From: Joe Adkins
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Public comment
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:25:01 PM
Attachments: letter to city council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Subject: Concern Regarding Fire Prevention Contractor Practices in National City Dear National City council members,
I am writing to express concerns regarding a company contracted by the City of National City to provide fire prevention services. Based on recent observations, the company’s practices raise significant questions about compliance, ethics, and the protection of vulnerable residents.
It appears that this company may be operating without a valid business license within National City (based on National City's License search Page). If accurate, this raises immediate concerns about oversight, accountability, and whether the contractor meets the city’s standards for authorized service providers.
Additionally, their outreach methods seem potentially predatory in nature. Notices are being distributed primarily to older residents, many of whom may be especially vulnerable to confusion or pressure. These notices are provided only in English, which may exclude or disadvantage non-English-speaking residents in our community. This lack of language accessibility raises equity concerns and may violate expectations for inclusive communication in a diverse city.
Furthermore, the company reportedly requests direct payment transactions from residents during or shortly after these notices are issued. This approach can appear coercive and may create fear or urgency, particularly when tied to fire safety compliance. Residents may feel obligated to pay without fully understanding their rights, options, or whether the services are legitimately required.
Given these concerns, I respectfully request that the City:
Verify whether this contractor is properly licensed and authorized to operate within National City
Review the contractor’s outreach practices to ensure they are ethical, transparent, and nonpredatory Ensure all communications are provided in multiple languages reflective of the community Clarify whether residents are required to pay directly for these services, and if so, under what authority
General Comment
Consider implementing additional oversight or suspending the contractor’s activities until these concerns are addressed
Protecting residents—especially seniors and those with limited English proficiency—should remain a top priority. I appreciate your attention to this matter and would welcome any updates or clarification the City can provide.
Thank you for your time and commitment to our community.
Sincerely,
Joe Adkins
National City Resident
From: [email protected] on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To: [email protected]; Shelley Chapel; Tonya Hussain Subject: Public Comment Received
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:51:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
User Ted Godshalk has enter the following comment(s):
The idea of putting gigantic, digital billboards along I-5 shows that you will continue to work at the edges of the city budget problem. With more signs, you will leave your ugly marks on our community for a very long time. I am against this on the west side of town. You should be against it EVERYWHERE. National City is rapidly becoming known for one thing- "money and settling for the poorest option." The problems over spending bring to a community are demonstrated here for all to see.
for Second Amendment to the Agreement with Terra Realty Advisors to Extend the Contract Term for Digital Billboard Consulting Services. in Regular City Council Meeting 5/19/2026 6:00:00 PM
Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s).
Item 8.4
From: al b
To: Public Comment
Subject: Opposition to Proposed CEQA Exemption and Zone Variance - Meeting schedule for May 19, 2026 Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:24:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
May 18, 2026
Via Electronic Email
City of National City
Email: [email protected]
Re: Alexander Fernandez Opposition to Proposed CEQA Exemption and Zone Variance - Meeting schedule for May 19, 2026, at 6:00 PM at the City Council Chamber located at 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950
To whom it may concern:
My name is Alexander Fernandez; I formally submit this letter regarding the Proposed CEQA Exemption and Zone Variance for the property located at East 5th Street between Highland Avenue and I Avenue (“project”). This letter represents my formal objections and opposition to the proposed action identified on the City Agenda as follows:
“Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution Entitled: “Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City, California, Determining that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Under Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and Approving a Zone Variance to Deviate from Minimum Requirements for Lot Area, Street Frontage, and Setbacks at a Vacant Property Located on East 5th Street between Highland Avenue and I Avenue.”
This letter is submitted more than 4 hours prior to the scheduled meeting scheduled for May 19, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The intention of this letter is to ensure that all objections, concerns, procedural deficiencies and any legal issues that might arise herein are fully preserved as part of the judicial review or any according legal action.
I object to the proposed exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the project does not appear to contain substantial evidence sufficient to support the City’s resolution that the project qualifies for such exemption under the CEQA section 15303. An exemption may only be applied where a substantial amount of evidence demonstrates that the exemption clearly applies and it appears that the environmental review conducted for the subject project is incomplete and not supported by sufficient factual and technical analysis.
The proposed project raises concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility, overdevelopment, parking availability, traffic circulation, noise impacts, drainage, capacity, privacy impacts upon neighboring properties and cumulative development impact withing the surrounding areas of the location. No analysis or prepared technical studies that addressed these issues has been conducted, and the reliance upon a categorical exemption would be improper and contrary to the requirements and purposes of the CEQA.
The scope of the requests demonstrates that the project is not a routine or ordinary development project appropriately exempted under CEQA section 15303. This is not requesting a minor relief, but instead it seeks substantial variances relating to a minimum lot area, street frontage and setback requirements.
Collectively, the subject request reflects a significant departure from the development standards Item 9.1
established by the City's zoning framework and raise substantial questions related to the project's compatibility with the neighborhood and the potential environment impact this might have.
The requests related to minimum street frontage requirement raise concerns related to the site's access, traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, emergency vehicle accessibility, and overall site functionality. The City must carefully evaluate whether such development is appropriate for the site, the current administrative record appears insufficient to support findings that the proposed variances would not be detrimental to public health, safety, welfare or surrounding properties.
The City must consider whether approval of the requested variances and related development would alter the expectations and protections established by existing zoning regulations. Variances are intended to be extraordinary remedies and may only be awarded or granted where legally sufficient findings can be made demonstrating the existence of special circumstances unique to the subject property. At this time does not appear to be evidence that demonstrated any unique physical circumstance or hardship sufficient to justify the applicable lot area and street frontage.
I object to any attempt to justify the requested variances that are based upon convenience, economic preference, or self-created hardship. California land use laws do not permit variances to be granted merely to maximize development potential or profitability.
The City must carefully consider the direct and indirect impact the project may impose upon neighboring property owners and residents. The impacts may include but not limited to an increase congestion, diminished parking availability, increased noise, reduced privacy, obstruction of views, reduced open space, increased runoff and drainage concerns, strain upon public infrastructure, impairment of emergency access, and degradation of the existing residential character of the neighborhood.
I also object to any procedural deficiencies associated with disclosure of project materials, timing of document production, public participations opportunities and hearing/meetings procedures. Meaningful public participation requires timely access to all and any documentation, reports, communications, analysis, technical studies, draft resolutions, and any other materials upon which the City intends to rely.
I also request that the City disclose and include in the administrative record all and any documentation, reports, communications, analysis, technical studies, draft resolutions, and any other materials to ensure meaningful public participation and procedural fairness as required under California Law.Given the legal and factual concerns identified here in, I respectfully request that the City refrain from approving the proposed exemption, variances or any related discretionary approvals unless and until a complete and legally adequate environmental revie has been conducted, all required findings are supported by substantial evidence, and the public has been afforded a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to all relevant materials. If the City determines that the exemption will be approved, because of the project approval, an initial study and any additional environmental review required under CEQA should be completed prior to the approval of the subject project.
Please include this correspondence in the official administrative record for the project and provide confirmation that it has been received and considered as part of the proceedings associated with the May 19, 2026, meeting.
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver of any rights, claims, remedies, objections, or causes of action available to me under CEQA, applicable zoning regulations, land use laws, due process protections, or any other applicable local, state or federal law. I expressly reserve all rights to supplement these objections, submit additional evidence, challenge the adequacy of environmental review and administrative records, pursue administrative appeals, and seek judicial relief if necessary.
Respectfully,
Alexander C. Fernandez