA

2. Upon a finding by the Department of a second violation of this chapter at a location within any 36-month period, the licensee will be charged an administrative fine of $1,000. $300 and the license shall be suspended for 90 days.

3. Upon a finding by the Department of a third violation of this chapter at a location within any 36-month period, the licensee will be charged an administrative fine of $5,000. $600 and the license shall be suspended for one year.

4. Upon a finding by the Department of a fourth violation of this chapter at a location within any 36-month period, the licensee will be charged an administrative fine of $1,000 and the license shall be revoked.

B. Tobacco retailing without a valid license. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, if the Department finds based on a preponderance of evidence, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, that any person has engaged in tobacco retailing at a location without a valid tobacco retailer's permit, either directly or through the person's agents or employees, the person shall be ineligible to apply for, or to be issued, a tobacco retailer's permit as follows:

1. After a first violation of this section at a location within any 36-month period, no new permit may be issued for the person or the location (unless proprietorship of the business at the location has been transferred in an Arm's Length Transaction), until 90 days have passed from the date of the violation.

2. After a second violation of this section at a location within any 36-month period, no new permit may be issued for the person or the location (unless proprietorship of the business at the location has been transferred in an Arm's Length Transaction), until 180 days have passed from the date of the violation.

3. After of a third or subsequent violation of this section at a location within any 36- month period, no new license may be issued for the person or the location (unless Proprietorship of the business at the location has been transferred in an Arm's Length Transaction), until five years have passed from the date of the violation.

C. Whenever evidence of a violation of this chapter is obtained in any part through the participation of a Person under the age of 18 years old, such a Person shall not be required to appear or give testimony in any civil or administrative process brought to enforce this chapter and the alleged violation shall be adjudicated based upon the preponderance of the evidence presented.

D. All tobacco retailers are responsible for the actions of their employees relating to the sale, offer to sell, and furnishing of tobacco products at the retail location. The sale of any tobacco product shall be considered an act of the tobacco retailer.

VIA
E. Tobacco products offered for sale in violation of this Chapter are subject to seizure by the Department or its designee and shall be forfeited after the licensee or any other owner of the tobacco products seized is given reasonable notice and an opportunity to demonstrate that the tobacco products were not offered for sale in violation of this Chapter. The decision by the Department may be appealed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9.38.150.

Forfeited tobacco products shall be destroyed and properly disposed of at the cost of the seller after all internal appeals have been exhausted and the time in which to seek judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 or other applicable law has expired without the filing of a lawsuit or, if such a suit is filed, after judgment in that suit becomes final.

F. Violations of this Chapter may, at the discretion of the City Attorney, be prosecuted as infractions or misdemeanors when the interests of justice so require.

G. Violations of this Chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances.

H. In addition to other remedies provided by this Chapter or by other law, any violation of this Chapter may be remedied by a civil action brought by City Attorney, including administrative or judicial nuisance abatement proceedings, civil code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief.

I. The remedies specified in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available under State or local law for a violation of this Code.

Section 9.38.170 Exceptions.

A. Nothing in this Chapter prevents the provision of tobacco products to any person as part of an indigenous practice or a lawfully recognized religious or spiritual ceremony or practice.

B. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to penalize the purchase, use, or possession of a tobacco product by any person not engaged in tobacco retailing.

Section 9.38.180 Construction and severability.

It is the intent of the City Council to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law and this ordinance shall be construed consistently with that intention. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Chapter, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this Chapter, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.

VIA
Section 9.38.190 Public records.

All information provided to the Department by a licensee or license applicant pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code section 6250 et seq.) or any other applicable law.

From: Mama Dog
To: Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 10.2
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 5:45:32 AM
Attachments: NCC Public Comment 2025.11.04.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

National City Council Meeting – 11/04/25
Agenda Item #10.2
Alisha Morrison
Good Evening,
It’s simple – adhere to the National City Planning Commission’s decision! Have faith in the commissioners you appointed. They listened to the presentation, heard all the public comments, they asked hard questions. They made this easy for you – so uphold their decision and deny this harmful and injurious project.

Putting conditions such as phasing in zero emission vehicles & transportation of biofuel to National City - is nothing but a PIPEDREAM! Who is going to write those ordinances for zero emission transportation? The City Council?
Who is going to enforce zero emission transportation? The developer? Who is going to impose sanctions to the violators? The City? First – we already heard the Mayor speak his thoughts on May 1st at the Skycharger community meeting, he “worries the charging station will draw even more trucks to an already clogged area and raise the risk of toxic electric battery fires.” “more trucks” “clogged area” so why in the heck would he want “more trucks” moving biofuel 24/7 to “an already clogged area” Second – there is only one switcher locomotive in California that runs on hydrogen powered fuel that is still being tested.

Hydrogen – the smallest and MOST ABUNDANT element in the universe! Highly EXPLOSIVE & flammable due to its very WIDE EXPLOSIVE RANGE (4% to 75% in air) has a low ignition energy (one-tenth of natural gas) giving it a fast flame propagation speed.

The Hydrogen bomb (aka the H-Bomb) – 3,000 times more powerful than the Item 10.2
atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Do you really want a hydrogen fuel locomotive transporting biofuel to National City? Just imagine if that locomotive derailed.

By not upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny – you would be hurting the people who put their trust in you.

USDG’s miniscule $200,000 a year. How much will it cost in 5, 10, 20 years to re-pave 1 mile stretch of road when it costs one million dollars now? So, why would you not want to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny?
Look at the science! Biofuels are responsible for 16% more CO2 emissions globally than the fossil fuels it replaces. It is taking on average 3,000 liters of water to drive 100 km on biofuel.

As a kid, I remember going with my Grandpa to the National City Dump at the corner of 30th & National City Blvd, the site became the Duck Pond Bar and then the Volkswagen Dealership.

That area bares the scar of the effects of National City being the “dump” - the pavement is uneven, the Volkswagen dealership experienced the ground sinking. A flame stack had to be installed to burn off the methane landfill gas that had been built up underground from over 50 years ago.

Science says that potent greenhouse gas, 28 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period.

National City has ALWAYS BEEN the place to be dumped on. Things that are of the most undesirable benefit to other cities – National City has been that city to fall victim of harmful pollutions. Why do you think National City has those nick names “Nasty City” and “National Shitty.”
Over this past year I have been attending your City Council meetings and there is a trend in favoring nuisance projects & developments, amending and passing ordinances that are harmful & injurious to the people you represent. I have seen more harm to this city than beneficial projects like the beautiful Filipino Heritage Plaza at Euclid and Plaza Blvd. Those beautiful, illuminated monuments with the flowers and people dancing that welcome the community.

Don’t let what we are saying tonight fall on deaf ears – think beyond harmful economic development and put the people of National City first. Each of you should be asking yourself, “What legacy do I want to leave to the people of National City?”
Thank you.

Putting conditions such as phasing in zero emission vehicles & transportation of biofuel to National City - is nothing but a PIPEDREAM!
Who is going to write those ordinances for zero emission transportation? The City Council? Who is going to enforce zero emission transportation? The developer? Who is going to impose sanctions to the violators? The City? First – we already heard the Mayor speak his thoughts on May 1st at the Skycharger community meeting, he “worries the charging station will draw even more trucks to an already clogged area and raise the risk of toxic electric battery fires.” “more trucks” “clogged area” so why in the heck would he want “more trucks” moving biofuel 24/7 to “an already clogged area” Second – there is only one switcher locomotive in California that runs on hydrogen powered fuel that is still being tested.

The Hydrogen bomb (aka the H-Bomb) – 3,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Do you really want a hydrogen fuel locomotive transporting biofuel to National City? Just imagine if that locomotive derailed.

By not upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to deny – you would be hurting the people who put their trust in you.

USDG’s miniscule $200,000 a year. How much will it cost in 5, 10, 20 years to re-pave 1 mile stretch of road when it costs one million dollars now?
So, why would you not want to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny? Look at the science! Biofuels are responsible for 16% more CO2 emissions globally than the fossil fuels it replaces. It is taking on average 3,000 liters of water to drive 100 km on biofuel.

As a kid, I remember going with my Grandpa to the National City Dump at the corner of 30th & National City Blvd, the site became the Duck Pond Bar and then the Volkswagen Dealership.

Science says that potent greenhouse gas, 28 times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period.

From: Jessica Alonso
To: Public Comment
Subject: Say No to the SDG&E Fuel Station
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 3:11:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches.

That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer
station. This station would be on West 18th St,
~550 ft. from the closest
residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School
and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil
tankers) per day. Residents in Westside National City already breathe more
diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust
is known to damage lungs and cause cancer. Making matters worse, trains
and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals
through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency –
like in Palestine, Ohio. This is already a low income community… the impact this will have will only be negative. So many children and teenagers walk home from school. Please listen to our pleas.

This project would increase truck traffic, lung-damaging pollution, create a
hazard risk, and derail local clean air goals. Please protect our health and
safety by voting to reject the USDG Fuels, LLC project.

Thank you,
Jessica Alonso
Sent from my iPhone
From: JOSE GASTELUM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Strong Opposition to USDG Fuels Project in National City Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 9:15:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed USDG Fuels project on West 18th Street. This project poses an unacceptable threat to the health, safety, and future of our National City community.

This location—less than half a mile from Kimball Elementary School, St.

Anthony of Padua Church, and densely populated neighborhoods—is simply not appropriate for a fuel transfer station. Transporting and storing toxic fuel so close to our homes and schools would expose residents, especially children and seniors, to dangerous air pollutants and increase the risk of accidents or spills.

In addition to the health and environmental dangers, this site’s proximity to military facilities raises serious security concerns. A large-scale fuel storage and transfer station near the Navy base could be a potential target in the event of an intentional attack or accident, putting thousands of lives at risk. This is not only a public health issue — it’s a matter of community and national security.

For decades, Westside residents have carried the heavy burden of industrial pollution. National City already experiences some of the worst diesel pollution in California, and our children suffer twice the asthma emergency room visits compared to the county average. It is time for our city to prioritize clean air, public safety, and equity — not more pollution and corporate profit.

I urge you to stand with the residents, the Planning Commission, and our community’s right to breathe clean air and live without fear of another hazardous industry moving in. Please reject the USDG Fuels appeal and protect the health, safety, and future of National City families.

Thank you for your time and for choosing people over polluters.

Sincerely,
Maria A. Ortiz-Gastelum

From: Maya Markillie
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: SDGE Fuel Station Proposal
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 8:46:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello I would like to edit my comment - I meant to put USDG not SDG&E. I have edited my message please include this one instead of the one sent previously.

Hello National City Council,
I have made a few public comments and written comments about this issue in the past month and it's ridiculous that I need to continue to send new messages about this issue. You need to vote NO on this proposal. This is plain and simple environmental racism that you would be supporting by voting yes on the creation of this fuel station. I am writing this comment in the Kimball elementary school garden as we speak, watching Kimball students walk around and play in their playground this morning. The children at Kimball already have to deal with air pollution drills where they basically have to lock down the campus due to poor air quality.

You are kidding yourself if you think USDG Fuels is going to find a "green/non-polluting" way to transfer biofuels through a school zone.

To know that you are actually considering this fuel station is devastating to your constituents who are already suffering from asthma, cancer, and poor air quality. This is more than an outside company coming in and polluting, this decision will show National City residents what their council truly thinks about their health and well-being. The fact that this decision has been dragged on for so long is disappointing in and of itself. Vote NO to polluters that continue to ruin our air, our health, and our shared environment.

Thank you!
has been dragged on for so long is disappointing in and of itself. Vote NO to polluters that continue to ruin our air, our health, and our shared environment. --
Maya Markillie (she/her)
Environmental Education Specialist
Olivewood Gardens and Learning Center
http://www.olivewoodgardens.org
Office: (619) 434 4281
Celebrating 15 years of growth, impact, and community!
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.

From: Yvonne
To: Public Comment
Subject: Say NO to the SDG&E Fuel Station
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 2:47:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear National City Council,
Polluting industries don’t belong next to our homes, schools, and churches.

That is why I am asking you to REJECT USDG’s proposed fuel transfer station. This station would be on West 18th St,~550 ft. from the closest residential home, and less than 1/2 mile from Kimball Elementary School and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church.

The station would require about 72 heavy-duty diesel-polluting trucks (oil tankers) per day.

Residents in Westside National City already breathe more diesel pollution than 90% of communities in CA. Breathing diesel exhaust is known to damage lungs and cause cancer.

Making matters worse, trains and oil tankers would be moving large amounts of hazardous chemicals through our communities increasing the risk of a catastrophic emergency – like in Palestine, Ohio.

I personally will be affected by this project as I work at Kimball Elementary school less than a mile from the proposed site. I do not appreciate the added toxins I will be forced into breathing while at work and outside with my students for their recesses, and students that live nearby will be affected the most.

I think approving this project would be extremely detrimental to National City and to the youth that attends Kimball Elementary in particular. We are already affected by numerous auto-shops and other commercial warehouses daily. Not to mention the inevitable added traffic on 18th street if this went through.

I do not see any benefit in approving this project.

Please vote no.

This project would increase truck traffic, lung-damaging pollution, create a hazard risk, and derail local clean air goals. Please protect our health and safety by voting to reject the USDG Fuels, LLC project.

Thank you,
Yvonne Colmenero
National City Traffic Safety Committee Member
From: Ellyse Briand
To: Public Comment
Subject: agenda item 10.2
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:52:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear City Council Members,
My name is Ellyse Briand and I am writing again to urge you all to consider the environmental & health impacts of the USDG fuels project on the National City community and vote NO on approving this project. The community has spoken out about this time and time again, this project is unwanted and does not bring any benefits to National City.

The planning commission has already denied recomementation of this project. Please tell the community what the benefit of having a planning commission is if the City Council ignores the recommendations of said planning commission? Please do what is right and uphold the decision to deny this project moving forward.

The impacts of this project will be devastating and far reaching and our youth, community and city deserve to have a city council that prioritizes projects that enhance the quality of life and upholds their own policies written into the climate action plan. This proposed project is in direct opposition to the Amortization act, against CEQA, against the health and wellbeing of the people living on the west side- contributing pollution to the already high levels recorded in the air quality and against the emissions reduction strategy outlined in the climate action plan. Make it make sense! Vote NO on this polluting project!
Signed, Ellyse Briand
--
Ellyse Briand (she/her)
Events & Culinary Program Manager
Olivewood Gardens and Learning Center
(619) 434-4281
olivewoodgardens.org
Celebrating 15 years of growth, impact, and community!
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.

Acknowledging, honoring, and extending gratitude to the Kumeyaay peoples whose land we occupy.

From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: Tonya Hussain
Subject: Public Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 2:00:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

User Ted Godshalk has enter the following comment(s):

Councilors, The conditions negotiated by Councilman Bush will not be effective in mitigating the many impacts of this project. In fact, the conditions are insulting. Listen to the community as they express their concerns for the health of their family members. This project can go somewhere in another city and you can choose to protect us. for Continued Public Hearing to Consider Certification of a Final EIR to Assess Project Impacts & Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit for a Proposed Fuel Transfer Facility on BNSF Property. in Regular City Council Meeting 11/4/2025 6:00:00 PM
Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).

From: Luis Sainz
To: Clerk
Cc: Jose Rodriguez; Ron Morrison; Luz Molina; Marcus Bush Subject: USD Group LLC Proposed Fuel Transfer Station
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 2:00:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I just have one question regarding the proposed fuel transfer station that will be on today’s council meeting agenda. Why are we even entertaining the idea of having this outside investor do work in our city? From what I understand, there is no sales transactions to be made in the city? The city will then be making no money on any of the fuel transfers which will be ongoing 24 hours a day. From what I understand, USD Group LLC will be making in lots of money on a daily basis, approximately 1 million dollars a day? And the city will be making zero dollars a day. USD Group LLC did offer to provide the City of National City $200K a year for street repairs due to the use of all these taker trucks going through our city. Really? This all reeks of major corruption. Why would the council vote to allow to have all this traffic, additional pollution, wear and tear on our streets, increased risks of major accidents for no gain to our city or residents. Who does this? Someone will surely be compensated for allowing USD GROUP LLC to operated in the city for zero cost. Do you not care for your citizens? The children who already suffer higher than average respiratory medical issues than any where else in the city? Please vote with your conscience. This will be your legacy, those deaths will be attached to your names. Do not be so greedy, have you all not made enough money on all of the other transactions that have transpired over the years? Karma is a bitch. Investigations will take place, nobody allows someone to come onto your back yard to do business without paying. Who and how much is being paid here? Do the right thing and vote NO on this issue, we will remember during elections, we promise you.

Jose Sainz
From: M S
To: Public Comment
Subject: November 4, Agenda item 10.2
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:05:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

National City deserves to rise up and reap the benefits this beautiful city offers. Our waterfront and industrial heritage should not be wasted.

As a resident, mother, and concerned & tax paying citizen, I feel strongly the proposed fuel station near Kimball Elementary should be rejected. If we absolutely need to bring in dollars, we should have USDG pay multi- millions, not a measly $200k. Make it clean with electric infrastructure from Day One, not down the line.

National City is a jewel and a treasure. We must have services benefitting healthy, quality of life for NC residents. A long-term vision for the health and safety of National City would help grow this community for another hundred-plus years. Do not squander the natural beauty and resources of NC for few dollars. The residents of NC deserve good schools, clean air, access to healthcare.

We currently have poor health outcomes due to the poor air quality, low income jobs, and low educational status. We need to gentrify NC with better quality air, improved access to education, and equitable access to healthy living and clean community spaces. Help National City rise up. Don't push us down.

Thank you.

Mariel Schmidt
From: Dave Gillingham
To: Ron Morrison; Luz Molina; Marcus Bush; Jose Rodriguez; Ditas Yamane; Public Comment; Shelley Chapel Subject: Letter on the new development fee
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:56:03 PM
Attachments: Letter to NC.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor Morrison and City Council members:

Please consider the attached letter
Dave Gillingham, Owner/Broker
License # 01184185
o: (619) 435-0145
m: (619) 992-5318
e: [email protected]
a: 1111 9th St #202, Coronado, CA 92118
Clara Futura Investments, LLC
1111 9th St. #202
Coronado, CA. 92118
November 04, 2025
Mayor Ron Morrison, Vice Mayor Ditas Yamane, Councilmembers Jose Rodriguez, Luz Molina and Marcus Bush
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members,
I am writing to you today as a landowner on the Westside of National City. You may recall my partners and I completed construction of a 14-unit apartment project at 1924 Harding in March of last year. It had been our plan to develop the lot across the street (1929 Harding) which is adjacent to the new City park, but cost overruns and extreme delays in the construction of 1924 Harding disabused us of that idea. Thus, we are now actively attempting to sell our lot. It is my understanding that the lot could 1) be a site for up to 56 units (with 10 of the units for low or moderate income families) and 2) could take advantage of the proximity of the trolley.

As I was only recently apprised of the proposed fee increase, I have not reviewed the justification for it. Regardless, as a National City property owner I feel sure this proposal will have a negative effect on land sales, new development, housing availability and employment. I strongly request a reassessment of the impact of the new fees and if indeed they are deemed essential, I ask for a phased in approach to implementing them – perhaps over 5 years. As proposed, it seems certain the magnitude and abruptness of the proposed fee increase will have a severe, immediate, and detrimental effect in many ways.

Therefore, I agree with the suggestion that the Council open the fee hearing discussion tomorrow, but postpone a final decision to allow for reevaluation of the market implications, particularly as they relate to land valuation, development of affordable housing and local employment.

Respectfully,
Dave Gillingham
Managing Member – Clara Futura Investments, LLC
From: Stephan Gaspar
To: Ron Morrison; Luz Molina; Marcus Bush; Jose Rodriguez; Ditas Yamane; Public Comment; Shelley Chapel Subject: Proposed DIF Increase Feedback - Updated Letter Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 1:47:26 PM
Attachments: 251104_DIF Letter to Council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Dear Mayor Morrison and Councilmembers,
Please find attached a formal letter detailing KIRE Builders, Inc's. position, concerns, and recommendations regarding the Development Impact Fee Update. This letter includes new information from the version we sent on 10/21/2025 for the last meeting. We respectfully ask you to review the contents of this letter prior to the meeting this evening.

Thank you for your consideration on this important item.

Sincerely,
Stephan Gaspar
--
Stephan Gaspar
Development Manager
858.775.3259
[email protected]
Item 11.1
KIRE BUILDERS, INC.
14271 DANIELSON STREET, POWAY, CA 92064
OFFICE: (619) 289-8210 | WEBSITE: KIREBUILDERSINC.COM
November 04, 2025
Mayor Ron Morrison
Vice Mayor Ditas Yamane
Councilmember Jose Rodriguez
Councilmember Luz Molina
Councilmember Marcus Bush
City of National City
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
Re: Development Impact Fee Update – Request for Further Review and Dialogue AMENDED FROM 10/21/2025 LETTER
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members,
As National City’s most active multifamily housing provider with significant investment and interest in the City, we appreciate the need to ensure public facilities keep pace with new growth. We understand that updating the Development Impact Fee program is a necessary step in mitigating the cumulative impacts of new development, in compliance with the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000).

However, after reviewing the 2025 Development Impact Fee Justification Study by DTA, we have several substantive and procedural concerns regarding the analysis and the proposed implementation that warrant further clarification and reconsideration. We request that the impact fee hearing, scheduled for November 04, 2025, be opened for discussion but to move the final decision at least 30 days later to allow staff and the consultant to meet with all stakeholders and address these points.

Substantive Issues with the Fee Analysis
Our primary concern is that the magnitude of the fee increase may have unforeseen consequences for housing feasibility and affordability, while the underlying methodology requires greater clarity to comply with state law. “Exhibit A” includes email responses from DTA raising several points that underscore the need for further review:

1. Lack of Clarity on Square Footage Metric: The methodology used to calculate the Residential Fee (Per Sq. Ft.) does not explicitly define whether the square footage is based on net habitable area or gross building area. Using gross area should not be considered as it levies fees on nonimpact producing space such as stairs, private open space (patios and balconies), utility rooms KIRE BUILDERS, INC.
14271 DANIELSON STREET, POWAY, CA 92064
OFFICE: (619) 289-8210 | WEBSITE: KIREBUILDERSINC.COM
and public corridors to name a few. The fee basis should be clarified as net square footage to avoid unfairly penalizing different building designs.
o DTA Reply: Acknowledged an "oversight" with critical fee calculation definitions in the study.

2. Affordability and Market Shock: The proposed increase represents a potential "market shock" that could severely impact the feasibility of new projects. For our recently completed 92-unit project, the approximate fee increase is 617% (from $1,190 to $7,337 per unit). To maintain a typical developer's expected yield on cost based on today’s market (6.5% based on a 5.0% market cap rate and a 1.5% spread), an apartment’s monthly rent would need to increase by approximately $47.57 (or $571 annually) to absorb the additional fee burden. Conversely, land residual values would need to be reduced $6,147 per unit to offset the increased fees. In reality, it often takes land sellers and brokers a few years to adjust to large fee increases so what’s likely to happen is something in the middle where less land trades in the short term and rents tick up at a higher rate (due to less supply) than they would with a phased in fee. We urge the City to consider a phased implementation to mitigate this impact on project feasibility. o DTA Reply: Noted that a "sticker shock" of fee increases is expected but neither the DTA nor the staff report addresses the impact to housing production.

3. Disincentivizing Family Units: The uniform per-square-foot fee structure, while intended to comply with AB 602, disincentivizes the creation of larger, much-needed family-sized units.

Larger units typically have a proportionally smaller impact per square foot (e.g., in terms of residents or trips) than smaller studios. We urge the City to consider a sliding scale that reduces the fee per square foot as unit size increases, a model successfully employed by neighboring jurisdictions like the City of San Diego.
o DTA Reply: Recognized that the current fee schedule "may" discourage the creation of larger units.

4. Exclusion of DIF for Affordable Units: The City should exclude all Development Impact Fees (DIFs) from any units that are deed-restricted for low income households at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or less. The financial burden of DIFs is particularly detrimental to affordable housing financing models, and the City would see a greater community benefit by offsetting these costs from other revenue sources to stimulate the production of low-income housing.
o DTA Reply: Stated that the City would be responsible for discussing and considering the implementation of reduction of waivers for affordable housing, but the staff report included no mention of the consideration.

5. Fee Credits for Demolished Property: We request clarification on how fee credits will be calculated and applied for the demolition of existing structures and the replacement/intensification of previous uses. Specifically, we ask:
o Will the existing use credit be calculated based on the prior development’s potential impact under the new 2025 Fee Schedule? The methodology should consider the full KIRE BUILDERS, INC.
14271 DANIELSON STREET, POWAY, CA 92064
OFFICE: (619) 289-8210 | WEBSITE: KIREBUILDERSINC.COM
impact reduction provided by the old use against the new use, applying the measure of demand used in the study.
o DTA Reply: Noted the City would be responsible for implementing the fee credit policy.

No details were included in the staff report addressing how the policy would be implemented in this condition.

Procedural and Implementation Questions
We’re also requesting clarification on administrative and legal aspects of the fee implementation as no details were included in the staff report:

6. Applicable Fee Date (Vesting): While Government Code allows fees on residential development to be collected at final inspection, the date the fees are deemed effective is critical for project financial certainty. We ask the City to clarify whether the applicable fee schedule is determined at:
1) Project Submittal (Recommended): This provides the certainty needed to secure financing and move forward with the project.
2) Permit Issuance.
3) Final Inspection.

7. Treatment of Projects Currently in Planning: Clarification is needed on how projects that are already in the City’s planning and entitlement process will be handled relative to the adoption date of the new fees.

8. Administration Costs and Fees: The study notes that the cost of implementing the DIFs is not included in the fees themselves and recommends these expenses be handled through a user fee charged to applicants. We request a clear fee schedule or policy detail explaining how and when this separate administrative cost will be assessed.

9. Conflict with General Plan Policy
o Policy LU-2.4: "Ensure that development impact fees accurately reflect the costs of improvements and do not serve as a barrier to development." No analysis was presented to study whether the magnitude of the fee increases will "serve as a barrier to development," which is a direct requirement of this policy.

10. Conflict with Housing Element Goals:
o Section 4.3: "DIFs often add a significant cost factor in affordable housing development.

The amount of the fees may constrain housing development and rehabilitation and limit market rate affordability due to the cost increase for each housing unit." No analysis of the impact to housing production was included.
o Section 5.1.2: "Interviews with developers and local stakeholders... concluded that factors such as costs and politics from the discretionary process, development impact fees on infill lots... can burden developers and have played a role in discouraging development in the City." No analysis of the impact to housing production was included.

KIRE BUILDERS, INC.
14271 DANIELSON STREET, POWAY, CA 92064
OFFICE: (619) 289-8210 | WEBSITE: KIREBUILDERSINC.COM
We are eager to continue working with City staff and DTA to resolve these issues and establish a predictable, phased-in fee structure that maintains market viability and housing production. We look forward to partnering with the City to find an equitable solution for housing providers and their ability to serve the residents of National City.

Respectfully,
Joshua Santa
President
KIRE Builders, Inc.

From: "Richard Ruiz" <[email protected]>
To: "Sean Pfeifer" <[email protected]>
Date: 10/29/2025 2:53:28 PM
Subject: Planned National City Call for Thursday
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Sean
Sorry to get back to you so late as I was out of the office. I will be away from the office until late Friday, so I will not be able to attend your call tomorrow. However, I will be there next week for the presentation and to answer any questions. Please write down any questions that the developers and builders have and forward them to us and we will answer them.

I have addressed the questions in the letter submitted to the City on October 21st, 2025, by Joshua Santa of KIRE Builders. 1 Lack of Clarity on Square Footage Metric:

Residential development is defined as living space and excludes non living spaces such as garages and patios. This is usually in the Executive summary and in the footnotes on the fee tables, it was an oversight that the definition of living space was left out. DTA will add this to the Fee Study Draft. A detailed description of the net square footage definition will also be added to the Fee Study.
2 Affordability and Market Shock:

The City’s current development impact fees were calculated 20 years ago, and there was no annual escalation clause to increase it every year. So, the “sticker shock” developers would have at the new rates are to be expected. Keep in mind that the fees calculated in 2005 were based on the demographics and land uses and costs of facilities that were in place 20 years ago.

The proposed development impact fees are structured to cover a portion of the new City facilities, land, vehicles and equipment in 2025 dollars. For example, the October 21st 2025, City Council meeting approved Item 8.3 authorizing the purchase of two 2025 Chevrolet Tahoe Police Pursuit vehicles in a not-to-exceed amount of $126,000. Fees generated 20 years ago at 2005 levels would not be able to pay the 2025 costs. This is especially true because the prior didn’t provide an annual escalator..

Each agency can adjust the maximum fees calculated in a Nexus Study to meet their specific goals. It is common to phase in the new fees over several years.

It’s important to note that the fees generated by this fee study represent the maximum DIFs that may be imposed by the City under the statutory requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. The City is free to adjust their fees at any level up to this maximum amount.
3 Disincentivizing Family Units:

DTA realizes that in complying with AB 602, the creation of larger sized family units may be discouraged. It is common for Cities to implement a sliding scale that reduces the fee per square foot as unit size increase. 4 Exclusion of DIF for Affordable Units:

On page 67 of the Fee Study under “C Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers ” DTA discusses the reduction or waiving of fees for affordable housing. The City would implement this policy as it sees fit. 5 Fee Credits for Demolished Property:

Ordinarily, if a structure is demolished and replaced, the DIF would only be for any additional square footage. For example, if a 50,000 square foot commercial building is demolished and replaced by another 50,000 square foot commercial building.

There would be no fee due. If that same building was demolished and replaced by a 60,000 square foot building, the fee would be for an additional 10,000 square feet. The details on implementing this would be provided by the City.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us

Page 1 ends

11/4/2025
Regards
Richard Ruiz Jr.

Manager
P: 800-969-4DTA x213
18201 Von Karman Ave. Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92612
[email protected]
DTA is a registered Municipal Advisor. Unless explicitly stated, neither the firm nor any of the firm’s licensed Municipal Advisors are advising or recommending any action be taken by the recipient of this information with respect to any prospective, new, or existing municipal financial products or issuance of municipal securities (including with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues).

Disclaimer
The inform ation contained in this com m unication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipien t and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents o f this information is strictly prohibited and m ay be unlawful.

This em ail has been scanned for viruses and m alware, and may have been automatically archived by Mime cast, a leader in em ail security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates em ail defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, com pliance and other essential capabilities. Mim ecast helps protect large and sm all organizations from ma licious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the mo vem ent toward building a more resilient wo rld. To find out m ore, visit our website.

Page 2 ends

11/4/2025

National City City CouncilNovember 4, 2025

National City City Council
November 4, 2025