Initial Study - Page 3 of 22
DETERMINATION:
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial Evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or is “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect that remains to be addressed.
Signature
Date
December 17, 2025
Printed Name: Sophia Depew Title: Assistant Planner
Initial Study - Page 4 of 22
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency c ites in the pa rentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the r eferenced information sources show that t he impact simply does not apply to the project. A “No Impact” answer should be e xplained where it is based on p roject-specific factors as well as general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact ma y occur, then the c hecklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant wit h mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence than an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant w/ Mitigation In corporated” applied where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced a n effect fro m “Po tentially Signif icant Im pact” to “Less then Significant Impact”. The lead a gency must describe the mitigat ion measures, and briefly explain how they reduce t he effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the che cklist references t o information sources for potential impacts (e.g. g eneral plans, zoning ordinances). References to a p reviously prepared or outside d ocument should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Source s: A source list sho uld be a ttached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This in only a suggested form, and lead a gencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental eff ects in whichever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Initial Study - Page 5 of 22
ISSUES with Supporting Documentation & Sources
I – AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime Views in the area? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)
x
The project site is an existing industrial lot and is surrounded by existing developed or disturbed areas. Although the San Diego Bay is located within a quarter-mile of the project site, there will be a no impact to the scenic vista because the site is alre ady devel oped and surrounded by other industri al deve lopment. The addition of the proposed propane tank will be required to follow t he development standards in the code, including maximum height. Industrial uses taking place outdoors also require a six-foot screening fence. The applicant is taking over a previously unoccupied space, which will allow for better upkeep of the property.
There are no other scenic vistas or resources in the area that would be affected by the pro ject. The existing visual character is low due to the ex isting industrial uses surround the site. Any proposed development is required to meet the lighting standards in the Chapter 18.60 of the National City Municipal Code (“Code”), which regulates light and glare. Additionally, the existing development site already has lighting on site and no lighting is proposed at this time.
Initial Study - Page 6 of 22
II – AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to a gricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lea d agencies may refer to th e California A gricultural Land Evaluatio n & Site As sessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Cons ervation as an optional model to use in a ssessing impacts on agriculture and f armland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, incl uding timberla nd, are significant enviro nmental effects, lead agencies may refer t o information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inv entory of forest land, including the Fo rest and Range Assessment Project and th e Fo rest Legacy Assessment project; a nd forest carbon measurement me thodology provided in Forest Protocols adopt ed by the California Air Res ources Board.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prim e Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmla nd), as show n on the maps prepared pu rsuant to the Farmland Mapping and Moni toring Program of the Cali fornia Resourc es A gency, to non - agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
The City of National City does not contain farmland or agricultural resources, forest land, nor any land zoned for agricultural use. As such, approval of this project will have no impact on such lands or resources.
Initial Study - Page 7 of 22
III – AIR QUALITY
Where availa ble, the sign ificance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,7,21)
x
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,4)
x
c) Expose sen sitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,7,20)
x
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,7)
x
The City does not have any applicable air quality plan or standards that would apply in this case. Air qua lity is under the purview of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The County of San Diego and National City are in attain ment for all California Clean Air Act (CCAA ) pollutants with the exception of ozone. Approval of this project will not conflict with or obstruct the implementa tion of the S an Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) to manage air quality in our region. The project will obtain permits from the San Diego County Air Pollution C ontrol District that ensures the project is in line with the goals in the RAQS.
The closest residences are located within a quarter -mile and Kimball Elementary is located approxima tely a half-mile from the project site. Since the s ite is already develop ed, construction is limited to the a ddition of the prop ane tank . SDAPCD also has adopted Rule 55 to l imit the im pacts of particulate matter during construction activities. Due to the limited scope of the project, construction and operation will have less than significant impact related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or resulting in other emission (odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
IV – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 6)
x
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
x
Initial Study - Page 8 of 22
(Sources:6)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protect ed wetlands as define d by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, m arsh, vernal po ol, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrolo gical interruption , or other means? (Sources: 6)
x
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fis h or wildlife species or with e stablished native resident or migratory w ildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 6)
x
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1)
x
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1)
x
The project site was previously developed and utilized as an industrial site. The site contains no native or non- native vegetation. Also, no jurisdictional wetlands, other sensitive habitat, or sensitive species are located on the property; and data provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service indicate the proposed project site contains no jurisdictional wetlands or jurisdictional waters of U.S. or state-defined streambeds.
The project site is located completely within an urbanized area, surrounded by development and contains no sensitive habitats or biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances. There are also no adopted habitat conservation plans within the City of National City. Therefore, the proposed development would have no impact.
V – CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
The project is a completely developed site. No historical or arch aeological resources as defined in Section 15064.5 are known to exist on the proposed project site. There is one recorded historical site (Santa Fe Depot) on the National Registrar located within a half-mile of the project site. However, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change to the nearby historical site.
Any construction would occur in an area currently comprised of impermeable (e.g. concre te, asp halt) material. N o gradi ng is proposed. Additionally, the already developed nature of the area suggests that no impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. As such, there is a relatively low probability of disturbing any human remains and t herefore, no impact. In th e event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any
Initial Study - Page 9 of 22
human remains during construction, the applicant shall take all appropriate steps as required by relevant federal, state, and local laws , including California Health and Safety Co de 7050.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in no impact to cultural resources.
V – Energy
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (Sources: 1, 3, , 9, 13)
x
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Sources: 1, 3, 4, 9, 13,15)
x
The project site is located in an area designated for industrial use. The facility will be served by existing electrical and gas infrastructure. The storage facility is not anticipated to increase demand on the electrical grid or natural gas lines beyond the baseline consumption for lighting, security, and minor office use.
Construction of the LPG above ground tank will require the use of energy to powe r heavy equipment, transport materials, and install the storage tank and dispensing equipment. Energy-consuming equipment would include construction ve hicles, cranes, welders, and other machinery. Construction i s temporary, and the energy consumption from these activities is not considered wasteful or inefficient, as standard construction meth ods will be used. Energy efficiency will be maximized through proper maintenance of equipment and efficient route planning for material transport.
Energy consumption during facility operation would be associated with two main components:
• Stationary energ y use: This includes e lectricity for facility li ghting, securi ty systems, minor offic e equipment, and the operation of pumps and compressors needed for fuel storage and dispensing. • Fuel transport: The stored LPG will be transported to and from the site. Transportation energy use is primarily a function o f delivery vehicle trip s, which will be managed for efficiency based on customer demand.
Overall, the project's ope rational energy consump tion would be minimal and is not considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.
At the local level, the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) serves as the energy policy blueprint for the San Diego region through 2050. It established long term goals to support alternative fueling infrastructure throughout the region. The project facilitates the storage of LPG, a cleaner -burning fuel than conventional gasoline or diesel.
The project would facilitate the expansion of alternative fuel options. Therefore, there would be no impact.
VI – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rup ture of a known earthquake fault, as deli neated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Ear thquake Fau lt Zoning M ap issued by the Stat e Geologist for the area or ba sed on other
x
Initial Study - Page 10 of 22
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to D ivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1, 8)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources:1, 8)
x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 8)
x
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1,8)
x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources: 1, 2, 8)
x
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 8)
x
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Ta ble 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 8)
x
e) Have soils i ncapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewe rs are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources:1, 8)
x
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources: 1, 8)
x
California Geological Su rvey information from the California Department of Conservation Fault A ctivity Map indicates that the site is not locat ed wit hin an Alqui st-Priolo Special S tudies Zone, and there are no known active or p otentially active faults that intercept the project site; th erefore, the potenti al for ground rupture at this site is considered low. The nearest active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located over two miles off the coast. Accordingly, the site is not considered to possess a significantly great er seismic risk than that of the su rrounding area in g eneral. The si te is not within an area susceptible to l andslides and not within a fau lt zone, slide pron e a rea or an area susceptible t o liquefaction per the General Plan S afety Element; therefore there is no impact or increased exposure to landslides due to the proposed project.
It should be recognized that Southern California is an area that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considere d economically feasible nor technologically practical to build stru ctures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related hazards. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code should minimize damage due to seismic events. Due to the number and nature of the active and non -active f ault line s within the southern Ca lifornia region, it cannot be known when earthquakes will occur; therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
Any future design and construction would require conformance with City’s stormwater ordinance and grading regulations. Therefore, there is no impact or increased substantial erosion due to the proposed project.
The existing developed parcels are connected to traditional sewer laterals, which connect with th e existing sewer system that serves the City. Any future design and construction would connect to the sam e system.
There would be no use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems; therefore, no impact.
Initial Study - Page 11 of 22
VII – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
(Sources: 1, 9, 1021)
x
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Sources: 1, 9, 10)
x
GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse envi ronmental impacts of global climate chan ge. No single project cou ld generat e enough GHG emissions to noticeably change t he glo bal average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, p resent, and future p rojects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate chan ge and its associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulat ive impact. Any increase to GHG would occur over a short construction duration and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment e xhaust. There would also be long -term regional emissions associated with pr oject-related new vehicular trips and indirec t source emissions, such as energy usage.
The primary use of the site, industrial gas warehouse and retail sales, is a use that would be permitted by right in the absence of the bulk propane storage. Propane will be delivered via commercial propane transport trucks from regional suppliers on a biweekly basis (twice a month),, therefore no impact.
The project facilitates the storage of LPG, a cleaner -burning f uel than co nventional g asoline or diesel , expanding alternative fuel options. Therefore, there would be no impact.
California has adopted several policies and regulations for the purpose of reducing G HG emissions. In April 2015, Executive Order B-30-15 was signed, which established a new GHG emissions reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In addition, in 2024 the City of National City adopted its Climate Action Plan and associated targets to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 2018 levels by 2030 and 80 percent of 2018 levels by 2050. Some of the primary provisions of the Climate Ac tion Plan are to promot e clean transportation, water conserv ation, energy efficiency , and waste reduction strategies. The proposed project would not confl ict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the pur pose of reducing the emissions o f GHG emissions, as contained in the Climate Action Plan. Ba sed on the above, therefore no impact.
VIII – HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant h azard to the public or t he environment through the routine tr ansport, use, o r disposal of ha zardous materials? (Sources: 1, 3, 7, 11, 14)
x
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset a nd accident conditions involving the release of hazardous mat erials into the
environment? (Sources: 1, 3,7, 11, 14)
x
c) Emit h azardous em issions or hand le hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substan ces, or w aste within one -quarter
x
Initial Study - Page 12 of 22
mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list o f haz ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to G overnment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, wou ld it cre ate a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 5)
x
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not be en adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airpor t, would the project result in a sa fety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1)
x
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1)
x
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1)
x
The routine transport, use, and disposal of the hazardous materials on site are regulated by various federal, state, and local requirements to minimize any potential impacts to the public and the environment. The US Department of Transportation P ipeline and Hazardous Materials Saf ety Administration regulates the transport of hazardous materials. Propane will be delivered via comme rcial propane transpor t trucks fr om reg ional suppl iers and transported directly to the on -site 30,000 gal lon storage tank. All propane deliveries are c onducted with trained personnel present, following NFPA protocols. Use of the haza rdous materials on site involves the dispensing of propane, which requires permits through the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District and the National City Building Division and Fire Department. Propane will be dispense d to retail customers, filling five-gallon to twenty-five gallon tanks. There are specialized procedures for the disposal of hazardous gases within the State of California. Therefore, less than significant impact.
Due to the type of use and the presence of hazardous material on si te, the applicant will be required to s ubmit detailed plans to the National City Fire Department prior to construction and operation of the site. The plans will include an Emer gency Dis aster R esponse Plan, Cost Recovery Plan, sch eduled traini ng operations, and compliance with all a pplicable Fire Codes. Fir e Sprinkler Systems, Fire Ala rm Systems, Early Warning Gas Detection Systems, and Emergency Shut Offs are required for the project. In addition to the National City Fire Department, the project is subject to multiple federal, state, a nd local associations that explicitly regulate the safety and handling of hazardous materials, such as the National Fi re Protection Association, Compressed Gas Association, American Propane Institute, and the Occupational Safe ty and Health Administration . Operations related to the storage and dispensing of prop ane will follow proper safety and operation protocols from all relevant federal, state, and local requirements. Therefore, there will not be any reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
The project is located on a site which is included o n a l ist of hazard ous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 per the State Water Resource s Control Board Geo Tracker. The site was previously operated by Univar, a global chemical and ingredients distributor. Potential contaminates of concern on site include 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ( TCA), 1,4 -Dioxane, Dichloroethane (EDC), Tetrachloroethylene ( PCE), and Trichloroethylene (TCE). As a result, installation of an air sparge and soil vapor extraction well s occurred in March of 2022. Environmental consultants for the remediation on site indicated the proposed above ground propane tank is not incompatible with the existing vapor recovery and that no combustible gas is emitted from the vapor recovery unit sit e. Any potential hazardous concentrations of VOC in the soils should have no negative impact on the bearing capacities of the soils in their current state. During installation of the above ground tank, the
Initial Study - Page 13 of 22
applicant shall be responsible for coordinating with the consultants so that any soil spoils genera ted from the installation of the propane tank that are not suitable to be used to backfill onsite will be tested and profiled to confirm any hazardous concentrations and a geotechnical evaluation of the soils shall be completed prior to reuse onsite, should any soils be excavated and reused as backfill. Therefore, less than significant impact.
The site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, therefore no impact. There are no airports or airstrips in the vicinity. the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and the project is not adjacent to any wildlands or land subject to wildland fires; therefore there would not be any significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires. Therefore, there is no impact.
IX – HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate an y water qual ity standards or waste di scharge requirements or otherwise substanti ally degrade surface or ground water quality? (Sources: 1)
x
b) Substantially decrease groundwater sup plies or interfere substantially with groun dwater re charge such that the p roject may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Sources: 1)
x
c) Substantially alter the existin g drainage pattern of the s ite or area, including thro ugh the alteration of the course of a strea m or rive r or through the addit ion of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (Sources: 1, 3, 6)
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
x
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
x
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
x
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
x
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Sources: 1)
x
The project area is comprised of an existing developed industrial site. The project wi ll be subject to wate r quality and discharge requirements through the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP). Future development will be required for compliance with all storm water handling, storage, drainage, and hydromodification regulations.
Any construction will fol low best management practice s so no t t o decrea se ground water supplies, or alter
Initial Study - Page 14 of 22
drainage patterns that would result in substantial erosion, inc rease su rface runoff resulting in flo oding, contribute to runoff that would exceed stormwater drainage, or impede flood flows.
The property is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, therefore, no impact. Additionally, the project is not subject to any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management pla ns, therefore no impact.
X – LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environm ental effect? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
The site is surrounded by industrial uses (storage, warehouse, manufacturing, etc.). No residential zones are nearby; therefore, no impact.
The project is a conditionally permitted use in a zone that all ows a range of industrial and commercial uses, which is consistent with both the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and the Land Use Code ; therefore, there would be no conflict with said plans.
XI – MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1)
x
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Sources: 1)
x
The project site is located completely within an urbanized area and surrounded by development. The site contains no known mineral resources on the proposed project site or delineated on a local plan for the site; therefore, there is no impact to mineral resources.
XII – NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local gener al plan o r noise ordinance, or applicable sta ndards of other agencies? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)
x
Initial Study - Page 15 of 22
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
c) For a project located within the vicinit y of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1)
x
The surrounding area is industrial and isn’t near any residentially -zoned properties, so any noise associated with the proposed project is not expected to exceed the existing ambient noise in this area. The transport trucks for propane delivery are not expected to exceed two trips per month . Propane dispensing shall only occur during operating hours (8am-5pm) and air compressor equipment will be enclosed and sound-dampened per manufacturer specifications. Furthermore, the project is subject to the limitations contained in the City’s Noise Ordinance; therefore, less than significant impact.
The associated construction on t he project site would cr eate temporary noise impacts. Modern construction equipment, properly used and maintained, sho uld not exceed the noise limits contained in the City’s Noise Ordinance. All noise gen erated by the project would be required to comply wi th the City’s Noise Ordi nance and be limited to specific hours of operation. No impact from the project would occur.
The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip; therefore, there is no impact to those people working on the project site.
XIII – POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce s ubstantial unplanned population growth in a n area, either directly (for example, by proposing new h omes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of re placement housing
elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
The project is a n industrial use and would replace an existing industrial use, the refore th ere would be n o impact to population or housing in the area. Housing is not a permitted use west of the Interstate 5.
XIV – PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisio n o f new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically alter ed governmental facilities, the construction o f which c ould cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rat ios, response times or o ther performance objectives for any of the public services:
Initial Study - Page 16 of 22
Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 3,11)
x
Police protection? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
Schools? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
Parks? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 3)
x
Due to the type of use and the presence of hazardous material on site, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans to the National City Fire Department prior to construction and operation of the site. The plans will include an Emer gency Disaster Response Plan, Cost Recovery Plan, sched uled training operations , and compliance with a ll applicable fi re cod es for each use . Joint pre -incident walkthroughs with the Fire Department are required prior to occupancy and annually . Specialized equipment for emergency response shall be provided specifically for propane incidents. The facility must also support Fire Department training, including full-scale hazardous materials scenarios and unique firefighting tools or equipment; therefore, there is a less than significant impact with regard to Fire protection.
The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to public services. Any redeve lopment w ould replace existing uses and not have a significant effect on existing volumes of calls for service The project site is currently and will continue to be served by the National City Fire and Police Department. The closest Fire Station is approximately 1.3 miles away on East 16th Street, as is the Police Station at 12th Street and National City Boulevard. Typical response time for this area would not be adv ersely impacted, as plans do not i nvolve changes to public stre ets adjacent to the site and since plans include retaining emergency acces s throughout the project area; therefore, there is no impact.
Schools would not be impacted, as there is no increase in population that would add to school attendance, thus no impact.
Any increase to park usage would likely occur from employees o f the business, however the t otal number of employees is not expected to exceed 14, thus no impact.
XV – RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreatio nal fa cilities such t hat substantial physical deterioration of the fa cility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
b) Does the project include rec reational fac ilities o r require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:
1, 2, 3)
x
Pepper Park, located on the Sweetwater Channel waterfront, is the only park/recreational facility in the vicinity.
The park is located within one mile of the project site. The type of development proposed (industrial) is not expected to increase use of the park . Any increase t o p ark usage would likely occur from employees o f the
Initial Study - Page 17 of 22
business, however the total number of employees is not expected to exceed 14. Additionally, Pepper Park is not a C ity park (it is owned and operate d by the San Diego Unified P ort District). Furthermore, Pepper Park i s undergoing major renovations to accommodate more visitors. Therefore, no impact.
XVI – TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,17,18,19)
x
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous in tersections) or incompatibl e uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
x
Potential development would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities, as there are no such activities existing or plan ned in this area . National City has designated trucking routes originating mainly from the National City Marine Termi nal and l inking to regional highways. The truck routes through National City are either classified as “primary” or “alternate” routes. Primary routes are generally described as the most direct routes to freeways and are used for regional delivery. Alternat e routes are those roads used to move trucks through the City to local destinations. The closest primary routes a re Tidelands Avenue and Bay Marina Drive. All trucks shall be required to follow appropriate ruck routes as identified in the National City General Plan Transportation Element, therefore, no impact.
The site is an already-developed industrial property and has been operated as a warehouse, a permitted use by right. While heavy-duty trucks are not typically included in VMT analysis, the number of t rucks visiting the site to fill the propane tank is two trips per month. With regard to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the project would screen out of VMT analysis related to CEQA, as the potential tra ffic generated by the proposed use is not expected to su bstantially increase VMT when compared to the existing use of the site and is well below the threshold for additional analysis.
While the City does not have any adopted plans which provide thresholds of significance for VMT as it relates to CEQA, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) provides a guide for vehicular traffic generation rates for the San Diego Region and the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) provides region specific thresholds of significance for VMT as follows:
Projects Inconsistent with General Plan or Community Plan
Average Daily Trips Level of Analysis
0-500 VMT Analysis Not Needed/VMT Impacts Presumed Less Than Significant 500 and Greater VMT Analysis Recommended
Initial Study - Page 18 of 22
Projects Consistent with General Plan or Community Plan
Average Daily Trips Level of Analysis
0-1,000 VMT Analysis Not Needed/VMT Impacts Presumed Less Than Significant 1,000 and Greater VMT Analysis Recommended
SANDAG trip generation rates guide indi cates warehouses generate approximately 5 trips/1,000 square feet and/or 60 trips/acre per day. Using this calculation, the 88,880 square -foot industrial site would generate approximately 122 trips per day, including trips generated by trucks filling the p ropane tank. The average daily trip rate is within the 0 -500 range for projects inconsistent with the General Plan and the 0 -1,000 range for projects consistent with the General Plan that are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Additionally, land use projects within one -half mile of major transit stop or high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. The project site is located within one-half mile of the 24th Street Transit Center, qualifying transit, therefore no impact.
The site currently has two entrances located off of Haffley Avenue. One leads directly to employee/customer parking, while the second entrance provides access directly to yard area. The site already utilized as a n industrial property and is surround ed by similar uses. There are no proposed changes to the site at this time that would increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, or incompatible uses, therefore no impact.
No change in road or site design is proposed which would cause a safety risk or hinder emergency access. On site development shall be required to maintain all emergency routes, therefore, no impact.
XVI – Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(Sources: 1)
x
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or (Sources: 1)
x
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe (Sources: 1)
x
Initial Study - Page 19 of 22
The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and sc ope of t he landscape, s acred pla ce, o r ob ject with cultural value to a California Native American tribe because the site is nei ther listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources, and the site is not considered a resource or potentially a resource to a California Native American tribe; therefore, no impact.
XVII – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm wat er drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocati on of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 2)
x
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future developmen t during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (Sources: 1,2)
x
c) Result in a determinati on by the wastewater treatmen t provider which serves or may serve the proje ct that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in ad dition to the provider’s existing commitments? (Sources: 1, 2)
x
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Sources:
1, 2, 912)
x
e) Com ply w ith federal , state, and local statutes and regulation s related to solid waste? (Sources: 1, 2, 9)
x
The proposed project is located within an urbanized area and served by existing water facilities. The proposed project would be designed and constructed using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to appropriately handle wastewater and not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sweetwater Authority will determine if additional infrastructure, as needed, can be provided.
Also, all necessary improvements will be included with project approval and construction will be undertaken in acc ordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reg ulations; therefore, there would be no impact.
The proposed project si te will have standard requirements for solid waste. The local waste collec tion and recycle company, EDCO, has a cont ract with the City to handle City commercial businesses waste disposal and recycling needs. According to EDCO staff, the company utilizes several landfill sites for t he disposal of waste collected in National City, with the most common being Otay Mesa, Sycamore, and Miramar Landfills, with an additional 5, 17 and 6 years of capacity remaining r espectively; therefore, there is a less than significant impact. There are two other landfill sites in San Diego County – the Ramona landfill, which is full, and Borrego Springs landfill, which has an additional 30 years capacity remaining. In addition, th e proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste.
XVII – WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Initial Study - Page 20 of 22
hazard severity zones, would the project:
Would the project:
Impact Incorporation Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1,16)
x
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and ot her factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Sources: 1,16)
x
c) Require the installation or main tenance of as sociated infrastructure (such a s roads, fue l breaks, em ergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may ex acerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Sources: 1,16)
x
d) Expose people o r stru ctures to significant risks, incl uding downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope in stability, or drainage changes? (Sources: 1,16)
x
The site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, therefore, no impact.
XVIII – MANDATORY FINDINGS of
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife spec ies, cause a fis h or wildlife popu lation to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major p eriods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1)
x
b) Does the project have imp acts that are individually limited, but cumulatively consider able? ( “Cumulatively considerable ” means that the incremental effects of a project are consider able when viewed in connection with the effects of past pro jects, the effects o f other current proje cts, and the effects of pro bable future projects)? (Sources: 1)
x
c) Does the project have enviro nmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1)
x
Discussion: No significant impacts to the environ ment as a result of this project have been identified .
Approval of th e project is not expected to have any signific ant impacts, either long -term or short -term, nor will it cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Initial Study - Page 21 of 22
REFERENCE SOURCES:
Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:
1 National City General Plan
https://www.nationalcityca.gov/g
overnment/community-
development/planning/general-
plan
2 City of National City Municipal Code
https://library.municode.com/ca/
national_city/codes/code_of_ordi
nances?nodeId=CD_ORD_TIT1
8ZO
3 Case File 2025-26 IS, Initial Study Documents National City Planning Division 4 SANDAG www.sandag.org
5 State Water Resource Control Board Geo Tracker https://geotracker.waterboards.ca .gov/search
6 US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Mapper System https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/d ata/mapper.html
7 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/
sdapcd/permits/equipment-
types/ast.html
8 California Department of Conservation http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/fam/
9 City of National City Climate Action Plan
https://www.nationalcityca.gov/h
ome/showpublisheddocument/34
854/638871135944330000
10 Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/energy/gree
nhouse-gas-equivalencies-
calculator
11 Comments received from National City Fire Department National City Planning Division 12 CalRecycle https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/
SolidWaste/Site/Search
13 California Energy Commission
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/
default/files/2025-07/CEC-400-
2025-010-F_0.pdf
14 US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/stan
dards-
rulemaking/hazmat/hazardous-
materials-regulations
15 SANDAG Regional Energy Strategy
https://www.sandag.org/-
/media/SANDAG/Documents/P
DF/projects-and-
programs/environment/regional-
Initial Study - Page 22 of 22
energy-planning/regional-
energy-strategy-2014-06-01.pdf
16 State Responsibility Area
https://gis.data.cnra.ca.gov/apps/
CALFIRE-Forestry::state-
responsibility-area-sra-
viewer/explore
17 SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov
/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Lehm
anTPM/38%20Appendix%20T9
_SANDAG%20Trip%20Generat
ion%20Rates.pdf
18 Institute of Transpiration Engineers Guidelines for
Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region
https://static1.squarespace.com/st
atic/5ab6b8a33e2d09b08935bcb
1/t/5d0c2f9ce5c55900014494ee/
1561079734160/Guidelines+for+
TIS+in+the+San+Diego+Region
+-+May+2019.pdf
19 Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20180416-
743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.1
8.pdf
20 SDAPCD Rule 55
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/
dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/cur
rent-rules/Rule-55.pdf
21 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/
dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/pl
anning/Att.%20A%20-
%202022%20RAQS.pdf
Memo
www.arcadis.com
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 400 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor, Sacramento, CA, 702 485 6000 1/1 haffley memo
SUBJECT
2100 Haffley Ave Propane Tank Permitting
TO
Jay-Rob Josafat
WestAir Gases & Equipment, Inc
DATE
August 28, 2025
OUR REF
30249288
COPIES TO
Michelle Stayrook, Univar Solutions, USA
NAME
Brian Prowd, P.E.
916.786.3554, [email protected]
As the environmental consultant for the remediation site located at the address of 2100 Haffley Avenue, National City, CA, I certify the following:
a. There is no combustible gas being emitted from the vapor recovery unit onsite; b. The proposed propane tank is not incompatible with the existing vapor recovery in any way, shape, or form;
c. Any soil spoils generated from the installation of the propane tank that are not suitable to be used to backfill onsite will be tested and profiled to confirm any hazardous concentrations. If required, soils will be disposed of appropriately;
d. Any potential hazardous concentrations of VOC in the soils should have no negative impact on the bearing capacities of the soils in their current state. It would be recommended to complete a geotechnical evaluation of the soils prior to reuse onsite, should any soils be excavated and reused as backfill.
If there are any questions, please contact me at 916.786.3554.
Sincerely,
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
Brian Prowd, P.E.
Project Manager
EXHIBIT G
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA ,
CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) FOR LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS (PROPANE) STORAGE AND DISPENSING TO BE LOCATED AT 2100 HAFFLEY AVENUE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City considered a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for liquified petroleum gas (propane) storage and dispensing at an existing bus iness (WestAir) located at 2100 Haffley Avenue (APN: 559-040- 08-01) at a duly advertised public hearing held on May 5 , 2026, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the st aff report contained in Case File No. 2025-26 CUP CDP IS maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered the C UP and CDP application at a duly advertised public hearing held on March 16, 2026, at which time the Commission recommended approval of the CUP and CDP; and
WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the City Council hereby determines t hat the evidence presented supports the following findings:
1. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA for which a Negative Declaration (ND) has been prepared. The ND determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape, because the project site is an existing developed industrial property meeting minimum lot size requirements for the Medium Manufacturing (MM) zone. The proposed propane tank will meet all required setbacks including separation from existing structures and property lines. There is an existing appropriately-size paved area to allow for the ingress and egress of trucks.
3. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use, because the project location is on the west side of the City where adequate truck routes exist along Bay Marina Drive, Civic Center Drive, and Tidelands Avenue. Interstate 5 is directly accessible from these streets. In addition, the site has access from West 19th Street for ingress and egress of truck traffic. The addition of the propane tank will only result in one additional truck trip every other week to fill the tank.
4. That the proposed use will n ot have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties, because the proposed project is an industrial use consistent with the Medium Manufacturing (MM) zone description in the General Plan and will be subject to conditions of approval that ensure safe operation of the facility. Adjacent and abutting properties are occupied by similar industrial and manufacturing uses. As a condition of approval, the project is required to adhere to truck routes and maintain a screening fence. The project is
also required to conform to all development standards and design guidelines of the MM zone.
5. That the proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the pu blic convenience or welfare, because the project facilitates the storage of propane, a cleaner -burning fue l than conventional gasoline or diesel, expanding alternative fuel options. The use is consistent with the MM zone description, which is intended for uses in areas in which activities involve some degree of noise, vibration, air pollution, radiation, glare phenomena, and/or fire and explosive hazards.
6. The granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with all other plans and ordinances of the City of National City: The proposed use is permitted, subject to a CUP, by the Land Use Code, which is consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in the staff report, the project is consistent with policies in the Land Use Element and Safety Element of the General Plan.
7. That the granting of said Coastal Development Permit will be consistent with and implements the Certified Local Coastal Program: The project is located in an area generally exempt from a Coastal Development Permit; involves a g as storage and distribution use, which is conditionally allowed in the MM zone; and will not prohibit coastal access or obstruct views.
8. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); The City con ducted an Environmental Initial Study that determined the proposed project would not have a potentially si gnificant environmental impact and qualifies for a Negative Declaration per Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2: That the City Council h erby certifies the Negative Declaration for liquified petroleum gas (propane) storage and dispensing at an existing business (WestAir) located at 2100 Haffley Avenue.
Section 3: That the City Council hereby approves the Conditional Use P ermit and Coastal Development subject to the following conditions:
General
1. This Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit authorizes the installation and operation of a 30,000-gallon above ground propane tank with associated dispensing equipment for a business (WestAir) located at 2100 Haffley Avenue. Plans submitted for permits associated with this project shall conform to Exhibit A, Case File No. 2025-26 CUP CDP IS, dated 12/11/2025.
2. Before this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit shall become effective, the applicant and the property owner shall both sign and have notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Division, acknowledging and accepting all conditions imposed upon the approval of this permit. Failure to return the signed and notarized Acceptance Form within 30 days of its receipt shall automatically terminate the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit . The applicant or owner shall also submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Division that a Notice of Restriction on Real Property is recorded with the County Recorder. The applicant or owner shall pay necessary recording fees to the County. The Notice of Restriction shall provide information that conditions imposed by app roval of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. The Notice of Restriction shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and signed by the Director of Community Development prior to recordation.
3. This permit shall become null and void if not exercised within one year after adopti on of the resolution of approval unless extended according to procedures specified in the Municipal Code.
4. This permit shall expire if the use authorized by this resolution is discontinued for a period of 12 months or longer. This permit may also be revoke d, pursuant to provisions of the Land Use Code, if discontinued for any lesser period of time.
5. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked if the operator is found to be in violation of any Conditions of Approval or applicable law.
6. Within four (4) days of approval, pursuant to Fish and Game Code 711.4 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 753.5, the applicant shall pay all necessary environmental filing fees for the San Diego County Clerk. Checks shall be made payable to the San Diego County Clerk and submitted to the National City Planning Department.
Building
7. The proposal will require a plan check submittal with professionally prepared construction drawings complying with the current adopted California Building Codes (CBC) at time of submittal (currently 2022 CBC, as of January 1, 2026 it will be the 2025 CBC).
8. An independent technical report showing co mpliance with NFPA 2 standards will be required and most of the items included in the report will need to be shown on the plans.
9. In rega rds to the foundation design, the Engineer of Record will need to address the potential removal of known contaminated soils at this specific site. A soils report showing soils conditions and allowable soils bearing pressures will be required and must coordinate with the Structural Engineer’s design.
10. Plans shall identify the distance between the existing vapor recovery equip ment and the proposed propane tank and dispensing equipment to ensure there is sufficient space to avoid any spark/ignition sources.
11. A Lighting Plan and Electrical Plans shall be submitted to the Building Division.
12. The site dispensing area and devices must meet accessibility requirements.
Fire
13. The site shall provide multiple all -weather, unobstructed access and egress routes that comply with California Fire Code Chapter 5 and Appendix D.
14. Roadways must support fire apparatus (minimum 75,000 lbs. GVW) and ma intain a minimum 20-foot width with 13'6" vertical clearance.
15. Entrance/exit gates shall be equipped with a Knox Box and Emergency Strobes.
16. A Knox Key Switch shall be installed with the strobe and placed at the front of the property. Contact the National City Fire Department for the exact field location.
17. All fire department access roads shall be at least 20 feet wide and 14 feet high, with an all-weather surface supporting 75,000 pounds.
18. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus road, the minimum w idth shall be 26 feet.
19. Aerial fire apparatus roads shall have a minimum width of 26 feet in the vicinity of buildings or hazardous storage.
20. A minimum turning radius of 28 feet is required for access.
21. The road grade shall not exceed 15%, per the Fire Code Official’s standards.
22. Fire access roads must be painted and signed to prevent parking and obstruction.
23. The full width of access roads must remain unobstructed, including no vehicle parking.
24. Approved firefighting access shall be provided to construction and demolition sites.
25. Access must reach within 100 feet of all fire department connections.
26. Temporary or permanent roads must support apparatus under all weather conditions.
27. Specific requirements override general ones. The most restrictive code requirement shall apply where there are discrepancies.
28. Emergency routes shall be marked, well-lit, and obstruction-free.
29. Aerial apparatus access shall be provided where required.
30. Hydrants must be strategically located and meet CFC Appendix B & C flow requirements.
31. Hydrants shall be spaced no more than 300 feet apart.
32. Hydrants shall be within 400 feet of all roadway-accessible locations, measured from the nearest existing hydrant.
33. An approved underground water system shall support hydrants and sprinklers per NFPA 24 and local standards.
34. Where applicable, private mains shall meet all access and testing requirements.
35. All buildings shall be fully sprinklered per NFPA 13.
36. The system shall match building occupancy and hazard classification.
37. A monitored alarm system per NFPA 72 s hall include required smoke and heat detection.
38. Continuous detection systems must be installed in all areas with fuel storage, transfer, or dispensing.
39. Systems must activate visual/audible alarms and automatic shutdowns per NFPA and CFC.
40. Clearly marked, accessible emergency fuel shut -off valves must be installed throughout the site.
41. Propane storage limits shall comply with CFC Chapter 60 a nd hazardous materials regulations.
42. The project shall follow all zoning rules, utility plans, and emergency access standards.
43. The facility must remain compliant with updated codes.
44. Periodic reviews and inspections are required.
45. Joint pre -incident walkthrou ghs with the Fire Department are required prior to occupancy and annually.
46. The facility must support Fire Department tra ining, including full -scale hazardous materials scenarios.
47. The developer shall provide specialized equipment as needed for propane incid ents, including:
a. Fire-resistant hydrogen handling suits
b. Gas detection and monitoring devices
c. Specialized nozzles or tools
d. Any additional equipment as needed
48. Training must be delivered on any unique firefighting tools or equipment before operation and on a regular basis.
49. A comprehensive Emergency Disaster Response Plan must be submitted, covering:
a. Incident command
b. Notification procedures
c. Evacuation and emergency system activation
50. The facility must include a Cost Recovery Plan to reimburse the Fire Department for emergency responses. This includes:
a. Personnel time (including overtime)
b. Apparatus and equipment use
c. Replacement of damaged/contaminated gear
d. Administrative costs
e. This plan must be submitted and approved before operation begins.
51. Strict compliance with fire, building, and environmental codes is required.
52. Developers must submit detailed plans showing:
a. Fire access routes
b. Hydrant locations
c. Water supply systems
d. Gas detection and fire protection infrastructure
53. Ongoing coordination with the Fire Department is essential, including:
a. Pre-incident planning
b. Annual inspections
c. Emergency drills
54. A cost recovery plan must be integrated into the facility’s emergency response planning.
55. Supporting documents are considered mandatory for compliance and m ust be incorporated into all project phases.
56. The project shall;
a. Review and adhere to all attached documents
b. Submit updated plans demonstrating full compliance
c. Engage in scheduled meetings with Fire Department officials d. Support training, equipment procurement, and cost recovery efforts Planning
57. The facility shall at all times be operated in conformance with all San Diego Ai r Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) rules and regulations pertaining to the proposed use including, but not limited to, nuisance odors and emissions standards.
58. All required federal, state, or local permits for the installation and operation of the facili ty shall be approved prior to start of operations. Permits shall be maintained for the life of the project. Failure to maintain proper operating permits shall constitute a violation of this CUP and CDP.
59. The dispensing of liquified petroleum gas shall be co nducted by a fully competent and qualified person, who understands the properties of propane and who is thoroughly trained in safe practices for handling, distribution, and operation.
60. All development plans submitted for the construction of the proposed facility shall adhere to the design regulations of Section 18.18.180 of the previous Land Use Code (Ord. 1503 § 1 (part), 1976: NCLUC § 972-6 (part)).
61. Plans submitted for construction shall conform to Chapter 18.60 – Outdoor Lighting of the previous Land Use Code (Ord. 1503 § I (part), 1976: NCLUC § 975-10).
62. Plans submitted for construction shall conform to Chapter 18.86 - Mechanical Equipment of the previous Land Use Code (Ord. 1503 § 1 (part), 1976: NCLUC § 976-1 (part)).
63. The applicant shall comply with all applicable standards required by outside agencies and service providers. San Diego Gas and Electric and Sweetwater Authority shall be consulted during submittal of development permits.
64. The applicant shall maintain a six -foot high screening fence. Broken or missing fence slats shall be replaced as needed.
65. All activities shall comply with the noise limits contained in Title 12 of the Nati onal City Municipal Code.
66. Signage shall be added to the exit from the fuel dispensing area indicating a right turn only for trucks in order to direct them to the nearest truck route on Bay Marina Drive.
67. All interested Tribes shall be informed as the proje ct progresses and shall receive project updates, reports of investigation, and/or any documentation that may be generated regarding previously recorded or newly discovered sites. Archaeological and Tribal Cultural monitoring on all ground disturbance activ ities is required. If the project boundaries are modified to extend beyond the currently proposed limits, the tribes sha ll be updated and given the opportunity to respond to changes.
68. The operator of the business shall maintain an active business license and ensure that the business license is renewed annually.
Indemnification Agreement
The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, proceedings, damages, judgments, or costs, including attorney's fees, against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, relating to the issuance of this permit including, but not limited to, any action to attack, set aside, void, challenge, or annul this development approval and any environmental document or decision. The City will promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding.
The City may elect to conduct its own defense, participate in its own defense, or obtain independent legal counsel in defense of any claim related to this indemnification. In the event of such election, the Applicant shall pay all of the costs related thereto , including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event of a disagreement between the City and Applicant regarding litigation issues, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigation related decision s, including, but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter. However, the Applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless such settlement is approved by the Applicant.
Section 4: That t he City Cl erk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of orginal Resolutions.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2026.
__________________________
Ron Morrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Heidi Skinner, Interim City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Angelita Palma, Community Development Manager Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026
Approved by: Stephen Manganiello, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT:
$10,000 Construction Financing Loan for the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing Units at National City Park Apartments C2
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution entitled "Resolution of the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City, California , Authorizing a $10,000 Construction Financing Loan for the Rehabilitation of 240 Affordable Housing Units at National City Park Apartments C2, Located at 318 E 22nd Street in National City.”
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:
Not Applicable.
EXPLANATION:
National City Park Apartments (“NCPA”) was originally constructed in 1968 by SD Trades Council through San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council Family Housing Corporation (“FHC”) with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) financing. The site has been owned and operated by FHC through two subsidiaries: the eastern portion is owned by SDBTC Family Housing Corp. One, and the western portion is owned by SDBTC Family Housing Corp. Two. When the HUD -backed mortgage was retired, FHC's Board voted unanimously to maintain the property as affordable housing for low and moderate -income families. NCPA has operated without a regulatory agreement ever since, with FHC voluntarily maintaining affordable rents.
Terrex Development Corporation (“Developer”) is the developer for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a portion of NCPA, namely, the 240-unit affordable housing project at National City Park Apartments C2 (“NCPA C2” or “Project”), located at 318 E 22nd Street in National City (units west of D Avenue between E 22 nd Street and E 24 th Street). The Developer is requesting that the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority of the City of National City (“CDC-HA”) commit $10,000 in Low- and Moderate-Income Housing funds for a construction loan for the rehabilitation of NCPA C2.
The Project is comprised of 22 existing 2 -story garden -style walk -up buildings totaling 240 residential units. There are 176 two-bedroom units, 64 three-bedroom units, and 2 manager units.
The buildings range in size from 8 to 16 units. A dedicated leasing office will continue to provide support for residents. Amenities include a children’s play area, outdoor space, and shared laundry facilities.
A commitment letter is required for a financing application to the California Debt Limit Allo cation Committee (“CDLAC”) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“CTCAC”) for tax - exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits (“LIHTC”), respectively, which is due May 19, 2026. The Developer is seeking approximately $40,000,000 in tax -exempt bond financing from CDLAC to fund the project, along with the $54,000,000 in LIHTC equity, and $45,000,000 in debt from a commercial lender.
Through the CDLAC-tax-exempt bond and LIHTC -funded rehabilitation and the CDC -HA Loan, 238 of the 240 housing units will be preserved as affordable housing between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income for a term of 55 years from completion . Two (2) units will be set aside as manager units.
NCPA C2 is currently owned by the SDBTC Family Housing Corp. Two “(Owner”). Owner will ground-lease NCPA C2 at the construction closing to a yet-to-be-created special purpose limited partnership (“Borrower”) managed by the Developer. The Developer has committed to the Owner to use unionized labor for the rehabilitation, which wi ll b e memorialized in a project labor agreement (“PLA”) with the San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council.
The Project does not currently have a legal requirement from a public entity mandating prevailing wages be paid, nor a legal requirement to enter into a PLA. However, CDLAC applications are competitively scored, and the funding rounds are routinely oversubscribed. Maximizing the application score is critical to secure a funding award to finance the rehabilitation. A National City loan commitment in the amount of $10,000 (“CDC-HA Loan”), conditioned on the payment of state prevailing wages for the duration of construction, with the requirement of a PLA, would increase the project's tiebreaker score 18% pursuant to CDLAC Regulations Section 5106(f)(2)(B), which states:
“15% for projects that are paid for in whole or in part out of public funds and are subject to a legal requirement for the payment of state or federal prevailing wages on the entire project. An additional 3% for projects that certify that … they are subject to a project labor agreement within the meaning of Section 2500(b)(1) of the Public Contract Code that requires the employment of construction workers who are paid at least state or federal prevailing wages…”
The Developer requests an enforceable CDC-HA Loan commitment letter that explicitly requires payment of state prevailing wages and entry into a PLA as conditions of the loan, which will greatly improve NCPA C2’s competitiveness for tax -exempt bonds and LIHTC. The draft enforceable commitment letter for the CDC -HA Loan is attached to this staff report (“Exhibit B”). The final executed commitment letter will be included in the funding application to CDLAC and CTCAC, which is due on May 19, 2026 . The City L oan shall be evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust, and would be funded at construction financing closing, which is anticipated for January 2027.
TERMS OF COMMITMENT LETTER (“Exhibit B”)
Amount: $10,000
Interest Rate: Applicable Federal Rate as of the timing of construction financing closing (current AFR is 4.6%) or 3%, whichever is greater.
Term: 3 years, with two 6-month extensions at the option of the Borrower Repayment: Repayment of principal and accrued interest at the earlier of expiration of the Term or conversion to permanent financing
Security/Collateral: Deed of Trust against the leasehold, non-recourse to Borrower.
Loan Position: Subordinate to construction lender (to be determined) in a form acceptable to Community Development Commission-Housing Authority
Conditions:
238 of the 240 units will be preserved by the Community Development Commission- Housing Authority as affordable housing by the Community Development Commission- Housing Authority between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income for a term of 55 years from completion
Reimbursements to the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority for its staff and consultants’ time, which shall occur prior to or concurrently with construction financing closing.
Building permit approval
Closing on an award of tax -exempt bonds from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
Payment of state prevailing wages for the rehabilitation of the project and entering into a project labor agreement
This commitment shall expire December 31, 2027, if the construction financing closing has not occurred.
PROJECT SUMMARY
NCPA C2 rehabilitation hard costs total approximately $42 million, or $175,000 per unit. The scope will include:
Building envelope: New windows, doors, roofs, paint, and added insulation Energy/system
improvements:
Converting the property to all-electric, including capping the existing gas lines; installing new HVAC systems;
Safety/Accessibility: ADA accessibility improvements; asbestos and mold remediation Interiors: Rehabilitation of the unit interiors, including kitchens and bathrooms.
The Developer has experience successfully recapitalizing and rehabilitating four (4) previously occupied affordable housing projects . For the rehabilitation of NCPA C2, t he plan is to first rehabilitate 24 vacant units, then move tenants into the rehabbed units, building by building . All existing income-qualified households will be provided with newly refurbished units. To the extent possible, any over-income residents will be offered permanent housing in the NCPA C1 (reference “Exhibit A”) and provided with moving assistance free of charge. Total project costs to rehabilitate NCPA C2 are estimated at $146,000,000.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE: 2026-2029 (ANTICIPATED)
Date Milestone
May 2026 CDLAC Application Submittal
August 2026 CDLAC Award
January 2027 Construction Financing Closing
February 2027 Construction Start
February 2029 Construction Completion
August 2029 Conversion to Permanent Financing
REFERENCE
Project
National City Park Apartments C2 (“NCPA C2”), 2323 D Avenue, National City 240 residential apartment units to be rehabilitated are located west of D Avenue between E 22nd Street and E 24th Street
Reference “Exhibit A” Site Area Map
Owner SDBTC Family Housing Corp. Two
Developer Terrex Development Corporation
Borrower
The Limited Partnership that will be the ground lessee of NCPA C2 is to be formed.
FHC San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council Family Housing Corporation
SD Trades
Council San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council
CDCLAC California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (tax-exempt bonds) CTCAC California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (administers the federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs)
LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (low-income housing tax credits)
Lender Community Development Commission-Housing Authority (“CDC-HA”) of the City of National City
Funding $10,000 Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Authority Loan Affordable
Housing
238 of the 240 units will be preserved by the Community Development Commission-Housing Authority as affordable housing between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income for a term of 55 years from completion Funding
Contingency
Commitment of funding is contingent on closing on an award of tax-exempt bonds from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
Details are listed in the Commitment Letter (“Exhibit B”).
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
No impact on the General Fund. Proposed loan amount of $10,000 at Applicable Federal Rate as of the timing of construction financing closing (current AFR is 4.6%) or 3%, whichever is greater.
Developer shall reimburse CDC -HA for staff time and consultant fees. Disbursement of the Housing Authority Loan to debit account 532-00-00-00000-1231-.
RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Housing and Community Development
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This is not a project under CEQA , and is therefore , not subject to environmental review.
CCR15378; PRC 21065.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The Agenda Report was posted at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
ORDINANCE:
Not Applicable
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Project Site Area
Exhibit B – Loan Commitment Letter
Exhibit C – Resolution
Exhibit A
Site Area Map
Project Site
National City Park Apartments C2 (“NCPA C2”) will be located at 318 E 22nd Street in National City (units west of D Avenue between E 22nd Street and E 24th Street).
22 existing 2-story garden-style walk-up buildings totaling 240 residential units. There are 176 two -bedroom units, 64 three -bedroom units, and 2 manager units. The buildings range in size from 8 to 16 units. A dedicated leasing office will continue to provide support for residents. Amenities include a children’s play area, outdoor space, and shared laundry facilities.
National City
Park Apartments
National City Park Apartments (“NCPA”) is a 456-unit affordable housing community located on a 22.6-acre site at 2323 D Avenue in National City.
Office of the City Manager
1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950-4397 619-336-4240 Fax: 619-336-4327 www.nationalcityca.gov May 5, 2026
Matt Locati, President
Terrex Development Corporation
1043 Stuart Street, Suite 220
Lafayette, California 94549
Re: Commitment of Funding:
National City Park Apartments C2, 318 E 22nd Street, National City, CA, 91950
Dear Mr. Locati,
Terrex Development Corporation is the developer for the acquisition and rehabilitation of National City Park Apartments C2. This letter serves to confirm the Community Development Commiss ion-Housing Authority of the City of National City’s enforceable financial commitment to National City Park Apartments C2 in the form of a loan approved by Resolution [INSERT] on May 5, 2026. The loan terms are detailed as follows:
Amount: $10,000
Interest Rate: Applicable Federal Rate as of the timing of construction closing (current AFR is
4.6%) or 3%, whichever is greater.
Term: 3 years, with two 6-month extensions at the option of the Borrower Repayment: Repayment of principal and accrued interest at the earlier of expiration of the Term or conversion to permanent financing
Security/Collateral: Deed of Trust against the leasehold, non-recourse to Borrower.
Loan Position: Subordinate to construction lender (to be determined) in a form acceptable to Community Development Commission-Housing Authority
Conditions:
238 of the 240 units will be preserved by the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority as affordable housing between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income for a term of 55 years from completion
Reimbursements to the Community Development Commission-Housing Authority for its staff and consultants’ time, which shall occur prior to or concurrently with construction financing closing. Building permit approval.
Closing on an award of tax-exempt bonds from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and low-income housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Payment of state prevailing wages for the rehabilitation of the project and entering into a project labor agreement
This commitment shall expire December 31, 2027, if the construction financing closing has not occurred.
If you have any questions, please reach out to Angelita Palma, Community Development Manager, by phone at 619-336-4219 or email [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steve Manganiello, Acting City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION-HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A $10,000 CONSTRUCTION FINANCING LOAN FOR THE REHABILITATION OF 240 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT NATIONAL CITY PARK APARTMENTS C2, LOCATED AT 318 E 22ND STREET IN NATIONAL CITY.
WHEREAS, National City Park Apartments (“NCPA”) is a 456 -unit affordable housing community built in 1968 and located on a 22.6-acre site at 2323 D Avenue, eastern portion, and the western portion located at 318 E 22nd Street in National City, community known as NCPA C1 and NCPA C2, respectively; and
WHEREAS, a rehabilitation project is proposed for the 240-unit NCPA C2 site west of D Avenue between E 22nd Street and E 24th Street; and
WHEREAS, NCPA C2 rehabilitation hard costs are expected to total approximately $42 million or $175,000 per unit; and
WHEREAS, Terrex Development Corporation (“Developer”) is the developer for the acquisition and rehabilitation of NCPA C2; and
WHEREAS, Developer is requesting that the Community Development Commission - Housing Authority of the City of National City (“CDC-HA”) commit $10,000 in Low and Moderate Income Housing funds (“CDC-HA Loan”) for a construction loan for the rehabilitation of NCPA C2; and
WHEREAS, a commitment letter is required for a financing application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (“CDLAC”) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“CTCAC”) for tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax credits (“LIHTC”); and
WHEREAS, NCPA C2 is NCPA C2 is currently owned by the SDBTC Family Housing Corp. Two (“Owner”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner will ground-lease its property at construction closing to a yet -to- be-created special purpose limited partnership (“Borrower”) managed by the Developer; and
WHEREAS, 238 of the 240 housing units will be preserved by the Community Development Commission -Housing Authority as affordable, between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income, for a term of 55 years from completion, and the Developer has committed to the Owner to use San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council, unionized labor, for the rehabilitation, which will be memorialized in a project labor agreement (“PLA”); and
WHEREAS, to increase the project’s tiebreaker score by 18% pursuant to CDLAC Regulations Section 5106(f)(2)(B), the CDC-HA Loan is to be conditioned on the payment of state prevailing wages for the duration of construction, and require a PLA; and
WHEREAS, the final executed commitment letter of the requested CDC-HA Loan will be included in the funding application to CDLAC and CTCAC, which is due on May 19, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the CDC-HA Loan shall be evidenced by a promissory note and secured by
a deed of trust, and would be funded at construction financing closing, which is anticipated for January 2027.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Community Development Commission – Housing Authority hereby authorizes a $10,000 construction financing loan for the rehabilitation of Nat ional City Park Apartments Corp. Two with the following conditions: (1) payment of state prevailing wages for the duration of construction; (2) requiring a Project Labor Agreement; (3) receipt of tax-exempt bonds from California Debt Limit Allocation Commi ttee and low-income housing tax credits from California Tax Credit Allocation Committee; and (4) closing occurring before Jan 1, 2028 (5) 238 of the 240 units rehabilitated will be preserved as affordable housing between 30% and 80% of Area Median Income for a term of 55 years from completion
Section 2: The Community Development Commission – Housing Authority hereby authorizes the execution of the enforceable loan commitment letter to the developer for t he construction financing loan.
Section 3: That the Community Development Commission – Housing Authority hereby authorizes the Executive Director or his designee to execute the construction financing loan, and all other project documents associated with the loan.
Section 4: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolution.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2026.
Ron Morrison, Chairman
ATTEST:
Shelley Chapel, MMC, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Heidi Skinner, Interim General Counsel
AGENDA REPORT
Department: Human Resources
Prepared by: Conchita Waite, Acting Director of Human Resources Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026
Approved by: Stephen Manganiello, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT:
Acting City Manager Compensation
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Temporary Base Salary Increase to $10,615.39 Biweekly for Director of Public Works / City Engineer Steve Manganiello, Equal to 15 Percent above His Current Salary Rate, While Serving as Acting City Manager, Effective April 24, 2026.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:
Not Applicable.
EXPLANATION:
On April 24, 2026, the City Council appointed Director of Public Works / City Engineer Stephen Manganiello to serve as Acting City Manager, replacing Acting City Manager / Police Chief Alejandro Hernandez, who had reached his maximum allowable hours to serve in the acting capacity.
The City has started the recruitment process to fill the City Manager position, but the recruitment is still ongoing. The Director of Public W orks / City Engineer has agreed to fill the City Manager position on an acting basis until such time as a permanent appointment is made . The National City Municipal Code, at Section 2.01.040, Compensation, provides that the City Manager shall receive such salary as the City Council shall from time to time determine and fix by resolution or motion.
In recognition of the significant time and effort required by the City Manager position, in addition to the existing du ties of Director of Public Works / City Engineer, the City desires to increase Director Manganiello’s base salary by 15 percent as compensation for the temporary assignment to a higher classification. This action provide s temporary compensation for the Di rector’s assignment to Acting City Manager that is commensurate with the scope of responsibilities and his professional skills, knowledge and experience.
A summary of the recommended compensation increase must be read aloud into the record at a City Council meeting as required by Government Code section 54953(d)(3).
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The estimated cost of approving a 15% increase to the Acting City Manager’s base salary for the remainder of FY 26 is $9,700.00, which will be absorbed by the existing General Fund Personnel Services budget. No additional appropriations are required.
RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Not Applicable
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This is not a project under CEQA , and is therefore , not subject to environmental review.
CCR15378; PRC 21065.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The Agenda Report was posted at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
ORDINANCE:
Not Applicable
EXHIBIT:
Not Applicable
AGENDA REPORT
Department: Finance
Prepared by: Paul Valadez, Budget Manager
Meeting Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2026
Approved by: Stephen Manganiello, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT:
Fiscal Year 2026 Third Quarter Budget Review
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept and File this Report, and Adopt a Resolution Entitle d, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Authorizing Various Fiscal Year 2026 Third Quarter Budget Adjustments.”
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PRIOR ACTION:
Not Applicable.
EXPLANATION:
Summary
This report provides a look at the status of the City’s fiscal year 2026 General Fund Budget through March 31, 2026 . A quarterly status report was provided on December 2, 2025. This report also recommends various budget adjustments for fiscal year 2026.
The adopted fiscal year 2026 General Fund budget estimated a use of General Fund unassigned fund balance of $ 8.3 million, as well as $1.0 million from the Economic Contingency Reserve .
When factoring in mid -year appropriations for negotiated compensation agreements and other items, the adjusted budget expenditures are currently $12.8 million above budgeted revenues.
Based on a revised analysis of year -to-date actual revenues and expen ditures and projected financial activity through year -end, the use of approximately $10.3 million of unassigned fund balance is now projected. The following sections of this report will discuss the significant factors leading to this outcome.
Revenues
For fiscal year 202 6, General Fund revenues are expected to be greater overall than amounts budgeted by $0.7 million. The projected variances by revenue category are shown in Table A.
Table A
General Fund Revenues Fiscal Year 2026
Note: The Adjusted Budget equals the Adopted Budget plus any year-to-date amendments to the budget.
The General Fund’s primary sources of revenue are the sales & use tax, the district transactions & use tax, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees, and property taxes. Projections are based on a combination of year-to-date and historical data, input from the City’s sales tax consultant, and information obtained from the State of California and County of San Diego :
Sales & Use Tax and District Transactions & Use Tax: The adopted budget for these two major funding sources anticipated moderate growth . Retail sales are trending as anticipated, resulting in these revenues projecting to within 2% of the budget . Based on projections provided by the City’s sales tax consultant, Sales Tax revenues are expected to marginally exceed the adopted budget. The District Transactions & Use Tax is currently expected to finish the year at $0.9 million above the budgeted level. Staff is working on a continuing basis with the City’s sales tax consultant to ensure that we have the latest information for each of these funding sources.
Property Tax revenue is expected to come in below budget by approximately $ 70,000.
Assessed values that apply to the General Fund are in line with the assumptions in the adopted budget.
Property Tax in Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) is based on a formula that applies the City-wide increase in assessed property values to the prior year’s all ocation. The exact increase in assessed values was not known at the time the budget was prepared, but the actual amount is now projected to be $134,000 less than budgeted.
Revenues in the “Other Revenues” category are expected to end the year below budget by $37,000, which is attributable to a combination of projected positive and negative variances in the various individual accounts. Contributing to the positive variances are amounts expected to be received from the Successor Agency residual balance and pass-through distributions ($300,000) and investment earnings ($300,000), while negative variances are projecting to be seen in Franchise Fees ( -$200,000), Fire Inspections ( -$150,000), Commercial Cannabis ( -$134,000), and Building Permits (-$100,000).
Revenue Category
Adopted
Budget
Adjusted
Budget
Projected
Actuals
Variance
above/(below)
Adjusted
Budget
Sales & Use Tax 24,261,000$ 24,261,000$ 24,277,800$ 16,800$ Dist Trans & Use Tax 16,868,000$ 16,868,000$ 17,747,000$ 879,000$ Property Tax 2,785,438$ 2,785,438$ 2,714,975$ (70,463)$ Prop Tax in Lieu-VLF 9,837,550$ 9,837,550$ 9,703,273$ (134,277)$ Other Revenues 19,946,009$ 20,027,486$ 19,990,949$ (36,537)$ Transfers In 5,500$ 5,500$ 5,500$ -$ Total 73,703,497$ 73,784,974$ 74,439,497$ 654,523$
Expenditures
Expenditure totals at year-end are currently projected to end below the adjusted budget by $1.9 million. $1.0 million of this amount is related to the Economic Contingency Funds included in the adopted budget. The variances by expenditure category are shown in Table B. Budget adjustments, which are discussed below and detailed in Exhibit A, are being recommended as part of this report to ensure that expenditures stay within authorized appropriations.
Table B
General Fund Expenditures Fiscal Year 2026
Note: The Adjusted Budget equals the Adopted Budget plus any year-to-date amendments to the budget.
Personnel costs make up about 6 5% of the General Fund’s adopted budget. At fiscal -year-end they are projected to be less than budgeted by approximately $0. 5 million. The projection is the result of a combination of savings of approximately $2.3 million associated with employee attrition and vacant authorized positions. These savings are offset by costs for overt ime requirements, primarily in the Police and Fire departments, which are expected to exceed budgeted amounts by $1.8 million.
Maintenance & Operations expenditures are projected to be $1.3 million over budget overall. The majority of this amount ($1.0 million) is related to Economic Contingency Reserve fund included for the “City Revitalization Project”. This project is not anticipated to begin during fiscal year 2026, and the funds will return to the Economic Contingency Reserve.
The remaining $0.3 million is primarily attributable to anticipated savings across various accounts and departments.
Capital Outlay savings of $0.2 million are expected to be seen in various computer, safety, and communication equipment accounts.
In the Internal Service Charges and Transfers Out categories, all amounts budgeted are projected to be spent, although at year -end actual expenditures of the service provider funds will be reviewed for savings and charges will be adjusted accordingly. The $60,000 variance in the transfer out category reflects an additional transfer to the Parks Fund for additional contract services.
Expenditure Category
Adopted
Budget
Adjusted
Budget
Projected
Actuals
Variance
above/(below)
Adjusted
Budget
Personnel Services 54,165,445$ 57,408,646$ 56,903,451$ 505,195$ Maint & Operations 9,890,698$ 10,104,698$ 8,799,826$ 1,304,871$ Capital Outlay 255,773$ 255,773$ 74,842$ 180,931$ Debt Services 554,377$ 554,377$ 554,377$ -$ Internal Svc Chgs 8,113,199$ 8,227,199$ 8,227,199$ -$ Transfers Out 9,993,791$ 10,075,268$ 10,135,268$ (60,000)$ Grand Total 82,973,283$ 86,625,961$ 84,694,963$ 1,930,997$
Net Impact on Unassigned Fund Balance
Table C below combines the revenue and expenditure projections discussed above to display the impact of those projections on fund balance. Unassigned fund balance is considered to be one of the City’s reserves and has a maintenance target level of 10% of the City’s General Fund operating budget. Amounts above the target level may be used to augment other reserves or for one-time expenditures.
As noted in the summary at the beginning of this report, the fiscal year 2026 adopted budget included the use of $8.3 million of General Fund unassigned fund balance and $1.0 million of Economic Contingency Reserve funds. The projected column, however, shows an estimated use of $10.3 million in fund balance.
Table C
General Fund Impact on Fund Balance Fiscal Year 2026
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
During the budget review process, the Finance Department, in conjunction with City department staff, identified budget adjustments necessary due to expenses unanticipated during the annual budgeting process. The attached schedule (“Exhibit ‘A’”) details the recommended adjustments.
The section below provides a summary of those adjustments by fund.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Based on a review and analysis of General Fund expenditures and revenues through March 31, 2026, the projected use of unassigned fund balance is $10.3 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026.
RELATED CITY COUNCIL 2020-2025 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:
Balanced Budget and Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This is not a project under CEQA , and is therefore , not subject to environmental review.
CCR15378; PRC 21065.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The Agenda Report was posted at least 72 hours before the Regular Meeting date and time, and 24 hours before a Special Meeting in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Adopted
Budget
Adjusted
Budget
Projected
Actuals
Variance
above/(below)
Adjusted
Budget
Total Revenues 73,703,497$ 73,784,974$ 74,439,497$ 654,523$ Total Expenditures 82,973,283$ 86,625,961$ 84,694,963$ 1,930,997$ Gain in/(Use of) Fund Balance (9,269,786)$ (12,840,987)$ (10,255,467)$ (1,276,474)$ Fund Expenditure Revenue Net
General Fund 575,500$ 150,000$ 425,500$ Parks 60,000$ 60,000$ -$
ORDINANCE:
Not Applicable
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Appropriations Requests
Exhibit B - Resolution
Exhibit A
Fiscal Year 2026 Quarter 3 Appropriations Requests
Fund Department Expenditure Revenue Net Justification
General Fund City Attorney 350,000 $ 350,000 $
Additional funds for Legal Services due to pending
litigation matters being handled by outside counsel.
General Fund Building 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ Professional Services increase to cover the cost of
unanticipated large project submittals.
General Fund Fire 12,000 $ 12,000 $
Additional budget to cover uniform and PPE
requirements of two new Inspectors
General Fund Fire 3,500 $ 3,500 $
Additional budget to cover in-house Continuing
Education hours for EMTs and Paramedics
General Fund Non-Dept 60,000 $ 60,000 $ Transfer to Parks for additional contract costs General Fund Total 575,500 $ 150,000 $ 425,500 $ Parks Fund Public Works 60,000 $ 60,000 $ - $ Funding for major trimming and large tree removal
performed by West Coast Arborist
All Funds 635,500 $ 210,000 $ 425,500 $
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY , CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING VARIOUS FISCAL YEAR 2026 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.
WHEREAS, on June 17, 202 5, the City Council of the City of National City adopted Resolution No. 2025-78, adopting the budget for fiscal year 2026; and WHEREAS, as part of the third quarter review process, certain accounts’ expenditures are projected to exceed budget through the end of fiscal year 2026; and WHEREAS, the third quarter budget review was presented to the City Council and members of the public on May 5, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested approval of the Fiscal Year 2026 Quarter 3 Budget Adjustments (Exhibit “A”).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the City Council authorizes the budget adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget as shown in Exhibit A to the Agenda Report.
Section 2: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 5th day of May, 2026.
Ron Morrison, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shelley Chapel, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Heidi Skinner, Interim City Attorney