A. SITUATION AND FACTS
1. Requested by ................................ M. Grant Real Estate, Inc. (Michael Grant)
2. Land Owner ................................... Santee Senior Retirement Communities, LLC
3. Type and Purpose of Request ....... Major Revision to Conditional Use Permit for a 62-unit congregate care facility
4. Location ......................................... 11000 Sunset Trail
5. Site Area ........................................ 2.74 Acres
6. Existing Zoning............................... R-14 Medium High Density Residential (14-22 du/ac)
7. Surrounding Zoning ....................... North HL Hillside Limited (0-1 dwelling units per acre) and PD Planned Development (Sky Ranch)
South: R-22 High Density Residential (22 to 30 du/ac)
East: P/OS Park Open Space and R-22
West: R-14 Medium-High Density Residential (14-22
du/ac)
8. General Plan Designation R-14 Medium High Density Residential (14-22 du/ac)
9. Existing Land Use .......................... Vacant undeveloped site
10. Surrounding Land Use ................... North: Sky Ranch Open Space Preserve and Sky Ranch development; single-family home
South:Lantern Crest
East: Lantern Crest Ridge I and Lantern Crest Open
Space Preserve
West: Single-family homes and Highline Apartments
11. Terrain............................................ Moderate east to west slope with a high point of 580 above mean sea level (AMSL) to a low point of 490
AMSL
12. Environmental Status:.................... Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH 2020029092)
13. APN:............................................... 384-142-04
14. Within Airport Influence Area ......... Yes, within Safety Zone 4 of Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; deemed consistent by San
Diego Airport Land Use Commission on October 7,
2019. New consistency determination being processed
by project proponent and made a project condition of
approval.
Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
B. BACKGROUND
On October 27, 2021, M. Grant Real Estate, Inc., submitted a request for a Major Revision to approved Conditional Use Permit (P2017-4) to enlarge a three-story congregate care facility approved for 46 units with 16 additional units (for a total of 62 assisted living units). The revised project would also remove two, single-story duplexes that would have provided four independent senior living units (villas). The proposed revisions would increase the number of residential units from 50 units to 62 units, resulting in a net increase of 12 residential units. The project site is a 2.74-acre vacant parcel of land located at 11000 Sunset Trail in the R-14 Zone (APN 384-142- 04). The proposed congregate care facility would be connected to the adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building via a new covered pedestrian bridge and would be integrated with the Lantern Crest Senior Living Community.
Project Description
The applicant is proposing revisions to the approved plans for a congregate care facility adopted under Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 on September 9, 2020 (City Council Resolution No. 107-2020). The previously adopted project proposed a 59- foot high, three-story, 46-unit congregate care facility, along with four independent senior living units (contained within two duplex villas), for a total of 50 units. The revised project would remove the two duplex villas which would allow for reconfiguration of the site including placement of the main congregate care facility building farther from the fire hazard zone, improved onsite traffic circulation and additional landscaping through the provision of a new bioretention basin along the project frontage.
The removal of the duplex villas would allow for alterations to the grading of the site and enlargement of the congregate care facility from 46 units to 62 units. The modified building would remain three stories, however due to changes in the grading of the site and the incorporation of a basement, the overall building height would decrease from 59 feet to 57 feet. The proposed basement would primarily function as a building lobby and house utility rooms. Due to removal of the villas the total site coverage of the development footprint would be reduced from 28,933 square feet under the previously approved project to 26,402 square feet under the revised project.
Conversely, the total square footage of the congregate care facility would increase from 54,638 square feet under the previously approved project to 69,459 square feet under the revised project due to the net increase of 12 senior care units.
As shown on the attached plans, the proposal would consist of a three-story, 62-unit congregate care facility and a surface parking area consisting of 17 spaces, which represents an increase of one parking space as compared to the previously approved project. The three-story structure would include an enclosed pedestrian access bridge on the third floor that would connect with the existing Ridge at Lantern Crest building to the east.
Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
The site slopes upward and diagonally across the lot from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. Balanced grading in the amount of 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 1,500 cubic yards of fill is proposed for the development of the site.
Access to the project is provided from Sunset Trail, which is a private street. Internal vehicle circulation would be provided by a proposed 26-foot wide drive and the parking area with a vehicle turnaround at the entrance to the facility. A 26-foot wide drive aisle is provided along the west side of the facility that leads to parking located at the rear with a 65-foot-long firetruck turn around area at the terminus of the driveway. The applicant would provide the following off-site improvements:
• Underground existing overhead wires and remove existing poles located in the vicinity of the south and west property lines of the project site and along Sunset Trail;
• Dedicate and widen Sunset Trail to local street standards with curbs, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, fire hydrants and pedestrian ramps at curbs.
C. ANALYSIS
Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses: The project site is surrounded by existing and planned single-family and multiple-family residential development and represents an isolated low-density zone with medium to high residential zoning (R-14 & R-22) to the east, west, and south as shown in the attached Zoning Map.
Single-Family Residential Compatibility: A cluster of seven single-family homes is located directly west of the project site. Although these properties are developed with single-family homes they are located within the R-14 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zone and the proposed project would be compatible with the planned multiple-family residential uses near these properties. The proposed project would provide a 60-foot setback between the proposed main three-story building and the western property boundary as shown in the attached Site Plan, exceeding the minimum building setback requirement of 10 feet.
Multiple-Family Residential Compatibility: The Highline Apartments are located directly west of the project site and the existing Lantern Crest buildings are located to the south and east as shown in the attached Lantern Crest Aerial Vicinity Map. The Highline Apartments consist of two-story apartment buildings. The existing buildings at Lantern Crest include one-story villas and three- and four-story main buildings.
The project’s perimeter retaining walls adjacent to the Highline Apartments and single-family residential properties to the west would vary from approximately 6.7 feet in height to 24.1 feet in height and be constructed of decorative block. A 20-foot landscape strip with shrubbery and a row of Coast Live Oaks would be planted along the proposed retaining wall softening the interface between the proposed project and Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
existing Highline Apartments and single-family residences to the west.
All buildings would exceed the minimum 10-foot set back requirement of the MediumHigh Density Residential (R14). The project would be compatible with surrounding multiple-family residential uses because it provides adequate spacing and buffering consistent with the existing pattern of neighboring residential development.
Architectural Design: The project is designed according to the Spanish Mission style with variegated roofing tiles, arched window and façade accent features, defined gable ends and dormer features supported by stone veneer, signature bell tower architectural appurtenances, decorative block retaining walls, and a primarily white color scheme with earth-tone accents.
Building Height: The highest point of the proposed three-story building would be 57 feet. The base height of the three-story congregate care facility would be 44’3”; however, with the proposed gabled roofline variations and bell towers the total height would be up to 57 feet high. The building would nevertheless conform to the Zoning Ordinance maximum height of 45 feet for the R-14 Zone as architectural projections of up to 15 feet above the 45-foot base height allowance are permitted; the proposed bell towers would project 14 feet above the proposed 44’3” base height of the building. As provided in the City of Santee Municipal Code, Section 13.30.020.B, extensions above the maximum permitted base height may be allowed when architectural interest consistent with building scale is achieved. Building height extensions are not intended to be habitable space and the proposed architectural projections would not contain habitable space.
Traffic and Circulation: Senior care facilities are generally considered to generate low amounts of traffic relative to other residential uses. The anticipated age range of future residents would be from approximately 75 years to 95 years. Most residents of senior care facilities no longer drive. The applicant has indicated that van service would be available to provide for most of the transportation needs of residents.
Based on information from the Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, the revised project was forecast to generate 165 average daily trips (ADT) compared to 125 ADT under the previously adopted project. These trips would mostly be associated with employees and visitors. Primary access to the site would be provided from Lantern Crest Way, a private road that crosses through the Lantern Crest campus, and connects to the Graves Avenue/Prospect Avenue signalized intersection. Ongoing improvements to the Graves Avenue/Prospect Avenue intersection, including restriping and traffic signal upgrades, would help alleviate some of the congestion at this intersection. With the minor addition of peak hour trips the project would not significantly impact any roadway segment or any intersection within the vicinity.
Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
Parking: The parking needs of senior care residents in independent living are different from the parking needs of residents in assisted living or memory care. The proposed facility will primarily serve residents with memory care. A parking demand study was prepared for the project to determine the project’s overall parking need based on the proposed unit types. For a congregate care facility, the peak parking demand, which is primarily from employees and visitors, is approximately 0.36 spaces per unit. The parking demand study assessed the parking needs of the proposed project with those of the existing Lantern Crest Ridge I facility as they will be connected via a pedestrian bridge an operate as a cohesive unit with employees moving across both buildings. Combined with the existing Lantern Crest Ridge I facility consisting of 80 units, the revised Lantern Crest Ridge II project would result in a combined total of 142 units with a peak parking demand of 51 parking spaces. The proposal would include 15 parking spaces, which combined with the existing 38 parking spaces at Lantern Crest Ridge I, would result in 53 parking spaces, which would exceed the combined facilities’ parking demand.
Fire Safety Requirements: The project includes the construction of an internal access road and cul-de-sac, along with a 65-foot-long firetruck turn-around area to allow for adequate emergency fire access to the facility. A 26-foot fire lane would be provided to the rear of the property. The project has been conditioned to meet fuel modification zone requirements to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. The Padre Dam Municipal Water District has determined that adequate pressure exists to supply fire flow at the proposed fire hydrant locations. All structures would be constructed with automatic fire sprinklers, hood and duct protection systems, fire resistant roof covering, eaves and soffit protection, noncombustible gutters and downspouts, minimum 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction of exterior walls, underfloor areas, and appendages and projections, minimum 20-minute fire-resistance-rated exterior window glazing and doors, and non-combustible vents with corrosive-resistant mesh.
Based on these measures adequate fire protection of the proposed structures would be provided.
Grading and Soils: The City’s Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study that was prepared for the safety element of the Santee General Plan identifies the project site is located in Type “A” and Type “C” soil. Type “A” soil is defined as granitic rock being least susceptible to landslide, having nominal liquefaction hazard, and a very low expansion condition. Type “C” soil is the least stable type of soil. Type C includes granular soils in which particles do not adhere to each other. Group Delta Consultants, Inc. prepared a preliminary geotechnical investigation regarding the feasibility of the proposed project. The geotechnical report states that the proposed development is feasible for the site. However, cuts up to 20 feet into the granitic rock materials are shown on the preliminary grading plans. Consequently, excavations extending into granitic rock are anticipated to be very difficult, and heavy ripping, rock hammering, and/or controlled blasting may be needed. This Major Revision request would modify the placement of the building to avoid these rock removal measures to the extent feasible.
Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
Drainage and Water Quality: The drainage study prepared for the project found that, with the addition of on-site detention facilities, the peak runoff from the project site would be reduced with development of the site as proposed. The proposed site design/structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) include the collection of the onsite surface water throughout the property by overland flow, curb/gutter, and brow ditches, which would be directed into three proposed biofiltration basins located in the southeast corner of the property that would capture and treat the collected runoff.
The existing downstream drainage system has been analyzed for the ability to handle the upstream runoff produced by this site at full development during the 100-year storm event in accordance with City Public Works Standards. The downstream facilities have been determined to be adequate to convey the anticipated flows from the development as the three proposed biofiltration basins would reduce post-project peak flow rates to below pre-project peak flow rates. In addition, the proposed project would not result in storm water runoff onto adjacent properties.
Undergrounding of Utilities: Recommended conditions of approval would require the applicant to place all new utilities required to serve the project underground. All existing and new utilities along the property frontage of Sunset Trail would be installed underground. The existing overhead utilities along Sunset Trail would be undergrounded in order to widen Sunset Trail to local street standards as conditioned for the project.
Gillespie Field Airport:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The subject site is within the FAA Notification Area, given its proximity to Gillespie Field (approximately 2 miles) and building height above ground level. The FAA Code of Federal Regulations required the applicant to submit a notice to determine whether the proposed building heights, and construction equipment, such as cranes, could affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. The FAA conducted an aeronautical study for the project which resulted in a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, dated April 2, 2018, that the project would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. The revised building would have a similar height but due to the revised placement of the proposed building a new aeronautical study is being completed by the project proponent to obtain a revised FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
Obtaining a revised FAA determination has been made a project condition of approval.
Airport Land Use Planning: The project site is located within Safety Zone 4 of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and as such required consultation with the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the ALUCP. On October 7, 2019 the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission issued a letter finding the proposed project to Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
be conditionally consistent with the ALUCP. Due to changes in the placement of the proposed building, a revised determination will also need to be obtained from the Airport Land Use Commission and this requirement has been made a project condition of approval.
Open Space/Biological Resources: As the project site contains 1.01 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (northern portion of site) and 1.30 acres of non-native grassland (southern portion of site), off-site mitigation offsetting the loss of these habitats is required. As a condition of approval to the previously adopted project, the applicant was required to secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1 mitigation ratio) and no less no less than 1.30 acres of nonnative grassland habitat (at a 1:1 mitigation ratio) on off-site mitigation banks. The applicant has successfully secured this habitat and as no additional land would be disturbed with the revised project as compared with that identified with the original approved project, no additional habitat mitigation would be required.
Santee Sustainable Plan: The project would provide a minimum of two level-2 electric vehicle charging stations (40 amp minimum) and a solar photovoltaic system with a 50kw (1kw per unit) target. The project would also be required to comply with the mandatory measures included in the current Energy Code and the CALGreen standards. These standards require energy-efficient measures such as increased lighting efficiency, low water use fixtures, and the installation of Energy Star® appliances. The revised project would also provide an additional 2,531 square feet of landscaping as compared to the original project, for a total of 65,394 square feet of drought-tolerant landscaping, including 31 trees for carbon uptake and reduction of the heat island effect from rooftops and paved surfaces.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029092) has been prepared for the revised project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Addendum assesses the potential environmental impacts of the revised project consisting of 62 units as compared to the environmental impacts assessed under the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the approved project consisting of 50 units.
The analysis provided in the Addendum demonstrates that the revised project would not result in any new additional significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of previously anticipated significant impacts. All mitigation measures identified as part of the adopted MND remain sufficient in reducing environmental impacts to a less than significant level for the revised project.
E. ESTIMATED FEES
Development of the proposed project will require the payment of the following Development Impact Fees.
Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1
Drainage . . . . . . . . $ 133,362.00
Traffic . . . . . . . . . . $ 153,512.00
Traffic Signal . . . . . $ 15,872.00
Park-in-Lieu . . . . . . $ 479,074.00
Public Facilities. . . . $ 393,638.00
RTCIP Fee . . . . . . $ 163,401.00
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,338,859.00
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Conduct and Close the Public Hearing; and
2. Approve and adopt the Addendum to the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per the attached Resolution and authorize a filing of a Notice of Determination; and
3. Approve Major Revision MJR2021 to Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 per the attached Resolution.
Aerial Vicinity Map
Lantern Crest Ridge II Major Revision MJR2021-1
Highline Apts
Ridge at
Lantern Crest
The Pointe at
Lantern Crest Sunset Trails Apts
The Plaza at
Lantern Crest
LANTERN CREST RIDGE II
SUNSET TRAIL
SANTEE, CA 92071
ARCHITECT
Todd B.
SPIEGEL
architects
31 822 Village Center Road #202
Wesuake Village, CA 818 879.6175
RECEiVED
City of Santee
OCT 2 7 2021
o e pt, orfEngtneer !g Di V
Development Seryices
uj
0 0
C(
LLI
o
z
LLI
z
J
N
0 LEVEL 1- IST FLOOR BASEMENT
GROSS BUILDING FLOOR AREA
BASEMENT GROSS AREA
LVL 1 GROSS AREA
LVL 2 GROSS AREA
3,627 SF
15,231 SF
23,309 SF
LEVEL 2 - 2ND FLOOR
LEVEL 3 - 3RD FLOOR
UNIT COUNT: LVL 1
UNIT COUNT: LVL 2
iBEDROOM A
1-BEDROOM B
1-BEDROOM C
UNIT COUNT: LVL 3
11NIT TYllEi FLOCIR: BIIILOIN(i:
I-BEOROOMA 2 B
::EDR%M: 2: 5;1
TOTALUNtTS 26 66
8Q PTa:
775 SF
800 SF
720 8F
SQ FTa:
775 F}F
GOD !)F
820 SF
UNIT COUNT: TOTAL BLDG
1-BEDROOM A
1-BEDROOM B
1BEDR00M C
1-BEDR00M D
ENTIREBulLDINGTOTAL 61,374SF
jCOVERED AREA
LVLI-ISTFLOOR 589SF
iLVL2-2NDFLOOR ii,502SF
1LVL3-3RDFLOOR 1911SF
TOTAL 3,002 SF
Ittued (or Rev Dsla
Pi@eel No+lh
Todd B.
SPIEGEL
aicliiLecLb
31 822 Village Center Road #202
Wesllake lAllage. OA 8 ! 8 879 61 75
LANTERN CREST RID[3E II
SUNSET TRAIL
SA NTE E, CA 92 € 71
PLANNING SUBMIT #5
PLANNING SUBMIT I
PI.ANNING !iUBMIT #3
PUINNING SUBMIT I
PLANNING 8UBMlil
ISSUE
10Ml2i
07BVi9
07126118
(!!W18
(lUlfili8
BUILDING FLOOR AREA
SUMMARIES
10/22{2021 1:56:31 PM
AI
B'=, A.l,a"'a Oa
: h ",} ': Y 'i." l
l_J_ ___*t I
a
: : I "
I
I
I
i l 2 / ',
*
E
$_
.!B
o
2- @
/ 'r I
o
S(I 3-
7 o
.El' S- C
I El
1. .EE1
i
,m
l,,.
I
B
i
i
&
ffl
!-
uE- El
i
.EE1
W
E
i
R
NB
W
i
.!EBI
BE
BEI
ElEEa
mmH- '--
#-- S 3C, 2(2- i:Q- CC('f;J;f- :l u- W QQ € C
5-:4-'?--99! @5,s
LVL 3-5P5\-ToE 0
LV L 3 - 3!D W9(;(5
LVL2i;!ND W9\, 5
LVL4 -1STW9\!, 6
:41T!$In#UImLIi:iIU>-i:::N:in;l:i::l::4-N:::[iglNl::i4::4i:: N-:lli::l:l:l:l:l:4::#:li=lllll:i:lllli:illl'#:l'4'::-2ii-41:l=;=::lllll::l:p::'pl:Ill:Ill:ll:l:l:114:::4Nl=j::::::
I ?
:l- -o-r
m-- # €
m- _
W.
&.El
.EElE
I
.Elal
L
BEI
El
E
N
i,
I
1,
I
/';
4 a
# 2:)
#CT%, [I.." jA(;.-.;@I,.:::i'a.
'L:'. .-"-)'-====j.-_--=t'
,,s-i WPARINOTUEGDHT IRON RAILING
MATERIALS LEGEND
!;R:"%'jAl-N'LE-DGES-E-RIES-BUCKSKIN '5'-i ::;':-NO'S-REIES-ADO-BW-LENDI Todd B.
SPIEGEL
architects
31 822 Village Center Road #202
Wesllake Vlllage, CA 818 879.61 75
WESTELEVATION
PARTIAL A
(A 0. e 0. 9D 9E (?)
'i g 0
WEST ELEVATION
PARTIAL B
SCALEI 3132a#1l0a
LANTERN CREST RID[3E II
Ittued lot
SUNSET TRAIL
S A NTE E, C A 9 2 € 71
RIDGE
LVL 1 -jSTW9T!e9l
I"tolecl Nodh
[IRAWING TmE
EXTERIOR ELEV ATIONS
3/37 = 1'-O'
1703
0{2212021 :59.09 PM
A6 1
r
5Fi651DG9E e ,
rsl SAITIILOACCENTTILES
r'w.'a'l',27"\J::]
MATERIALS LEGEND
0 ::'IPTA-IN-L-E-DGES-E-R-IES:B-IICKSKIN I - CAPISTRANOSREIES-ADOBEBLEND Op CA(
0(8
P r- ln F B
EAST ELEV ATION PARTIAL
8 a"S ( 2
Todd B.
SPIEGEL
architects
31 822 Village Center Road #202
Wesllake Village, CA 818 879 6175
LANTERN CREST RID[3E II
SLINSET TRAIL
SA NTE E, CA 92 € 71
Piolecl Nodh
EXTERIOR ELEV ATIONS
1703
TO/2212021 1:59:36 PM
-,_l' 4
[
f[
I
I
Lj
[1
7'-=- -'O'-.'-N-'-"( 7
i /T% ,l (.
l '
I _ ++_ ,_ . -l
a5iT ,_4
[EEim
[1
' -.- [1
*
M l I
JJffl
ffi.g
Iml n.
! [__
' l____a_al_a_ 4 _) _ lljl_ _ _%
J._- -in
J r't -l .e I
111748
(Ill
1 m___
l
.i
H [JFEI
U
g SALnLLO ACCElff TILE8
Wi"-f.-,=i? L- = ' i.' :%ut-n .'!Qit+iitJ
MATERIALS LEGEND
Op -(,A1
Todd B.
SPIEGEL
ait,liiLtX,Ls
31 822 lnllsge Center Road #202
Wesllake Village. CA 818 879.61 75
(=00 (=0
El i I
EI I IEI I :E' :iE:l :EI : 'EIIIEI I IEI I IE:I 'E' : :EI : IEI I :EI'lEIIIEI I IEI I IEIIIEI l IEIIIEI I IEI
NORTH ELEV ATION
(8')(I: (p0(= 9 (9
SOUTH ELEV ATION
(2')
Pmlecl No*
mued lot
EXTERIOR ELEV ATIONS
LANTERN CREST RID[3E II
SUNSET TRAIL
S A NTE E, C A 9 2 € 71
3132" = i'-oa
1703
10722/2021 1 :59:50 PM
RESOLUTION NO. ______
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING MAJOR REVISION (MJR2021-1) TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P2017-4) TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 62-UNIT CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY WITH UP TO THREE STORIES AND 57 FEET IN HEIGHT ON A 2.74- ACRE VACANT PARCEL LOCATED AT 11000 SUNSET TRAIL IN THE R-14 (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
APPLICANT: M. GRANT REAL ESTATE, INC. (MICHAEL GRANT)
APN: 384-142-04
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022 M. Grant Real Estate, Inc. submitted a complete application for a Major Revision (MR2021-1) to Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 to enlarge a three-story congregate care facility approved for 50 units with 16 additional units (for a total of 62 assisted living units) on a 2.74-acre vacant parcel of land located at 11000 Sunset Trail in the R-14 Zone, in the City of Santee, County of San Diego, State of California; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 13.10.030.A.8 of the Santee Municipal Code congregate care facilities are permitted with a conditional use permit in the R-14 (Medium High Density Residential) Zone; and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 authorized the development of a 50- unit congregate care facility on the subject site; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 13.06.030 of the Santee Municipal Code, a revision or modification to an approved conditional use permit such as, but not limited to, change in conditions of approval, expansions, intensification, location, hours of operation, may be requested by an applicant; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2021 the applicant submitted a request for a Major Revision to approved Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 to enlarge a three-story congregate care facility; and
WHEREAS, Major Revision MR2021-1 represents the first such Major Revision to Conditional Use Permit P2017-4; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Major Revision would not increase residential density or intensify land use over that currently permitted by the General Plan and, therefore, is not subject to Measure N; and
WHEREAS, Major Revision MR2021-1 and Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration AEIS2018-2 were scheduled for a public hearing on February 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022 the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on Major Revision MR2021-1 and Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration AEIS2018-2; and
RESOLUTION NO. ______
2 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Staff Report, the Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, all recommendations by staff, public testimony, and all other relevant information contained in the administrative record regarding the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, as follows:
SECTION 1: On February 23, 2022, by separate resolution, the City Council approved an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse Number 2020029092) which was prepared for the revised project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Addendum assesses the potential environmental impacts of the revised project consisting of 62 units as compared to the environmental impacts assessed under the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the approved project consisting of 50 units. The analysis provided in the Addendum demonstrates that the revised project would not result in any new additional significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of previously anticipated significant impacts. All mitigation measures identified as part of the adopted MND remain sufficient in reducing environmental impacts to a less than significant level for the revised project. No further environmental review is required for the City to adopt this Resolution.
SECTION 2: The findings in accordance with Section 13.06.030 of the Santee Municipal Code for a Major Revision to a Conditional Use Permit are made as follows:
A. Major Revision MR2021-1 would result in a similar project as that approved under Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 with the size, height, and building footprint of the congregate care facility substantially the same as the original approval. The modified building would remain three stories, however due to changes in the grading of the site and the incorporation of a basement, the overall building height would decrease from 59 feet to 57 feet. Due to removal of the duplex villas the total site coverage of the development footprint would be reduced from 28,933 square feet under the previously approved project to 26,402 square feet under the revised project. Conversely, the total square footage of the congregate care facility would increase from 54,638 square feet under the previously approved project to 69,459 square feet under the revised project due to the net increase of 12 senior care units. The revised project would continue to meet the development standards of the R-14 zone including setbacks, lot coverage, height and parking requirements.
B. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
The proposed use, as conditioned, is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and the purposes of the districts in which the site is located as the project is for a congregate care facility with on-site amenities RESOLUTION NO. ______
3 and services conforming to the General Plan and Municipal Code requirements for the R-14 Medium-High Density Residential (14-22 du/acre) zoning district. The project is consistent with the R14 Medium High-Density Residential designations/districts by providing a multiple family attached residential use, onsite recreational amenities within the existing Lantern Crest campus and being located in proximity to an existing MTS bus route and Prospect Avenue, a Major Arterial.
The project is consistent with applicable Land Use Element (LUE), Housing Element (HE), Conservation Element (CE), and Community Enhancement Element (CEE) objectives. The project will contribute to the development goal of providing a wide range of housing types by providing housing for the elderly and disabled (LUE Objective 2.0 and HE Objective 1.0). The grading plan would orient development along the natural contours of the site wrapping around the base of the hillside while the steepest portions of the hillside will remain undeveloped consistent with CEE policies 14.1 and 14.2. The project is designed to use the natural ridgeline as a backdrop for structures consistent with CEE policy 14.5, and will therefore avoid significant impacts on existing community-level viewsheds consistent with CEE policy 15.2. Graded cut slopes will be re-vegetated with fire resistant native or non-invasive plant species consistent with CEE policy 15.1.
C. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The operation of the congregate care facility for elderly persons aged approximately 75 years to approximately 95 years is generally understood to generate low levels of traffic and noise. The project would generate approximately 165 average daily vehicle trips, with peak parking demand of 51 spaces when combined with the exiting Lantern Crest Ridge I facility.
Elements of the three-story, 57-foot congregate care building are architecturally integrated with the Lantern Crest development. Additionally, each structure is set back from adjacent properties more than the minimum 10 feet required within the R-14 Zone. The project would provide a 60-foot setback between the proposed main three-story memory care building and the western property line with the nearest single-family home approximately 100 feet from the proposed three-story building and approximately 60 feet from the proposed single-story villas. The building setbacks from property lines, combined with the variations in building heights and positioning of the buildings at the base of the hill, will create “transitions” in building scale and bulk, and preserve ridgelines.
The project’s perimeter retaining walls adjacent to the Highline Apartments and single-family residential properties to the west would vary from approximately 6.7 feet in height to 24.1 feet in height and be constructed of decorative block. A 20- RESOLUTION NO. ______
4 foot landscape strip with shrubbery and a row of Coast Live Oaks would be planted on the slopes between the perimeter retaining walls and the property line (demarcated by an existing brow ditch) to the west softening the interface between the proposed project and existing Highline Apartments and single-family residences to the west.
D. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed use, as conditioned, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code because all development standards are met including landscaping and building setbacks, the project design is consistent with the requirements of the Fire Code and Urban-Wildland Interface Fire Safe Development Policy and Ordinance, and all proposed public and private improvements will meet City standards. Specifically:
• Architectural Design: The project is designed according to the Spanish Mission style with variegated roofing tiles, arched window and façade accent features, defined gable ends and dormer features supported by stone veneer, signature bell tower architectural appurtenances, decorative block retaining walls, and an earth tone color scheme.
• Building Height: The proposed facility would have a maximum of 57 feet (main three-story, 62-unit memory care facility). The base height of the three-story congregate care facility would be 44 feet, 3 inches; however, with the proposed gabled roofline variations and bell towers the total height would be up to 57 feet high. The building would nevertheless conform the Zoning Ordinance maximum height of 45 feet for the R-14 Zone as architectural projects of up to 15 feet above the 45-foot base height allowance are permitted; the proposed bell towers would project 15 feet above the proposed 44-foot, 3-inch base height of the building. As provided in the City of Santee Municipal Code, Section 13.30.020.B, extensions above the maximum permitted base height may be allowed when architectural interest consistent with building scale is achieved. Building height extensions are not intended to be habitable space and the proposed architectural projections would not contain habitable space. • Traffic and Circulation: Congregate care facilities are generally considered to generate low amounts of traffic relative to other residential uses. The anticipated age range of future residents would be from approximately 75 years to 95 years. Most residents of senior care facilities no longer drive. The applicant has indicated that van service would be available to provide for most of the transportation needs of residents.
• Parking: The parking needs of senior care residents in independent living are different from the parking needs of residents in assisted living or dementia care.
The proposed facility will primarily serve residents with dementia care. A RESOLUTION NO. ______
5 parking demand study was prepared for the project to determine the project’s overall parking need based on the proposed unit types. The parking study determined that a total of 51 spaces would be required to meet the project’s anticipated parking demand when combined with the parking demand of the existing Lantern Crest Ridge I facility, which will be connected with a pedestrian bridge and share employees between the two buildings. A total of 55 parking spaces would be provided with the combined facilities, with 17 spaces provided with the proposed Major Revision.
• Undergrounding of Utilities: Recommended conditions of approval would require the applicant to place all new utilities required to serve the project underground. All existing and new utilities along the property frontage of Sunset Trail would be installed underground. The existing overhead utilities along Sunset Trail would be undergrounded in order to widen Sunset Trail to local street standards as conditioned for the project.
SECTION 3: Major Revision MR2021-1 to Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions as amended below:
A. Unless superseded herein, the conditions of approval set forth in Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 shall remain in effect.
B. All construction shall be in substantial conformance with the project plans dated October 27, 2021, as amended by this Resolution.
C. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Sections of the Municipal Code, Land Development Manual and Public Works Standards of the City of Santee.
D. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration AEIS2018-2.
E. Minor or Major Revisions to the Development Review Permit, such as changes to the building elevations, site design, and landscaping design, shall be approved by the Director of Development Services, unless, in the Director’s judgment, a Minor or Major Revision should be reviewed by the City Council.
F. A minimum of 14 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the Parking Demand Study.
G. The applicant shall comply with all of the requirements of the Fire Marshal.
H. Prior to Building Permit Issuance:
1. Applicant shall obtain a new Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration and a new Determination of Consistency with the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan from the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission for the revised project.
2. Building plans shall include energy conservation measures and sustainable design features as required by the City of Santee’s Sustainable Santee Plan and Santee RESOLUTION NO. ______
6 Municipal Code (SMC) Titles 11 and 13.
3. Applicant shall record a reciprocal parking access agreement between the project site lot and the owners of the previous phases of the Lantern Crest parcels granting a nonexclusive easement for parking through the Lantern Crest development. Said agreement shall be to the satisfaction of the Director Development Services and the City Attorney.
4. Starting with the first plan check submittal, all plan sets shall be submitted concurrently to Padre Dam Municipal Water District for review and approval. The City does not coordinate the review process with Padre Dam, this is the responsibility of the design engineer and the landscape architect.
5. Street Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for review and acceptance. Submit and obtain City approval of a construction change plan that shows the revision to the approved plans to accommodate the change in grades and updated cross sections.
6. Precise Grading Plans shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for review and acceptance. Submit and obtain City approval of a construction change plan that shows the following:
a. Include revised precise grading plans that reflect the proposed changes to the civil plans, including changes to the project landscape and irrigation plans and retaining wall plans.
b. All recommended measures identified in the approved geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. c. Provide an updated cost estimate for the cost of construction. d. Plan check and inspection fees shall be paid in accordance with the City Fee Schedule prior to issuance of the permit.
7. Provide two copies of an addendum letter to the geotechnical study from the geotechnical engineer of record reflecting their recommendations and concurrence with the proposed revisions to the plans, including but not limited to the revised retaining walls and biofiltration basin.
8. The applicant shall pay all development impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. At present, the fees are estimated to be as follows:
a. Drainage . . . . . . . . $ 133,362.00 or $ 2,151.00 / unit b. Traffic . . . . . . . . . . $ 153,512.00 or $ 2,476.00 / unit c. Traffic Signal . . . . . $ 15,872.00 or $ 256.00 / unit d. Park-in-Lieu . . . . . . $ 479,074.00 or $ 7,727.00 / unit RESOLUTION NO. ______
7 e. Public Facilities. . . . $ 393,638.00 or $ 6,349.00 / unit f. RTCIP Fee . . . . . . $ 163,401.00 or $ 2,635.50 / unit Impact fee amounts shall be calculated in accordance with current fee ordinances in effect at the time of issuance of building permit. Fees shall be adjusted on an annual basis in the accordance with the Municipal Code.
9. Following issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall complete rough grading in accordance with the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the project’s geotechnical engineer. Following completion of the rough grading and prior to issuance of any building permits, provide three originals of the pad compaction certification from the geotechnical engineer and three originals of the pad elevation certification from the project civil engineer to the City project engineer.
Alternatively, at the applicant’s expense, a “Foundation Only” building permit may be obtained for the sole purpose of constructing foundation and or stem walls integral to the construction of a building foundation for the purpose of establishing a building pad. Said pad shall be established to the satisfaction of the engineering department as indicated above prior to the placement of a concrete building slab/building floor. A building permit for vertical construction is required prior to the construction of a concrete slab/building floor.
10. Provide two copies of an amended drainage study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, with demonstrated expertise in drainage analysis and experience in fluvial geomorphology and water resources management. Storm drainage shall be designed to adequately convey storm water runoff without damage or flooding of surrounding properties or degradation of water quality. a. The drainage study shall identify and calculate storm water runoff quantities expected from the site and upstream of the site and verify the adequacy of all on-site or off-site facilities necessary to discharge this runoff. The drainage system design shall be capable of collecting and conveying all surface water originating within the site, and surface water that may flow onto the site from upstream lands, and shall be in accordance with the latest adopted Master Drainage Plan, the requirements of the City of Santee Public Works Standards, including analysis of the 10-year, 50-year and 100- year frequency storms, and be based on full development of upstream areas.
b. The drainage study shall include an update executive summary that details the proposed drainage path, including the draw down and runoff from the proposed biofiltration basin. Said basin shall be designed so that the proposed orifice locations/sizes are minimize or eliminate to reduce nuisance flow to the apartments to the MEP. Such runoff shall be directed to the existing underground drainage system located in Sunset Trails via a RESOLUTION NO. ______
8 proposed pipe from the project site. The basin shall include an emergency overflow that safely conveys runoff to Graves Avenue via Sunset Trails without impact to the surrounding and adjacent properties. c. Update pre and post development drainage exhibits as necessary.
11. Provide two copies of an amended Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) prepared and in accordance with the City of Santee Storm Water Ordinance and in accordance with the City of Santee Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual dated February 2016. The SWQMP must include best management practices (BMPs) to address water quality and hydromodification. An Operation and Maintenance Plan describing maintenance requirements and costs for BMP maintenance and provision of maintenance verification will be provided.
The SWQMP shall include the following:
a. Include the Project Owner’s Signature on the Certification Page. b. Revise the narrative to reflect the proposed biofiltration basin and revised drainage path.
12.Construction Site Storm Water Compliance
a. Submit a copy of the updated project specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Construction SWPPP should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The Construction SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMP’s) the applicant will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMP’s. Section XIV of the Construction General Permit describes the SWPPP requirements.
b. Update the site trailer wall map accordingly.
I. The following conditions shall apply prior to occupancy:
1. Provide two print copies and a digital copy of both the final approved Storm Water Quality Management Plan and the Operation and Maintenance Plan.
2. Submit a print and digital copy of the BMP Certification package. The BMP certification package includes but is not limited to: ‘wet’ signed and stamped certification form(s), all BMP related product receipts and materials delivery receipts, an inspection and installation log sheet, and photographs to document each stage of BMP installation.
3. Prior to issuance of occupancy, an executed contract must be in place with a RESOLUTION NO. ______
9 qualified storm water service provider and a copy of the SWQMP provided to the consultant and the property owner.
4. Construct all improvements within the public right-of-way and improvements as shown on the approved precise grading plans. Improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
J. Upon establishment of the use pursuant to this Major Revision MR2021-1, the following conditions shall apply:
1. All required landscaping shall be adequately watered and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
2. The parking areas and driveways shall be well maintained.
3. All groundcover installed pursuant to an approved landscape plan shall provide 100 percent coverage within 9 months of planting or additional landscaping, to be approved by the Director of Development Services, shall be required in order to meet this standard.
SECTION 4: The terms and conditions of this Major Revision (MR2021-1) approval shall be binding upon the permittee and all persons, firms and corporations having an interest in the property subject to these permits and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each of them, including municipal corporations, public agencies and districts.
SECTION 5: In addition to all other available remedies, the City of Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 1.14, provides for the issuance of Administrative citations for Municipal Code violations. Should non-compliance with said terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit or any violation of the Municipal Code that includes the City’s Storm Water Ordinance, the City has the right to issue administrative citations containing an assessment of civil fines for each violation and collect administrative fines for violations.
SECTION 6: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed pursuant to this approval, shall begin on February 23, 2022.
SECTION 7: The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santee and its officers, employees and agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its officers, employees or agents to attack or set aside, void, or annul the approval of the City of Santee concerning this Resolution or any action relating to or arising out of its approval.
SECTION 8: This Major Revision (MR2021-1) approval shall expire on February 23, 2025 except where substantial use has commenced prior to its expiration. If use of the RESOLUTION NO. ______
10 development has not commenced within the three-year period, said expiration date may be extended pursuant to a request for time extension received 60 days prior to the original expiration date. The City Council expressly grants to the Director of Development Services the authority to extend the expiration date of this approval pursuant to Section
13.04.090(B) of the Santee Municipal Code, when a request for an extension is filed 60 days prior to the original expiration date.
SECTION 9: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located with the City Clerk at the City of Santee City Clerk’s office at 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Building #3, Santee, CA 92071.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 23rd day of February 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____
ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO._______
1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (AEIS2018-2) TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 62-UNIT CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY WITH UP TO THREE STORIES AND 57 FEET IN HEIGHT ON A 2.74-ACRE VACANT PARCEL LOCATED AT 11000 SUNSET TRAIL IN THE R-14 (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
APPLICANT: M. GRANT REAL ESTATE, INC. (MICHAEL GRANT)
APN: 384-142-04
(RELATED CASE FILE: MAJOR REVISION MJR2021-1)
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 105- 2020, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (AEIS2018-2; State Clearinghouse No. 2020029092) and approving Conditional Use Permit (P2017-4) for the development of a 50-unit congregate care facility on a 2.74-acre vacant parcel of land located at 11000 Sunset Trail in the R-14 Zone; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2021 the applicant submitted a request a Major Revision to approved Conditional Use Permit (P2017-4) to enlarge the approved threestory congregate care facility to include 62 residential units and remove two, single-story duplexes that would have provided four independent senior living units (villas), for a net increase 12 units (“Revised Project”); and
WHEREAS, Major Revision (MR2021-1) would result in a similar project as that approved under Conditional Use Permit (P2017-4) with the size, height, and building footprint of the congregate care facility substantially the same as the original approval; and
WHEREAS, the height of the revised building is 57 feet which is less than the previously approved height of 59 feet; and
WHEREAS, under Public Resources Code section 21067, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (tit. 14, Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form was prepared to evaluate whether any supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required for the Revised Project. City staff concluded that none of the circumstances described in Public Resources Code section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have occurred, and thus no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to address any minor technical changes or additions to the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15164; and
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the Addendum and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, along with the information in the Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form, prior to taking action on the Revised Project. The Addendum reflects the RESOLUTION NO._______
2 independent judgement and analysis of the City Council and complies with all requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on February 23, 2022, to review the Project, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all other relevant information contained in the administrative record for the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City Council has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Revised Project and the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Addendum, and the Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. As the decision-making body for the Revised Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form, any comments received, other documents contained in the administrative record for the Project and the Revised Project, and all other written and oral evidence presented to the City Council for the Revised Project (collectively, the “Record”). The City Council finds that the Addendum and the Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS ON ADDENDUM. The City Council finds that the City was the lead agency for the project and is the lead agency for the Revised Project. Based on substantial evidence in light of the whole Record and pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the Revised project would not result in substantial changes to the Project, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Revised Project is undertaken and there is no new information of substantial importance RESOLUTION NO._______
3 which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted showing the Revised Project would have new significant effects.
The project specific mitigation measures identified in the Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form/Addendum and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been incorporated into the Revised Project. No new mitigation measures are required to mitigate environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project.
SECTION 4. ADOPTION OF THE ADDENDUM. The Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Declaration is hereby approved and adopted.
SECTION 5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the San Diego County Clerk within five (5) working days of adoption of the Addendum. The City of Santee hereby notifies the applicant that in order to file the Notice of Determination, the applicant shall remit to the City of Santee Department of Development Services, within two (2) working days of the effective date (as defined in Section 7 below) of this approval, a certified check payable to the "County Clerk, County of San Diego" in the amount of $50.
SECTION 6. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials associated with Project and the Revised Project that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Santee City Hall, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Building #3, Santee, CA 92071. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting held this 23rd day of February 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____
ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
Addendum to Adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Santee, California
Prepared for
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333
RECON Number 9103
February 15, 2022
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Title ....................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address ............................................................................................... 1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number .......................................................................................... 1
4. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 1
5. Project Applicant/Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................... 1
6. General Plan Designation ............................................................................................................. 1
7. Zoning ................................................................................................................................................ 1
8. Statement of Environmental Findings ...................................................................................... 2
9. Previous Environmental Document ........................................................................................... 2
10. Original Project Description ........................................................................................................ 2
11. Revised Project Description ......................................................................................................... 4
12. Project Site Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Use(s) ......................................... 5
13. Other Required Agency Approvals or Permits Required .................................................... 5
14. New Significant Environmental Effects or Substantially More Severe Environmental Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous CEQA Document ....................... 6
15. Determination ................................................................................................................................. 6
15.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................16
15.2 Agriculture Resources.......................................................................................................19
15.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................21
15.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 28
15.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 32
15.6 Energy................................................................................................................................... 35
15.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 40
15.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................44
15.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 46
15.10 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................... 50
15.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 54
15.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 56 Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
15.13 Noise..................................................................................................................................... 57
15.14 Population and Housing................................................................................................. 64
15.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 65
15.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 67
15.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 67
15.18 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 70
15.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................71
15.20 Wildfire................................................................................................................................. 74
15.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................ 75
16.0 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ................................................................ 78
17.0 Checklist References .................................................................................................................... 83
FIGURES
1: Regional Location .............................................................................................................................................8 2: Project Location on USGS Map ....................................................................................................................9 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................................10 4: Site Plan...............................................................................................................................................................11 5a: Site Elevation: West........................................................................................................................................12 5b: Site Elevation: East..........................................................................................................................................13 5c: Site Elevation: North and South .................................................................................................................14 6: Landscape Concept Plan ..............................................................................................................................15 TABLES
1: Air Quality Impact Analysis Trigger Levels............................................................................................. 23 2: Summary of Maximum Construction Emissions .................................................................................. 24 3: Summary of Maximum Build-out Operational Emissions................................................................. 25 4: Off-site Construction Vehicle Fuel Consumption ................................................................................ 36 5: On-site Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption......................................................................... 36 6: Vehicle Fuel/Electricity Consumption.......................................................................................................37 7: Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Use......................................................................................... 39 8: Traffic Parameters .......................................................................................................................................... 60 9: Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels.......................................................................................................................... 61 10: Graves Avenue Traffic Noise Level with and without Project.......................................................... 62 11: On-site Generated Noise Levels................................................................................................................ 63 Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
TABLES (cont.)
12: Cumulative Project List..................................................................................................................................76 13: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program..................................................................................78
APPENDICES
A: Air Quality Model Results (California Emissions Estimator Model Output Files), RECON Environmental, Inc., January 4, 2022
B-1: Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Darnell and Associates, Inc., December 9, 2021
B-2: Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Traffic Impact Study, Darnell and Associates, Inc., April 30, 2018
C: A Biological Resources Survey Report for the Lantern Crest Ridge II Property, Vince Scheidt, June 2018
D: Lantern Crest/Santee Seniors Annual Management Report, J. Whalen Associates, Inc.
E: 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan for the Lantern Crest Open Space Preserve Memorandum, Cummings Environmental, Inc., January 3, 2018 F: Results of the Archaeological Survey for the Lantern Crest Ridge II Project, RECON Environmental Inc., September 17, 2018
G: Energy Use Calculations, RECON Environmental, Inc., January 4, 2022 H-1: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Group Delta Consultants, Inc., June 19, 2017 H-2: Geotechnical Investigation Addendum, Group Delta Consultants, Inc., May 30, 2019 H-3: Geotechnical Investigation Addendum #2, Group Delta Consultants, Inc., August 19, 2019 I: Sustainable Santee Checklist, RECON Environmental, January 4, 2022 J: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, CERES, Corp. (Parcel #383-142-04-00), May 3, 2017 K: Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, Federal Air Administration, April 2, 2018 L: AM&M Proposal for Lantern Crest Ridge II, Firewise2000, Inc., June 27, 2018 M: Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Lantern Crest Ridge II, REC Consultants, Inc., July 2019
N: Drainage Study for Lantern Crest Ridge Addition, REC Consultants, Inc., Revised November 8, 2021
O: Revised Parking Analysis for the Proposed Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Living Assisted and Memory Care Development, Darnell and Associates, Inc., July 30, 2019.
P: Noise Modeling Results (SoundPLAN Output Files), RECON Environmental, Inc., January 4, 2022
Q: School Facility Availability Letters, Santee School District and Grossmont Union High School District, May 17 and May 15, 2017, respectively
R: Lantern Crest Ridge II Assisted Living Construction Traffic, Darnell and Associates, Inc., October 31, 2019
S: Public Service Availability Forms from the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, May 4, 2017 ..
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
CITY OF SANTEE
ADDENDUM TO ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title
Lantern Crest Ridge II
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Michael Coyne
Associate Planner
City of Santee
(619) 258-4100 x160
[email protected]
4. Project Location
Sunset Trail, Santee, CA 92071
Assessor’s Parcel Number 384-142-04-00
5. Project Applicant/Sponsor’s Name and Address
Michael Grant
Development Contractor, Inc.
110 Town Center Parkway
Santee, CA 92071
6. General Plan Designation
Existing: Medium High Density Residential (R-14)
Proposed: Medium High Density Residential (R-14)
7. Zoning
Existing: Medium High Density Residential (R-14)
Proposed: Medium High Density Residential (R-14)
All reports and documents referenced in this Initial Study are on file with the City of Santee, Department of Development Services, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071. Telephone Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Number: (619) 258-4100, ext. 167. A digital copy is available from the City website:
http://cityofsanteeca.gov/services/project-environmental-review.
8. Statement of Environmental Findings
An Initial Study was prepared by the City of Santee (City), Department of Development Services to evaluate the potential effects of the project on the environment. As Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and based on the findings contained in the attached Initial Study, the City has determined that the project would not have any new impacts not identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted in 2020 for a proposed a senior care facility, and all potential impacts would remain less than significant or mitigated to less than significant.
The City also finds that the Initial Study reflects the City’s independent judgment.
The location and custodian of the documents and any other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City bases its determination to adopt this Addendum are as follows:
City of Santee, Development Services Department, Planning and Zoning Services Division, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee California, Custodian: Michael Coyne, Senior Planner.
9. Previous Environmental Document
The property that is subject to this supplemental review is the same site that was evaluated under the Lantern Crest Ridge II Project (project) Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council on September 9, 2020. The previously adopted project proposed a three-story, 46-unit senior care facility, along with four independent senior living units (contained within two duplex villas), for a total of 50 units. The adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration determined that all environmental impacts would be less than significant or mitigated to a level less than significant.
10. Original Project Description
The previously adopted project proposed a three-story, 46-unit senior care facility, along with four independent senior living units (contained within two duplex villas), for a total of 50 units. The project site is approximately 2.74 acres, located in the City of Santee, California, east of State Route 67 (SR-67) and north of Prospect Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 384-142-04-00).
The project site is currently accessed via Sunset Trail and Lantern Crest Way on the southern side of the site from Graves Avenue. The western boundary of the project site fronts multi- and single-family residential properties, while the eastern boundary fronts the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I Senior Housing facility, located at 800 Lantern Crest Way. The previously adopted project proposed to provide a connection to the adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building via a covered pedestrian bridge.
The previously adopted project required a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2018-1) and zone reclassification (R2018-1) to change the City zoning land use designation from Low Density Residential (R-1A) and Hillside/Limited (HL) to Medium High Density Residential (R-14). Other required project approvals included a Conditional Use Permit (P2017-04). The Conditional Use Permit permitted the proposed development of 50 units of senior care housing and related services on the Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
2.74-acre project site. The building was three stories and the units ranged in size from 638.5 to 766 square feet. The common areas within each floor ranged in size from 4,463 to 5,747 square feet. The duplex units were 2,681 square feet each.
The previously adopted project also included three biofiltration basins, an on-site access road, and cul-de-sac. The previously adopted project provided eleven standard parking spaces, four single car garage parking spaces, and one Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking space. The previously adopted project included on-site storm drain improvements, connections to public utility lines and the existing storm drain system along Sunset Trail, and construction of on-site sewer and water lines. The three biofiltration basins were located in the southeastern corner of the property, which would connect to the proposed on-site storm drain system and empty into the existing storm drain system located along Sunset Trail. Pad elevations for the two duplex structures ranged from 510.4 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to approximately 514.6 feet AMSL. The three-story structure pad elevations ranged from 516 to 528 feet AMSL.
Access to the project site was provided via Sunset Trail and Lantern Crest Way from Graves Avenue, and an access road and cul-de-sac provided vehicular access to the parking spaces and structures.
The internal access road, south of the internal cul-de-sac, consisted of a 30-foot-wide driveway, a 4- foot-wide sidewalk, and 19-foot (depth) parking stalls, along with a curb and gutter. The internal culde-sac had a radius of 42 feet. The road to the north of the cul-de-sac was 20 feet wide and designated as a “Fire Lane.” A 65-foot-long firetruck turnaround area was provided at the northern end of the property. The previously adopted project included an ADA compliant pedestrian ramp on the south side of the project site (at site entrance) to allow access to cross Sunset Trail. All internal sidewalk ramps were designed to be ADA accessible.
Due to elevation differences throughout the project site, the previously adopted project included multiple retaining walls located around the entirety of the northern, western and southern edges of the proposed development footprint. Along the eastern edge of the proposed development, a retaining was proposed to be constructed around the biofiltration area, along the slope between the proposed bridge connecting to the Lantern Crest Phase I building and the internal access road, and along the development footprint of the three-story structure.
The typical landscaping included trees, accent shrubs, and groundcover consisting of various brush and flower types. All landscaped areas were proposed to be mulched to a minimum depth of 4 inches with shredded wood mulch, except for groundcover areas, which were proposed to be mulched to a minimum depth of 2 inches. The planting areas were proposed to be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system containing a rain-sensing shutoff device, along with a drip irrigation system in small planter areas. All landscaping within the project site were proposed to comply with the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In addition, the previously adopted project included a 100-foot minimum horizontal set back of fuel modified defensible space between the proposed structures and the wildland areas located north and east of the project site.
The fuel modified defensible space was comprised of two distinct brush management areas (BMAs); BMA Zone 1 and BMA Zone 2. BMA Zone 1 (first 50 feet extending away from the proposed structures) consisted of permanently landscaped, irrigated, and maintained fire-resistant native plant species. BMA Zone 2 consisted of a hydroseed mix comprised of low-fuel, California-native plant species. The project site had sufficient space to meet the 100-foot fuel modified defensible space Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
requirement between the structure and open space to the north. However, the project site did not contain sufficient area to provide a 100-foot fuel modified defensible space between the proposed structures and open space area to the east. As a result, the site layout provided 56 feet of space between the structure and the open space to the east. In order to address the reduced fuel modified defensible space, the previously adopted project included the construction of a 5-foot fire barrier in the form of a non-combustible wall along the top of the slope along the eastern boundary of the project site.
The Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) would have provided water and sewer service to the project site via the existing public water and sewer main along Sunset Trail. On-site water and sewer connections were to be constructed within the internal access road, connecting with the existing 6-inch sewer main and 12-inch water main along Sunset Trail. These utilities were to be public and constructed in accordance with PDMWD standards. One fire hydrant was to be installed within the project site, located adjacent to the northern portion of the internal cul-de-sac.
11. Revised Project Description
The revised project would remove the two duplexes that would have provided four independent senior living units and increase the number of one-bedroom senior care units within the remaining three-story senior care facility from 46 to 62. This results in a net increase in the number of total residential units from 50 under the previously adopted project to 62 under the revised project.
The revised project would be located within the same approximately 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project, located in the City of Santee, California, east of SR-67 and north of Prospect Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 384-142-04-00). The western boundary of the project site fronts multi- and single-family residential properties, while the eastern boundary fronts the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I Senior Housing facility, located at 800 Lantern Crest Way. The revised project would provide a connection to the adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building via a covered pedestrian bridge. Figure 1 presents the revised project’s regional location, Figure 2 presents the revised project’s specific location on U.S. Geological Survey map, and Figure 3 presents the project location on an aerial photograph. Figure 4 presents the site plan, Figures 5a through 5c present the site elevations, and Figure 6 presents the landscape concept plan.
The revised project would be consistent with the General Plan Amendment (GPA 2018-1) and zone reclassification (R2018-1) approved under the previously adopted project that changed the zoning and land use designation from Low Density Residential (R-1A) and Hillside/Limited (HL) to Medium High Density Residential (R-14). The City would issue a revised Conditional Use Permit that would permit the proposed development of 62 one-bedroom units of senior care housing and related services on the 2.74-acre project site. The building would be three stories and the one-bedroom units would range in size from 600 to 1,310 square feet. The common areas within each floor would range in size from 5,762 to 8,496 square feet. Due to removal of the four independent senior living units (contained within two duplex villas), the total site coverage of the development footprint has been reduced from 28,933 square feet under the previously approved project to 26,402 square feet under the revised project. Conversely, the total square footage of the senior care facility has increased from 54,638 square feet under the previously approved project to 69,459 square feet under the revised project due to the net increase of 12 senior care units. The revised project would Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
utilize the same grading footprint and convert the same amount of natural soils to developed land as the previously adopted project.
The revised project would provide 13 standard parking spaces and two ADA-compliant parking spaces. Similar to the previously adopted project, access would be provided via Sunset Trail and Lantern Crest Way from Graves Avenue, and an access road and cul-de-sac would provide vehicular access to the parking spaces and structures. The internal access road, south of the internal cul-de-sac, would consist of a 24-foot-wide driveway, 18-foot (depth) parking stalls, along with a curb and gutter.
The internal cul-de-sac would have a radius of 42 feet. The road to the north of the cul-de-sac would be 26 feet wide and designated as a “Fire Lane.” Similar to the previously adopted project, the revised project would include the 65-foot-long firetruck turnaround area at the northern end of the property.
The revised project would provide 56 feet of space between the structure and the open space to the east. In order to address the reduced fuel modified defensible space, the revised project would include the construction of a 5-foot fire barrier in the form of a non-combustible wall along the top of the slope along the eastern boundary of the project site as shown on Figure 4.
The revised project would include one biofiltration basin located in the southwestern corner of the property, which would connect to the proposed on-site storm drain system and empty into the existing storm drain system located along Sunset Trail. Maximum elevation of the main structure under the revised project would increase to approximately 565 feet AMSL compared to 545 AMSL under the previously adopted project. Three small towers would reach a height of 579 feet AMSL and a fourth small tower would reach a height of 574 AMSL (see Figures 5a through 5c).
12. Project Site Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Use(s) Existing conditions and surrounding land uses would be the same as under the previously adopted project. The project site is currently undeveloped, consisting of three habitat communities, typical of the Santee scrub and grasslands areas, as well as granitic rock outcroppings. Topography on the site slopes from east to west, with elevations ranging from approximately 580 to 520 feet AMSL along the eastern perimeter of the site, and from 500 to 490 feet AMSL along the western perimeter.
A mixture of existing development and undeveloped land surrounds the project site. To the east and south of the project site lie two existing Lantern Crest Senior Living Facility buildings. The revised project would connect to the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building approximately 10 feet to the east of the project site through a covered bridge. The existing Villas at Lantern Crest and the Pointe at Lantern Crest are located immediately to the south of the project site across Sunset Trail.
A mix of single- and multi-family apartment complexes is located immediately to the west and southwest across Sunset Trail. The SR-67 and State Route 52 (SR52) interchange is located approximately 0.15 mile west of the project site. To the north and northeast of the project site is open space habitat, located upon steep slopes. Nonresidential uses, including industrial parks, are located west of the project site, which are buffered from the site by the SR-67 and SR-52 interchange and roadways.
13. Other Required Agency Approvals or Permits Required General Construction Permit (San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board) Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
14. New Significant Environmental Effects or Substantially More Severe Environmental Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous CEQA Document The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
15. Determination
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
X
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.
Signature Date
Michael Coyne, Associate Planner City of Santee
Printed Name and Title For
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
kj
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Tr ails
Regional Park
Cleveland
National
Forest
Batiquitos
Lagoon
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir
D u l z u r a C r e e k
S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e r
S a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa de
Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV78
UV56
UV54
UV75
UV125
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
M E X I C O
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial
Beach
La Mesa
Lemon
Grove
Nati onal
City
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
kj
USMC AIR
STATION
MIRAMAR
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Tr ails
Regional Park
Cleveland
National
Forest
Batiquitos
Lagoon
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lower Otay
Reservoir
D u l z u r a C r e e k
S a n t a Y s a b e l C r e e k
O t a y R i v e r
E s c o n d i d o C r e e k
S
w e e t w a t e r R i v e r
S a n D i e g o R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
Sycuan
Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Bonita
Bostonia
Casa de
Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Jamul
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring Valley
Winter
Gardens
UV163
UV78
UV56
UV54
UV75
UV125
UV905
UV67
UV94
UV52 §¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
M E X I C O
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial
Beach
La Mesa
Lemon
Grove
Nati onal
City
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
0 Miles 5 [
M:\JOBS5\9103\common_gis\fig1.mxd 01/05/2022 bma
LOS
ANGELES
ORANGE RIVERSIDE
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
MEXICO
kj Project Location
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, EL CAJON quadrangle, 1996, EL CAJON Landgrant 0 Feet 2,000 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9103\common_gis\fig2.mxd 01/05/2022 bma
FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
M
O
N
TILLA
ST
CALAB R
AI S
T
GRAVES AVE
LAN TE
R
N CR
E
S
T
W
AY
SEVILLA ST
SUNSET TRL
LANTERN CREST WAY
M
O
N
TILLA
ST
CALAB R
AI S
T
GRAVES AVE
LAN TE
R
N CR
E
S
T
W
AY
SEVILLA ST
SUNSET TRL
LANTERN CREST WAY
Image Source: NearMap (flown September 2021)
0 Feet 200 [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9103\common_gis\fig3.mxd 01/05/2022 bma
M:\JOBS5\9103\env\graphics\fig4_mndAddendum.afdesign 01/05/2021 bma Map Source: REC
FIGURE 4
Site Plan
0 Feet 60
M:\JOBS5\9103\env\graphics\fig5a_mndAddendum.afdesign 01/05/2021 bma Source: Todd B. Speigel Architects
FIGURE 5a
Site Elevation: West
M:\JOBS5\9103\env\graphics\fig5b_mndAddendum.afdesign 01/05/2021 bma Source: Todd B. Speigel Architects
FIGURE 5b
Site Elevation: East
M:\JOBS5\9103\env\graphics\fig5c_mndAddendum.afdesign 01/05/2021 bma Source: Todd B. Speigel Architects
FIGURE 5c
Site Elevation: North and South
M:\JOBS5\9103\env\graphics\fig6_mndAddendum.afdesign 01/05/2021 bma Map Source: Gary F. Hoyt Landscape Architecture, Inc.
FIGURE 6
Landscape Concept Plan
0 Feet 50
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
a publicly accessible vantage point).
If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Sources: Project Plans; City of Santee General Plan (Conservation, Community Enhancement, and Circulation Elements); Santee Municipal Code.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, open space areas serve as scenic vistas within the City. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The project site is situated upon, and located adjacent to portions of open space within a partially undeveloped hillside, and is therefore located within the view corridor of a scenic vista. The open space area within this partially undeveloped hillside can be seen from public viewing points along Sunset Trail, as well as from the SR52 and SR-67 interchange located
0.15 mile west of the project site, and existing development immediately west and northwest of the project site, due to the elevated landscape associated with the hillside. The relatively flat landscape to the west of the project site allows for distant views of the hillside. Development within the project site could change the visual landscape of the open space/undeveloped hillside area; thus, construction of the revised project could have the potential to affect this scenic vista.
However, the revised project would be constructed between two adjacent existing development projects, one of which (the Lantern Crest Ridge I development) would be integrated with the revised project. Views of the undeveloped hillside from the existing development to the east would be Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
minimally impeded by the revised project. Maximum elevation of the main structure under the revised project would increase to approximately 565 feet AMSL compared to 545 AMSL under the previously adopted project. However, this would not result in a substantive change with respect to scenic vistas because the revised project’s maximum height of 565 feet AMSL would be very similar to the 560 AMSL feet for the existing and adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge I facility. The three small towers that would reach a maximum height of 579 feet ASML and the fourth small tower that would reach a height of 574 AMSL would be minimal in size compared to the main structure and would not result in a substantive change with respect to scenic vistas. Therefore, the revised project’s increase in height of approximately 20 feet for the main structure would not be noticeably different in relation to the existing adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge I facility. While the revised project would encroach into the existing hillside, views of the hillside from public viewing areas, including from the SR-52 and SR-67 interchange and along Sunset Trail, would remain, since the proposed building height would be similar to that of the existing development to the east of the site. Motorists along these roadways and trail users would continue to have views of the open space. Moreover, the revised project would not impede distant views of mountains or hillsides from viewing areas along Sunset Trail. In addition, the revised project would install landscaping that would visually integrate the revised project into the surrounding landscape. Therefore, the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The City’s General Plan identifies existing scenic resources throughout the City, including the San Diego River and other waterway corridors, undeveloped hillsides and ridgelines, the Santee Town Center, Santee Lakes, Mission Trails Regional Parks, and the San Diego Trolley. There are no designated or eligible state scenic highways within the City of Santee. The closest state scenic highway segment is located along SR-52, which is located approximately 4 miles west of the project site. Development of the project site would not affect the aforementioned scenic resources, nor would the revised project be visible from the scenic highway segment. The granitic rock outcroppings and mature trees on the project site are not officially designated as scenic resources and are unremarkable in character. As described in Section 15.5.a below, no historic structural resources have been historically located or are currently located on the project site.
Therefore, the revised project would not substantially damage any scenic resources, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. The existing visual character of the project area is characterized by single- and multi-family residential land uses to the west and southwest, a senior care facility to the south, the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building approximately 10 feet to the east, and vacant land to the north and northwest. Major roadways including Prospect Avenue, as well as SR-52 and SR-67 highways and interchange, are located to the west.
The project site is an undeveloped parcel with low-lying vegetation, including both native and non-native vegetation. The southern half of the project site, consisting of a terraced landscape and non-native grassland intermixed with the non-native vegetation, has previously been disturbed. The project site would be developed with a three-story senior care facility, a pedestrian bridge connecting the proposed facility with the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I assisted-living facility on the adjacent parcel, landscaping, and an internal access road, cul-de-sac, and parking spaces that would result in a visual character consistent with surrounding development. The revised project would be Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
consistent with the existing visual character of the surrounding senior residential development because it would consist of an additional senior care living facility that would be integrated architecturally and physically (via a connecting pedestrian bridge) with the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I facility that is adjacent to the project site. Maximum elevation of the main structure under the revised project would increase to approximately 565 feet AMSL compared to 545 AMSL under the previously adopted project. However, this would not result in a substantive change with respect to visual character because the revised project’s maximum height of 565 feet AMSL for the main structure would be very similar to the 560 AMSL feet for the existing and adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge I facility. The three small towers that would reach a maximum height of 579 feet ASML and the fourth small tower that would reach a height of 574 AMSL would be minimal in size compared to the main structure and would not result in a substantive change with respect to visual character.
Therefore, the revised project’s increase in height of approximately 20 feet for the main structure would not be noticeably different in relation to the existing adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge I facility.
The design of the revised project would also be similar in bulk and scale to the existing Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I facility. Furthermore, the revised project has been designed consistent with applicable zoning regulations pertaining to scenic quality and would include landscaping to enhance the visual quality of the project site.
The site would be graded and developed to follow the existing landform with the site sloping downward from east to west. Construction activities would be limited to the project site and would not affect any of the surrounding parcels. Construction activities would utilize standard equipment, and temporary changes in the visual character of the project site would be similar to those that would occur during construction of similar residential projects.
Post-construction, the proposed retaining walls along the eastern boundary of the structure would be shielded by various trees and shrubs. The retaining walls along the western portion of the project site and structure would be visible from the adjacent properties to the west; however, as shown in the landscaping plan, this retaining wall would also be shielded by various shrubs and trees. The revised project would incorporate ornamental landscaping throughout the project site that would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The landscape plans developed for the revised project include trees, accent shrubs, and groundcover consisting of various brush and flower types. Installation of landscaping throughout the project site, in compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, would enhance its visual quality. In addition, the revised project would include a landscape transition area between the existing open space to the north and east of the site, which would include at least 100 feet of brush vegetation, thereby serving as a transition between the developed landscape and the adjacent open space area. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. d. No New Impact/No Impact. Construction of the revised project would be limited to the City’s allowable construction hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM and is not anticipated to require lighting. In the event that construction lighting is required, it would be properly shielded to avoid spillover effects.
Like the original approved project, the revised project would include outdoor lighting typical of residential uses. Light spillover, trespass, and potential glare from project lighting are regulated by Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Section 13.30.030(B) of the Santee Municipal Code. The code requires that all lights and illuminated signs shall be shielded or directed to not cause glare on adjacent properties or motorists. Light associated with additional vehicle trips generated by the revised project would be similar in character to what is currently generated by vehicles traveling along the existing roadway network after dark.
As shown in Figures 5a through 5c, the building exterior does not include large windows or other features that could create substantial sources of glare. Therefore, the revised project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
15.2 Agriculture Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and City Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural land and farmland. Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
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])?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Land Use Element; City of Santee Zoning Ordinance; Department of Conservation–Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program; Department of Conservation–Land Conservation Act Maps
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project, which is designated as Grazing Land according to the 2016 San Diego County Important Farmland Map prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The project site does not contain any agricultural operations and has no recent history of agricultural production. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the conversion of agricultural land or any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The project site and surrounding properties are not zoned for agricultural uses and are not subject to a Williamson Act contract or an agricultural preserve.
Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project, which does not contain any forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 or Government Code Section 51104(g) and is not zoned as forest or timberland. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project, which does not contain any forest or timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 or Government Code Section 51104(g). No new impact would occur.
e. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. There are no agricultural uses or forestlands on-site or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the revised project would not result in conversion of farmland or forest land. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions such as
those leading to odors adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Sources: Project Description, City of Santee General Plan–Land Use Element; Air Quality Model Results (California Emissions Estimator Model [CalEEMod] Output Files) prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (January 4, 2022, Appendix A); San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rules 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 (SDAPCD 2016); Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015); California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (CARB 2005); and University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies 1997). a. No New Impact/No Impact. Following the California Clean Air Act, California was divided geographically into 15 air basins for managing the state air resources on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to share the same air masses and, therefore, have similar ambient air quality. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Stationary sources of air emissions within each air basin are regulated by regional air quality districts, of which the revised project is located within the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD.
Air districts are tasked with regulating emissions such that air quality in the basin does not exceed national or California ambient air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS); where NAAQS and CAAQS represent the maximum levels of background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. NAAQS and CAAQS have been established for six common pollutants of concern known as criteria pollutants, which include ozone, carbon monoxide Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), and respirable particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10] and less than 2.5 microns [PM2.5]).
The SDAB is currently classified as a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone, and as a state non-attainment area for PM10, and PM2.5. The SDAPCD prepared an air quality plan, the 2016 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), to identify feasible emission control measures intended to progress toward attaining NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone. Reducing ozone concentrations is achieved by reducing the precursors to the photochemical formation of ozone (volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen [NOX]).
The growth forecasting for the RAQS is based in part on the land uses established by local general plans. Thus, if a project is consistent with land use designated in the local general plan, it can normally be considered consistent with the RAQS. Projects that propose a different land use than is identified in the local general plan may also be considered consistent with the RAQS if the proposed land use is less intensive than the current land use designation. For projects that propose a land use that is more intensive than the current zoning designation, detailed analysis is required to assess conformance with the RAQS.
The project site was previously designated as Low Density Residential (R-1A) and Hillside/Limited (HL). The previously approved project included a General Plan amendment (GPA 2018-1) and zone reclassification that changed both designations to R-14 (Medium High Density Residential). These actions increased the allowable unit density to 14 to 22 dwelling units per gross acre throughout the project site. The revised project would be consistent with the recently adopted General Plan and Zoning.
Specifically, the addition of 12 senior care units under the revised project would be consistent with the density allowed under the R-14 (Medium High Density Residential) general plan and zoning designation. Based on information from the Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Appendix B-1), the revised project was forecast to generate 165 average daily trips (ADT) compared to 125 ADT under the previously adopted project.1 These trips would mostly be associated with employees and visitors.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 15.3.b below, emissions under the revised project would not exceed the project-level significance thresholds. Consequently, the revised project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the RAQS. Therefore, the revised project would not obstruct or conflict with implementation of the RAQS, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. As discussed in Section 15.3.a above, NAAQS and CAAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants (ozone, CO, SO2, NO2, lead, and particulate matter). The City has not adopted air quality significance thresholds for these pollutants, and the SDAPCD does not provide specific numeric thresholds for determining the significance of air quality impacts under the 1 The Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis assumed development of 66 senior care units, which is greater than the 62 senior care units proposed under the revised project. Therefore, this impact analysis is conservative and evaluates a greater number of vehicle trips than would actually occur under the revised project.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
CEQA Guidelines. However, the SDAPCD does specify air quality impact analysis “trigger” levels for criteria pollutant emissions associated with new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.1,
20.2, and 20.3). The SDAPCD does not consider these trigger levels to represent adverse air quality impacts; rather, if these trigger levels are exceeded by stationary sources associated with a project, the SDAPCD requires an air quality analysis to determine if a significant air quality impact would occur. This analysis uses SDAPCD trigger levels shown in Table 1 as air quality impact screening levels.
Table 1
Air Quality Impact Analysis Trigger Levels
Pollutant
Emission Rate
(pounds per hour)
Emission Rate
(pounds per day)
Emission Rate
(tons per year)
NOX 25 250 40
SOX 25 250 40
CO 100 550 100
PM10 -- 100 15
Lead -- 3.2 0.6
ROG1 -- 250 --
PM2.5 -- 67 10
SOURCE: SDAPCD, Rules 20.1, 20.2, 20.3 (SDAPCD 2016). 1 The reactive organic gases (ROG) threshold is based on federal General Conformity de minimis levels for ozone precursors.
The revised project would result in short-term emissions from construction and long-term emissions associated with project operation. Construction and operational emissions associated with the revised project were modeled using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 (see Appendix A), which incorporates current air emission data. Planning methods, protocol, modeling methodology, and assumptions are summarized below.
Construction Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of construction-related emissions include the following:
• fugitive dust from grading activities;
• equipment exhaust;
• off-gassing from architectural coatings (paints, etc.) and paving; and • vehicle trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks.
Project construction would include one month of grading, one month of constructing forms and pouring concrete, nine months of building construction, and one month to furnish, for a total of 12 months. These phases, along with paving and architectural coatings, were modeled in CalEEMod.
Due to the project changes, emissions were calculated for the revised project. Table 2 shows the total projected construction maximum daily emission levels for each criteria pollutant. The CalEEMod output files for construction emissions for the revised project are contained in Appendix A. Like the originally adopted MND, maximum daily construction emissions would be below significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Table 2
Summary of Maximum Construction Emissions
(pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Grading 2 17 9 <1 8 4
Form and Pour Concrete 2 15 16 <1 1 1
Building Construction/Furnishing 2 15 16 <1 1 1
Paving 1 9 12 <1 1 <1
Architectural Coatings 11 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Daily Emissions1 13 24 29 <1 8 4
Significance Threshold 250 250 550 250 100 67
SOURCE: Appendix A
1 Maximum emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, and SOX would occur during the simultaneous building construction, paving, and architectural coatings activities and maximum emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would occur during the grading activities.
Standard dust control measures would be implemented as a part of project construction in accordance with mandatory SDAPCD rules and regulations. Fugitive dust emissions were calculated using CalEEMod default values, and did not consider the required SDAPCD dust control measures.
Thus, the emissions shown in Table 2 are conservative.
Like the originally approved project, the revised project applicant would implement standard construction measures in order to comply with mandatory SDAPCD rules and regulations (Rules 50, 51, 52, 54, and 55) for controlling emissions from fugitive dust and fumes:
• Water the grading areas a minimum of twice daily to minimize fugitive dust. • Provide sufficient erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. • Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling.
• Periodically sweep up dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Clean approach routes to construction sites of construction-related dirt.
Further, all construction equipment is subject to the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. This regulation, which applies to all off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater, limits unnecessary idling to 5 minutes, requires all construction fleets to be labeled and report to CARB, bans Tier 0 equipment and phases out Tier 1 and 2 equipment (thereby replacing fleets with cleaner equipment), and requires that fleets comply with Best Available Control Technology requirements.
Therefore, as the revised project construction emissions would be well below these limits and the revised project would implement standard construction measures in order to comply with SDAPCD rules and regulations and CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, construction emissions would not result in regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS or contribute to existing violations. Therefore, construction of the revised project would not result in a Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the revised project would result in long-term emissions from mobile and area sources.
Mobile emissions for the revised project were calculated based on the vehicle type and the trip rate for each land use. Based on information from the Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (see Appendix B-1), the revised project was forecast to generate 165 ADT compared to 125 ADT under the previously adopted project.2 Vehicle emission factors and fleet mix were based on regional averages from the CARB Emission Factors 2017 model. Default trip length and vehicle emission factors were used. Area emissions include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment, consumer products (aerosols, cleansers, etc.), and architectural coatings (e.g., paint). Energy emissions are related to the combustion of natural gas. Area and energy sources were calculated based on regional use factors.
Table 3 provides a summary of the operational emissions generated by the revised project.
CalEEMod output files for operation of the revised project are contained in Appendix A.
Table 3
Summary of Maximum Build-out Operational Emissions
(pounds per day)
Emissions Sources ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 2 <1 5 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Sources <1 1 4 <1 1 <1
Total 2 1 9 <1 1 <1
Significance Threshold 250 250 550 250 100 67
SOURCE: Appendix A
Note: Totals may vary due to independent rounding.
As shown in Table 3, operation of the revised project would not exceed the applicable regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, as operation emissions would be below these limits, operation emissions would not result in regional emissions that would exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS or contribute to existing violations. Therefore, operation of the revised project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is more susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large.
Examples of sensitive receptor locations in the community include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, churches, athletic facilities, retirement homes, and long-term health care facilities. 2 The Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis assumed development of 66 senior care units, which is greater than the 62 senior care units proposed under the revised project. Therefore, this impact analysis is conservative and evaluates a greater number of vehicle trips than would actually occur under the revised project.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Residential and senior care land uses in the vicinity of the revised project are also considered to be sensitive receptors and surround the project site.
Diesel Particulate Matter–Construction
Construction of the revised project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site heavy-duty equipment. Construction of the revised project would result in the generation of diesel exhaust diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities and on-road diesel equipment used to bring materials to and from the project site.
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.
According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, if the duration of proposed construction activities near any specific sensitive receptor were a year, the exposure would be three percent of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation.
Based on the size of the revised project and the short duration of construction (12 months), DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in 1 million of contracting cancer for the maximally exposed individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that exceed a hazard index greater than 1 for the maximally exposed individual. Additionally, with ongoing implementation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB requirements for cleaner fuels; off-road diesel engine retrofits; and new, low-emission diesel engine types, the DPM emissions of individual equipment would be substantially reduced over the years as construction of the revised project continues. Furthermore, the revised project would implement standard construction measures in order to comply with mandatory SDAPCD rules and regulations and CARB’s In-Use Off-Road DieselFueled Fleets Regulation. Additionally, the following standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented in accordance with mandatory state rules and regulations:
• The construction fleet shall use any combination of diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters and/or utilize California Air Resources Board/U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Engine Certification Tier 3 or better, or other equivalent methods approved by the CARB.
• The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum size suitable for the required job.
• Construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
• Per CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure 13 (California Code of Regulations Chapter 10 Section 2485), the applicant shall not allow idling time to exceed 5 minutes unless more time is required per engine manufacturers’ specifications or for safety reasons.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Construction would be short-term, construction emissions would be well less than applicable thresholds (see Table 2), and BMPs would be implemented that would further reduce emissions.
Therefore, construction of the revised project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Diesel Particulate Matter–Freeway
CARB has provided guidelines for the siting of land uses near heavily traveled roadways. The CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per day should be avoided when possible (CARB 2005). The revised project would not place sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a roadway carrying 100,000 vehicles per day. The project site is more than 600 feet east of SR-67 and SR-52. Therefore, once operational, the revised project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of DPM, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
A CO hot spot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hot spots have the potential to violate state and federal CO standards at intersections, even if the broader basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) screening procedures have been utilized to determine if the revised project could potentially result in a CO hot spot (U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies 1997). As indicated by the CO Protocol, CO hot spots occur nearly exclusively at signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F. Accordingly, the CO Protocol recommends detailed air quality dispersion modeling for projects that may worsen traffic flow at any signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F.
Due to increased requirements for cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels, CO levels in the state have dropped substantially. All air basins are attainment or maintenance areas for CO. Therefore, more recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2011, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. This analysis conservatively assesses potential CO hot spots using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District screening threshold of 31,600 vehicles per hour. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis completed for the previously adopted project, intersection volumes are projected to range from 1,631 to 2,320 vehicles per hour with the revised project (see Appendix B-2), which would be well below 31,600 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the revised project is not anticipated to result in a CO hot spot, and project impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. d. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would develop a senior care facility. This use is not associated with the generation of objectionable odors. During construction, the use of fuels, including diesel, would generate some nuisance odors. Odors generated during construction would be temporary, intermittent, and disperse quickly, and would not affect a substantial number of Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
people. Therefore, the revised project would not result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new impact would occur.
15.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Have substantial adverse effects,
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 Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
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 CDFW or
USFWS?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
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: City of Santee General Plan–Open Space Conservation Element; City of Santee Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan; Biological Resources Survey Report for the Lantern Crest Ridge II Property prepared by Vincent Scheidt (December 2017; Appendix C); Lantern Crest/Santee Seniors Annual Management Report prepared by J. Whalen Associates, Inc. (2017; Appendix D); and 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan for the Lantern Crest Open Space Preserve memorandum prepared by Cummings Environmental, Inc. (January 3, 2018; Appendix E). a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site and utilize the same grading footprint as the previously adopted project. Therefore, the revised project would result in the same level of impacts to biological resources as under the previously adopted project. The following discussion is based on the Biological Resources Report (see Appendix C) completed for the previously adopted project as part of the original project approval. The project site contains three habitat communities, including 1.01 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 1.30 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.43 acre of non-native vegetation. The revised project would utilize the same grading footprint and convert the same amount of natural soils to developed land as the previously adopted project. Of these habitat communities, the Diegan coastal sage scrub, which covers the northern half of the project site, is considered a sensitive vegetation community. The nonnative grassland is not considered a sensitive vegetation community; however, it does support sensitive species, and is therefore considered a sensitive biological resource. The non-native vegetation, found primarily on the lower half of the property, is not considered a sensitive vegetation community. One sensitive plant species, the San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) (CDFW California Rare Plant Ranks 4.3), was observed within the project site. Two sensitive animal species were detected within the project site, the San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti) (CDFW Species of Special Concern), and California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) (Federally-listed Threatened Species; CDFW Species of Special Concern). One California gnatcatcher was observed during a protocol survey conducted in 2017, located within the Diegan coastal sage scrub that exists within the property, which results in the property being considered “occupied” by this federally listed Threatened Species. The revised project would avoid off-site impacts on the adjoining properties to the north and east by implementing alternative compliance measures in order to meet local brush management requirements.
Impacts to 1.01 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 1.30 acres of non-native grassland would be considered significant. Although development of these vegetation communities would also impact sensitive species, specific, species-based mitigation measures for sensitive species would not be required. Pursuant to California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, the loss of sensitive species, including San Diego County viguiera, the San Diego banded gecko, and California gnatcatcher, would be compensated for through conservation of off-site habitat.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Furthermore, it was determined during a field meeting with Mr. Eric Porter of the USFWS that it is not necessary to secure take authorization from the USFWS for impacts to California gnatcatcher.
Implementation of habitat mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 developed for the previously adopted project and presented in the MMRP would reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and sensitive species to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Removal of the existing trees/vegetation and development of the project site could result in potential direct impacts to nesting raptors or migratory songbirds associated with the displacement of suitable nesting habitat. This would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 developed for the previously adopted project and presented in the MMRP would reduce impacts to nesting birds and wildlife nursery sites to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat
Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1 mitigation ratio) at the Willow Road Conservation Bank, which is fully endowed to provide a non-wasting funding source that pays for management, and is protected with a Conservation Easement (CE) over the entire property. If the Willow Road Conservation Bank were unavailable, the applicant would secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1 mitigation ratio) at another location approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS that would be similarly subject to perpetual conservation with a recorded CE and require a non-wasting endowment to fund management in perpetuity.
BIO-2: Non-Native Grassland Habitat
Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall secure no less than 1.30 acres of non-native grassland habitat (at a 1:1 mitigation ratio) at the Willow Road Conservation Bank, which is fully endowed to provide a non-wasting funding source that pays for management, and is protected with a Conservation Easement (CE) over the entire property. If the Willow Road Conservation Bank were unavailable, the applicant would secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1 mitigation ratio) at another location approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS that would be similarly subject to perpetual conservation with a recorded CE and require a non-wasting endowment to fund management in perpetuity.
BIO-3: Nesting Birds and Wildlife Nursery Sites
To remain in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the spring/summer migratory songbird breeding season, defined as from 15 February to 31 August of each year. Limiting activities to the non-breeding season will minimize chances for the incidental take of migratory songbirds or raptors. If vegetation removal activities were to occur during the songbird breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting survey within the limits of disturbance and within 300 feet of the limits of disturbance where feasible, including within the Diegan coastal sage scrub adjacent to the project site. This survey must occur no more than three Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
days prior to any site activities to ensure compliance with the standard seasonal restrictions. The preconstruction nesting survey would need to be repeated if construction is not initiated within three days following completion of the survey. If active nests or nesting behaviors are detected, construction must be delayed until such time as nesting is complete. The results of the survey shall be provided in a report to the City Planning Department, for concurrence with the conclusions and recommendations.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. None of the three vegetation communities identified on the project site qualify as riparian habitat. Therefore, the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The site does not contain any federally protected wetlands, and no wetlands are located within close proximity to the project site. Therefore, the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The project site is surrounded by developed lands to the west, south, and east, which contain urban uses. While the project site is currently vacant and is adjacent to vacant lands and an established open space preserve to the north and northeast, this open space area and the project site do not function as a wildlife corridor. The open space preserve is surrounded by single- and multifamily residential development and associated roadways to the east, which inhibits this preserve area from serving as a wildlife corridor. In addition, the project site is physically separated from the San Diego River (a regional wildlife corridor) by approximately one mile, residential and industrial development, as well as SR52 and SR67. Therefore, the revised project would have no impact on wildlife corridors. However, as discussed in Section 15.4.a above, removal of the existing trees/vegetation and development of the project site could result in potential direct impacts to nesting raptors or migratory songbirds associated with the displacement of suitable nesting habitat. This would potentially affect existing native wildlife nursery sites, which would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 presented in the MMRP would reduce impacts to native wildlife nursery sites to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
e. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance “sets forth tree-related policies, regulations, and generally accepted standards for planting, trimming, and removing trees on public property and public rights-of-way” (Ord. 561 § 3, 2019). The ordinance identifies native tree species such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), Englemann oak (Quercus engelmannii), and western sycamore as “protected trees.” However, there are no native trees located on the project site that would require protection under the City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
f. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; therefore, the revised project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.
In addition, as part of a phased development process for the Lantern Crest Ridge development (which includes the revised project discussed herein), a Lantern Crest Ridge Open Space Preserve has been established that would permanently conserve a total of 19.31 acres of land as Open Space.
The preserve is located in the City of Santee and is part of the development project’s boundary. The preserve is located in the Rattlesnake Mountain Subunit of the City’s Draft Subarea Plan. The preserve is split into two portions, with one being 12.91 acres and the other 6.40 acres. The project site is located adjacent to the 6.40acre portion of the preserve. Project lighting on the eastern boundary would be minimized and directed downwards in order to avoid affecting the adjacent 6.40acre portion of the preserve. The revised project would not disturb or otherwise intrude upon this previously designated open space preserve. No brush clearing outside of the boundary of the revised project would be required. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No new impact would occur.
15.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Sources: Results of the Archaeological Survey for the Lantern Crest Ridge II Project prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (September 17, 2018; Appendix F). a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The term “historic resources” applies to any such resource that is at least 50 years old and is listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The project site is currently undeveloped. As detailed in the archaeological survey, no historic structural resources have been historically located or are currently located on the project site (see Appendix F). No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources have been previously recorded within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the revised project Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to §15064.5. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. An archival records search was conducted by RECON at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University for a onemile radius buffer from the project site. The record search identified 21 cultural resources identified within one mile of the project site:
16 prehistoric sites/isolates, 4 historic sites, and 1 cultural resource with locational information only.
None of the previously recorded sites is located within the project site. The two closest recorded archeological sites, denoted as CASDI-25,552 and CA-SDI-6937, are both located approximately 600 feet away from the project site. CA-SDI-25,552 is a Late Prehistoric site consisting of a number of bedrock milling features with artifacts, located southeast of the project site. CA-SDI-6937 is a Late Prehistoric quartz quarry east of the project site. Both sites have been destroyed by previous development.
An archaeological survey of the project site was completed by RECON in April 2018 and is detailed in Appendix F. During the site survey, the project site was inspected for evidence of archaeological materials such as flaked and ground stone tools, ceramics, milling features, and historic features. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were found during the survey of the project site. The terraced condition of the southern half of the site makes the potential for subsurface prehistoric deposits to be present very low. In addition, the location of the site on a moderate slope makes it an area of erosion, as opposed to alluvial deposition. Because of this, the potential for subsurface prehistoric deposits in the northern half of the site is also considered very low and the revised project is unlikely to impact cultural resources. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are encountered during exposure of subsurface soils, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 developed for the previously adopted project and presented in the MMRP would ensure that ground-disturbing work would be immediately halted in the area and a qualified archaeologist will be retained, which would reduce impacts to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring
If during grading or construction activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered on the project site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and the most likely descendant Tribe (Tribe) and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared by the qualified archaeologist. The report shall include a list of the resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of the resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or recovery for identified resources. If the qualified archaeologist determines the cultural resources to be either historic resources or unique archaeological resources, avoidance and/or mitigation will be required pursuant to and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated into all construction contract documentation.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
CUL-2: Tribal Cultural Monitoring
A Tribal Cultural Monitor shall be present for all ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Should any cultural or tribal cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director of Development Services, or designee, is satisfied that treatment of the resource has occurred. In the event that a unique archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource is discovered, and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)(1), (2), and (4), the resource shall be moved and buried in an open space area of the project site, such as slope areas, which will not be subject to further grading activity, erosion, flooding, or any other ground disturbance that has the potential to expose the resource. The onsite area to which the resource is moved shall be protected in perpetuity as permanent open space. No identification of the resource shall be made onsite; however, the project applicant shall plot the new location of the resource on a map showing latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates and provide that map to the Native American Heritage Commission for inclusion in the Sacred Lands File. Disposition of the resources shall be at the discretion of the City of Santee. c. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. While there are no formal cemeteries or recorded burials in the vicinity of the project area, prehistoric burials are possible. In the unlikely event that unknown human burials are encountered during project grading and construction, they would be handled in accordance with procedures of the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the California Government Code Section 27491, and the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. These regulations detail specific procedures to follow in the event of a discovery of human remains. Compliance with these regulations would reduce impacts to a level less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 developed for the previously adopted project and presented in the MMRP would further reduce impacts to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-3: Human Remains
If during grading or construction activities, human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable time frame. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. This mitigation measure shall be incorporated into all construction contract documentation.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.6 Energy
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Sources: Project Description, Energy Use Calculations prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (January 4, 2022, Appendix G), Air Quality Model Results (CalEEMod Output Files) prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (see Appendix A), Traffic Impact Study (see Appendix B-1), EMFAC 2017 CARB OFF-ROAD Model, CARB Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations).
a. No New Impact/No Impact.
Construction-Related Energy Use
During construction, energy use would occur in two general categories: fuel use from vehicles used by workers commuting to and from the construction site, and fuel use by vehicles and other equipment to conduct construction activities. The construction equipment and worker trips required for the project were determined as a part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Modeling prepared for the project (see Appendix A). Heavy-duty construction equipment is usually diesel powered.
As described in Section 15.17a) below, project construction activities would temporarily contribute additional vehicle trips on the local circulation system, and would generate up to 14 daily worker trips during an approximately 12-month period. Deliveries of construction materials would periodically generate up to eight additional vehicle trips. Fuel consumption associated with on-road worker trips and delivery trips were calculated using the total trips, trip lengths calculated in the Air Quality and GHG Modeling, and EMFAC2017 fuel consumption rates (see Appendix G). Fuel consumption associated with on-site construction equipment was calculated using the equipment quantities and phase lengths calculated in the Air Quality and GHG Modeling and CARB OFF-ROAD model (see Appendix G). Off-site and on-site fuel consumption that would occur over the entire construction period is summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Table 4
Off-site Construction Vehicle Fuel Consumption
Trip Type
Total Vehicle
Miles Traveled
Total Fuel Consumption (gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Workers 40,975 1,402 9
Deliveries 117 -- 20
Total 41,092 1,402 29
Table 5
On-site Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption
Phase
Phase Length
(Days) Equipment Amount
Total Usage
Hours
Total Diesel Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Grading 22
Grader 1 176 697
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 308 634
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 176 898
Form and
Pour Concrete 21
Cranes 1 168 581
Forklifts 2 294 300
Generator Sets 1 168 599
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 126 260
Welders 3 504 599
Building
Construction 218
Cranes 1 1,744 4,386
Forklifts 2 3,052 3,118
Generator Sets 1 1,744 6,222
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 1,308 2,694
Welders 3 5,232 6,216
Paving 10
Pavers 1 80 225
Paving Equipment 1 80 196
Rollers 2 160 279
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 80 23
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 80 165
Architectural
Coatings 97 Air Compressor 1 582 1,251
Total 29,343
Consistent with federal requirements, all equipment was assumed to meet CARB Tier 3 InUse OffRoad Diesel Engine Standards. There are no known conditions in the project area that would require nonstandard equipment or construction practices that would increase fuel-energy consumption above typical rates. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or other forms of energy during construction, and impacts would be less than significant during construction. No new impacts would occur.
Operation-Related Energy Use
During operation, energy use would be associated with transportation-related fuel use (gasoline, diesel fuel, and electric vehicles), and building-related energy use (electricity and natural gas).
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Transportation-Related Energy Use
Buildout of the revised project and occupation by residents would result in transportation energy use. Trips by individuals traveling to and from the project site would result from use of passenger vehicles or public transit. Passenger vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fueled by diesel or electricity. Public transit would be powered by diesel or natural gas, and could potentially be fueled by electricity. Based on information from the Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (see Appendix B-1), the revised project was forecast to generate 165 ADT compared to 125 ADT under the previously adopted project.3 Vehicle emission factors and fleet mix were based on regional averages from the CARB Emission Factors 2017 model. Based on CalEEMod Air Quality and GHG Modeling, the revised project would generate 442,572 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which equals approximately 1,213 daily VMT. Total gasoline and diesel fuel consumption was calculated using EMFAC2017 fuel consumption rates and fleet data for light duty autos. The results are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
Vehicle Fuel/Electricity Consumption
Fuel Type Daily VMT
Fuel Efficiency
(miles per gallon)
Gallons of Fuel
per Day
Electric Efficiency
(kWh per mile)*
Electric Vehicle
kWh per day
Gasoline 1,174 31.31 38 -- --
Diesel 14 46.63 <1 -- --
Electric 24 -- -- 3.4 7
TOTAL 1,213 38 7
kWh = kilowatt hour
*EMFAC does not provide estimates for energy used by electric vehicles. This data was estimated using existing kWh/mile data and estimates of future electric vehicle efficiencies provided by the Federal Highway Administration.
An existing bus route is located at the corner of Prospect Avenue and Graves Avenue, an approximate 0.25-mile walk from the project site. This bus route connects to a regional shopping center and trolley transit center located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the project site. The proximity of regional shopping and local bus routes would help reduce VMT generated by the revised project. In addition, project fuel consumption would decline over time beyond initial operational year of the revised project as a result of continued implementation of increased federal and state vehicle efficiency standards. There is no component of the revised project that would result in unusually high vehicle fuel use during operation. As such, operation of the revised project would not create a land use pattern that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. 3 The Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis assumed development of 66 senior care units, which is greater than the 62 senior care units proposed under the revised project. Therefore, this impact analysis is conservative and evaluates a greater number of vehicle trips than would actually occur under the revised project.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Non-Transportation-Related Energy Use
Non-transportation energy use would be associated with electricity and natural gas. The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply and decreased reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. Originally adopted in 2002 with a goal to achieve a 20 percent renewable energy mix by 2020 (referred to as the “Initial RPS”), the goal has been accelerated and increased by Executive Orders (EOs) S-14-08 and S-21-09 to a goal of 33 percent by 2020. In April 2011, SB 2 (1X) codified California’s 33 percent RPS goal. SB 350 (2015) increased California’s renewable energy mix goal to 50 percent by year 2030. SB 100 (2018) further increased the standard set by SB 350 establishing the RPS goal of 44 percent by the end of 2024, 52 percent by the end of 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Once operational, the revised project would be served by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). As of 2020, SDG&E had a 39 percent procurement of renewable energy (CPUC 2021).
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, is referred to as the California Building Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction, including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, handicap accessibility, and so on. Of particular relevance to GHG reductions are the California Building Code’s energy efficiency and green building standards as outlined below.
Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations is CALGreen. Beginning in 2011, CALGreen instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial and low-rise residential buildings, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory requirements and may adopt CALGreen with amendments for stricter requirements.
The revised project would, at a minimum, be required to comply with the mandatory measures included in the current 2019 Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) and the 2019 CALGreen standards. The mandatory standards require:
• Solar on single- and multi-family residential buildings • Outdoor water use requirements as outlined in local water efficient landscaping ordinances or current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, whichever is more stringent;
• Requirements for water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings; • 65 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills; • inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; • low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particle boards;
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
• dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle charging stations in newly constructed attached garages for single-family and duplex dwellings; and • installation of electric vehicle charging stations for at least three percent of the parking spaces for all new multi-family developments with 17 or more units.
Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen operational water reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for new lowrise residential and non-residential buildings. The water use compliance form must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced perplumbing-fixture water use rate.
Electricity and natural gas service to the project site is provided by SDG&E. Once operational, the proposed residential units would use electricity and natural gas to run various appliances and equipment, including space and water heaters, air conditioners, ventilation equipment, lights, and numerous other devices. Generally, electricity use is higher in the warmer months due to increased air conditioning needs, and natural gas use is highest when the weather is colder as a result of high heating demand. Residential uses would likely require the most energy use in the evening as people return from work. As a part of the Air Quality and GHG Modeling prepared for the revised project (RECON 2022), CalEEMod was used to estimate the total operational electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the revised project. Table 7 summarizes the anticipated operational energy and natural gas use.
Table 7
Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Use
Total Use
Electricity 238,089 kWh/Year
Natural Gas 451,115 kBTU/Year
kwH = kilowatt hour; kBTU = 1,000 British thermal units Buildout of the revised project would result in an increase of operational electricity and natural gas usage when compared to the existing condition. The revised project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of 2019 CALGreen and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) and would benefit from the efficiencies associated with these regulations as they relate to building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water-heating systems, and lighting. The revised project would include solar panels. Further, electricity would be provided to the revised project by SDG&E, which currently has an energy mix that includes 39 percent renewables and is on track to achieve 60 percent by 2030 as required by RPS. Therefore, there are no project features that would support the use of excessive amounts of energy or would create unnecessary energy waste, or conflict with any adopted plan for renewable energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and RPS. As discussed in Section 15.6.a above, the revised project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of 2019 CALGreen and the 2019 California Energy Code. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with or Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
obstruct implementation of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, or with SDG&E’s implementation of RPS, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
15.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
(iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
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?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Source(s): Report of Geotechnical Investigation Lantern Crest Ridge II prepared by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Appendix H-1); Geotechnical Investigation Addendum prepared by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Appendix H-2); Geotechnical Investigation Addendum #2, Group Delta Consultants, Inc., August 19, 2019 (Appendix H-3); City of Santee General Plan–Safety Element; City of Santee Municipal Code. Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California (Todd 2004); City of Santee General Plan–Conservation Element; City of Santee Municipal Code; and County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance, Paleontological Resources (County of San Diego 2009).
a(i). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. No known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones or active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement during the last 11,000 years) traverse the project site. There is an unnamed fault located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the site, but is labeled as inactive, potentially active, or activity unknown. The nearest known active fault is part of the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 14 miles west of the site. In addition, other major active faults within a 60-mile radius of the project site include the San Jacinto Fault and the Elsinore Fault, both located to the northeast of the project site. Because the project site is within a seismically active region, it could be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking. All earthwork would be conducted in accordance with the City’s grading guidelines, the current California Building Codes, and the specifications outlined in the updated geotechnical investigation (see Appendix H-1).
Therefore, the revised project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
a(ii). No New Impact/No Impact. Refer to Response 15.7.a(i). No new impact would occur. a(iii). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The project site is underlain by granitic rock and has been weathered into a silty fine to coarse sand where it has been decomposed to intensely weathered, as well as variable amounts of fresh granitic rock fragments. In addition, the site contains several outcrops of unweather granitic rock, boulders and core stones, which indicate an irregular surface of hard crystalline bedrock across the site. The weathered rock has a relative density ranging from dense to very dense.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Covering the granitic rock is colluvium soil, extending up to depths of four feet below the surface.
The colluvium soil consists of reddish brown to brown silty sand with variable amounts of gravel, cobble, and boulder-sized rock fragments. The colluvium soil has a loose relative density, and has a low expansion potential. However, expansive clayey soils may be locally present in some of the colluvium. No groundwater was encountered during boring tests of the site, which extended up to a depth of eight feet.
The Report of Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix H-1) determined that the potential for soil liquefaction and its secondary effects is very low because the project site is underlain by granitic rock and groundwater was not encountered during boring tests of the site. Additionally, the revised project must comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation required pursuant to Municipal Code 15.58.120, which would ensure removal of unsuitable soils and proper fill and compaction. Therefore, the revised project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
a(iv). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. No landslides have been observed or documented within the project site. Relatively steep rock slopes are present to the east of the project site, but appear to be stable and the risk for slope failure is low. However, outcrops of hard rock and large boulders are located on these existing slopes to the east of the project site, which may have the potential to fall downslope during periods of heavy rain or a seismic event. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 developed for the previously adopted project and presented in the MMRP would reduce impacts associated with landslides and/or rockfall to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Recommendations Prior to any ground-disturbing construction activities, the project applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical/geological engineering studies prepared by GEOCON, Inc. into project plans related to the proposed project. The project’s building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the design-level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the latest adopted version of the California Building Code.
A licensed professional engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. All on-site soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed geotechnical engineer or certified engineering geologist.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The revised project would not result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil, because the project site does not contain steep slopes, and the applicant would be required to prepare a landscape plan and/or erosion control plan per Municipal Code Sections
15.58.130 and 15.58.140. The landscape plan and/or erosion control plan would include measures that prevent erosion by minimizing runoff that can potentially carry soil off-site. Therefore, the Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
revised project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO1 presented in the MMRP would reduce impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse to a level less than significant–see 15.7.a(iv). No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The Geotechnical Investigation included geologic borings up to a depth of approximately eight feet (see Appendix H-1). Soils were found to have low potential for expansion. This is consistent with the General Plan’s hazard zone classification for the project site, which is considered to have a very low potential for expansion.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined that expansive clayey soils have the potential to be present in some of the colluvium located within the project site (see Appendix H-1). Per the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, all colluvium in development areas would be excavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. Additionally, the revised project would comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation as required pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.58.120. Therefore, the revised project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with expansive soil, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
e. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. Implementation of the revised project would not require a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. The revised project would be served by existing public sewers within the PDMWD. No new impact would occur. f. No New Impact/No Impact. The project site geology is described as generally consisting of colluvium soil to an approximate depth of four feet, which covers a layer of granitic rock at depths ranging from one to eight feet below grade, underlain by Granitoid rocks. As stated in the County of San Diego, Guidelines for Determining Significance Paleontological Resources (2009), granitic rock is considered to have no potential for producing fossil remains, and therefore have no paleontological resource potential. Therefore, the revised project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Sources: Sources: Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2008); CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update; 2019 California Energy Code; Air Quality Model Results (CalEEMod Output Files) prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (January 4, 2022, Appendix A); CEQA and Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Air Pollution Control Officers [CAPCOA] 2008); CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2. (CAPCOA 2017); and Initial Study for the Sustainable Santee Plan (LSA 2017). a. No New Impact/No Impact. The City adopted the Sustainable Santee Plan on January 8, 2020, which provides guidance for the reduction of GHG emissions within the City. The Sustainable Santee Plan provides policy direction and identifies actions the City and community will take to reduce GHG emissions consistent with State goals and targets. State GHG emissions reduction targets proposed and/or codified by EO S-3-05, AB 32, EO B-30-15, and SB 32 include achieving 1990 emission levels by 2020 (which the state has achieved); 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Sustainable Santee Plan would also work to achieve a per-capita GHG emission level by 2030 in conformance with SB 32 and the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan.
The Sustainable Santee Plan Project Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for development projects to demonstrate consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan, which is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The Checklist has been developed as part of the Sustainable Santee Plan implementation and monitoring process and supports the achievement of individual GHG reduction measures as well as the City’s overall GHG reduction goals. Additionally, the Checklist supports the City’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water, among others. Projects that meet the requirements of the Checklist are considered consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan and would have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG impacts (i.e., the revised project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).
The original project application was deemed complete by the City on September 24, 2019, and therefore the original project was not subject to the Sustainable Santee Plan. GHG impacts associated Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
with the original project were analyzed using a CAPCOA screening level threshold of 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. However, the revised project is subject to the requirements of the Sustainable Santee Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts associated with the revised project were analyzed by determining consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan through completion of the Checklist.
The project-specific Checklist is included in Appendix I. The revised project would be consistent with the existing Medium High Density Residential (R-14) General Plan and land use zoning designations, and therefore would be consistent with the land use assumptions used in the Sustainable Santee Plan. As demonstrated in the Checklist, the revised project would implement all applicable GHG reduction measures related to energy efficiency, solid waste, and clean energy required by the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan. Specifically, the revised project would be consistent with the following goals:
• Increase Energy Efficiency (Goal 2): The revised project would implement all feasible and applicable CALGreen Tier 2 Building Standards. The CALGreen Tier 2 measures that would be implemented by the revised project are related to planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The revised project would also include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system. Refer to the Checklist in Appendix I.
• Decrease GHG Emissions through a Reduction in VMT (Goal 6): Access to the project site would be provided via Sunset Trail and Lantern Crest Way from Graves Avenue, and an access road and cul-de-sac would provide vehicular access to the parking spaces and structures.
Sunset Trail terminates east of the project site. The internal access road, south of the internal cul-de-sac, would consist of a 24-foot-wide driveway and 18-foot (depth) parking stalls, along with a curb and gutter. The internal cul-de-sac would have a radius of 42 feet. The revised project would install an ADA compliant pedestrian ramp on the south side of the project site (at site entrance) to allow access to cross Sunset Trail. All internal sidewalk ramps would be ADA accessible. The revised project would provide a connection to the adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building via a covered pedestrian bridge. The project site is located near the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System bus route 833 that runs along Graves Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, and Mission Gorge Road to the Santee Town Center, which is served by the Sycuan Green Line Trolley. VMT could be reduced by employees and visitors utilizing public transit. The revised project would provide 15 parking spaces, and two would be electric vehicle parking spaces. Additionally, as summarized in the LTA and CEQA VMT Analysis, the revised project would result in less than significant VMT impacts (see Appendix B-1). • Electric Vehicles (Goal 7): The revised project would include 15 parking spaces, and of those two (13 percent) would be electric vehicle parking spaces. • Solid Waste (Goal 9): The revised project would reduce waste at landfills by providing onsite recycling storage per CALGreen. The revised project would also implement a construction waste management plan.
• Clean Energy (Goal 10): The revised project would include the installation of a solar PV system.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Based on the revised project’s consistency with the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan demonstrated in the Checklist, the revised project’s contribution of GHGs to cumulative statewide emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the revised project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impacts would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.8(a) above, the revised project would be consistent with the existing General Plan and land use zoning designations, and therefore would be consistent with the land use assumptions used in the Sustainable Santee Plan. As demonstrated in the Checklist, the revised project would implement all applicable GHG reduction measures related to energy efficiency, solid waste, and clean energy required by the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan.
Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
15.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
e. For a project located within 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 result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Sources: Project Description, City of Santee General Plan–Safety Element; California Department of Toxic Substances Control–EnviroStor Database; State Water Resources Control Board–Geotracker Database; Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP; Airport Land Use Commission 2010); Santee Municipal Code (Chapter 15.20.040); Santee Fire Department; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by CERES Corp. (Parcel #384-142-04-00 (May 3, 2017; Appendix J); Federal Aviation Administration Letter of Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (April 2, 2018; Appendix K); and AM&M Proposal for Lantern Crest Ridge II, Firewise2000, Inc., (June 27, 2018; Appendix L).
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. Construction of the revised project would involve standard grading and construction activities that require temporary use of fuels and other hazardous materials. The use and handling of materials associated with the construction of the revised project would follow all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Caltrans, and the California Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Division. The revised project would comply with all applicable state and local regulations for hazardous materials and waste management during project construction.
Operation of the revised project may involve the use of small amounts of solvents and cleaners that are not acutely hazardous. However, such materials are ubiquitous and product labeling identifies appropriate handling and use of these materials. Use of common household hazardous materials are typical of residential uses and are not associated with generation of significant hazards to the public or the environment. Therefore, the revised project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project is limited to a senior care facility that would not include uses that would not result in foreseeable upset and accident conditions from the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As described in Section 15.8a above, operation of the revised project may involve the use of small amounts of solvents and cleaners that are not acutely hazardous. The revised project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable safety regulations that would prevent the introduction of accident conditions. Therefore, the revised project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. The nearest school is Pepper Drive Elementary School located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. Therefore, the revised project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No new impact would occur. d. No New Impact/No Impact. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the previously adopted project, and is included as Appendix J. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site and utilize the same grading footprint as the previously adopted project. Therefore, design of the revised project would not result in any changes that would affect the conclusion of the Phase I ESA that was completed for the previously adopted project. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site has been undeveloped since as early as 1928. Furrowing on the southern half of the property was observed in aerial photographs dated as early as 1953, which suggest that a small agricultural operation may have been located on this portion of the project site in the 1950s and 1960s. However, no evidence of the storage of hazardous materials was observed as occurring within the project site.
The Phase I ESA determined that the project site is not identified on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition, the adjoining properties were not referenced on any regulatory agency lists. According to the Phase I ESA, there has been no documentation or other evidence found that would suggest the past use of underground or aboveground storage tanks within the project site.
There are two nearby sites referenced on regulatory agency lists, one of which is located at 8731 Graves Avenue, located adjacent to the northwest corner of the project site, and is listed on HAZNET as a facility that generated 58.99 tons of asbestos-containing waste in 2004. Other pertinent information was not included in the listing. The second site is located at 1103 Calabria Street, located approximately 1.0 mile northeast of the project site, and is listed on HAZNET as a facility that generated 0.42 ton of an unspecified aqueous solution and 0.37 ton of an unspecified organic liquid mixture in 2007. Other pertinent information was not included in the listing. There are numerous other sites listed on various agency lists within one-half mile of the project site; however, based on the location of these facilities and the regulatory status, the sites do not represent a significant environmental concern on the subject property.
In addition, the nearest leaking underground storage tank is located at 8641 Magnolia Avenue, approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site, and is listed on San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation Program and Leaking Underground Storage Tank list as a facility that has been assigned an unauthorized release case by the County Department of Environmental Health. The case Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
was opened in July 1999, and involved impact to the soils within the site by diesel fuel. This case was closed by the Department of Environmental Health on January 15, 2002, and is too distant from the project site to pose a significant environmental concern to the project site. Therefore, the revised project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
e. No New Impact/No Impact. The Gillespie Field Airport is approximately 0.5 mile west of the project site. The ALUCP for Gillespie Field Airport was adopted in January 2010 and amended in December 2010. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area, Review Area 1 of the Gillespie Field Airport (ALUCP Exhibit III-5) and within Safety Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone), as identified in the Gillespie Field ALUCP Safety Compatibility Policy Map (ALUCP Exhibit III-2). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an aeronautical study for the previously adopted project (see Appendix K), which resulted in a determination that the previously adopted project would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. A revised aeronautical study was submitted to the FAA to evaluate whether that the increase in maximum height from 545 AMSL to 579 AMSL would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. The revised project applicant would be required to file an FAA Form 7460-2 Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height. Therefore, the revised project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
f. No New Impact/No Impact. The project site is located in an existing developed area with access to major roadways that would allow for emergency evacuation. The Santee Fire Department has reviewed the revised project and determined adequate emergency access is available to the project site. Therefore, the revised project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
g. No New Impact/No Impact. Wildland fires present a significant threat in Santee, particularly in the summer months when temperatures are high and precipitation is limited. Areas in the City that are particularly susceptible to fires are designated as “very high hazard” or “high hazard” areas and are delineated on the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local Responsibility Areas as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The project site is identified within an area considered a “non-very high fire hazard severity zone.” However, the project site is located within a Wildland Urban Interface area, which requires the revised project to comply with certain fire protection requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. (Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.20). These requirements include the provision of 100 feet of fuel modified defensible space between the proposed structures and the wildland area, and the use of non-combustible building materials. The fuel modified defensible space is composed of two brush management areas, BMA Zone 1 and BMA Zone 2. BMA Zone 1 would consist of permanently landscaped, irrigated and maintained ornamental plantings. BMA Zone 2 would consist of low-growing, fire resistant shrubs and ground covers, including dwarf coyote brush and wood mulch.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
The project site does not contain sufficient area to provide a 100-foot fuel modified defensible space between the proposed structures and open space area to the east. Therefore, the revised project proposed an alternate method of fire protection that was developed for the previously adopted project (Appendix L). The revised project would provide 56 feet of space between the structure and the open space to the east. In order to address the reduced fuel modified defensible space, the revised project would include the construction of a 5-foot fire barrier in the form of a noncombustible wall along the top of the slope along the eastern boundary of the project site as shown on Figure 4. The revised project was able to retain this design feature because it would be located along the eastern boundary of the three-story senior care facility that retained a very similar building footprint compared to the previously adopted project. Construction of this fire barrier wall as part of the revised project would minimize the potential exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant.
15.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or through
the addition of impervious surfaces in
a manner, which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
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
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Sources: Project Description and Site Plan, General Plan–Conservation and Safety Element; Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan; Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Lantern Crest Ridge II prepared by REC Consultants, Inc. (July 2019; Appendix M); CEQA Drainage Study for Lantern Crest Ridge Addition prepared by REC Consultants, Inc., (November 8, 2021; Appendix N); Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM); and Report of Geotechnical Investigation Lantern Crest Ridge II prepared by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (June19, 2017; see Appendix H-1).
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Hydrologic Unit (907) and Lower San Diego River Watershed (907.12) (see Appendix M). Runoff from the project site and from the adjacent hill to the northeast travels via overland flows and/or is conveyed via ditch/pipe to the southwest towards one of three discharge points located along the western boundary of the project site. Runoff that reaches the two northernmost discharge locations is then conveyed via pipeline through the development to the south and then to the south towards Graves Avenue. Runoff that reaches the discharge point located on the southwest corner of the project site is directed via pipeline to Graves Avenue to the south. Runoff then enters the public storm drain system. This system transports the runoff under SR-67 to Magnolia Avenue; it subsequently heads north and ultimately discharges into the San Diego River. The existing onsite drainage generates approximately 9.66 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 100-year storm event. The San Diego River is a 303(d) impaired water body polluted by enterococcus, fecal coliform, total dissolved solids, toxicity, bacteria, and heavy metals.
According to the San Diego Basin Plan, the beneficial uses identified for the San Diego River include agricultural supply; industrial service supply; contact water recreation; noncontact water recreation; commercial and sport fishing; preservation of biological habitats of special significance; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened, or endangered species; marine habitat; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning, reproduction, and/or early development; and shellfish harvesting.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
The revised project would not adversely affect any beneficial uses of the San Diego River because it would treat storm water on-site to ensure pollutants do not adversely affect receiving waters by incorporating site design and structural best management practices (BMPs). The proposed site design/structural BMPs includes the collection of the on-site surface water throughout the property by overland flow, curb/gutter, and brow ditches, which would be directed into one biofiltration basins located in the southwest corner of the property. The biofiltration basin would capture and treat the collected runoff. Flows would then discharge via two outlet structures, with one discharging an existing concrete browditch and the other discharging into a proposed storm drain that flows into the existing storm drain system in Sunset Trails. The basin would include a riser structure that would act as a spillway such that peak flows could be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system.
Therefore, operation of the revised project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
With incorporation of the biofiltration basin, potential surface water pollutants generated on-site would be collected and filtered. Additionally, the revised project would incorporate construction and post-construction BMPs in compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 13.42). For example, BMPs employed during the construction phase would include fiber rolls, street sweeping and vacuuming, and storm drain inlet protection. Therefore, construction of the revised project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would obtain its water supply from the PDMWD and would not use groundwater supply for any purpose. Additionally, the proposed land uses would not be associated with activities known to degrade groundwater. Thus, the revised project would not deplete or degrade groundwater supplies. The revised project would construct rooftops, driveways, and sidewalks that would slightly increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on-site by 1.27 acres.
However, water would continue to infiltrate through 0.29 acre of the post-construction development footprint that would remain pervious, as well as 1.18 acres of the project parcel that would remain undeveloped. Furthermore, water would continue to infiltrate through undeveloped land east of the project site and throughout the groundwater basin. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c(i). No New Impact/No Impact. The runoff generated on-site currently drains from the east across the undeveloped lot, draining towards the southwest and west from the adjacent hillside to the east of the project site. Runoff from the project site drains into one point of compliance (POCs), which is an existing curb inlet located along Graves Avenue to the east of the site. In the existing condition, the 100-year storm event peak flow rate is 98.04 cfs.
Prior to discharging from the site, first flush runoff will be treated by the biofiltration basin BMP in accordance with standards set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Santee BMP Design Manual (see Appendix N). Should there be a blockage in the receiving storm drain and/or outlet structure, the emergency outlet is the lowest curb inlet which then conveys flows to Graves Avenue as in existing conditions.
Implementation of the stormwater management system would reduce 100-year storm event peak flow rate from 98.04 cfs to 97.92 cfs. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially alter the Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
drainage pattern of the site or the surrounding area in a manner that could result in substantial erosion, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c(ii). No New Impact/No Impact. The project site is undeveloped and consists of approximately 2.74 acres of existing pervious area. In the post-project condition, approximately 1.27 acres of the property would consist of impervious surfaces, which would have the potential to increase runoff and peak flows on-site. However, as described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, the revised project would reduce peak flows in the post-project condition. Therefore, the revised project would not alter the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
c(iii). No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, the revised project would reduce peak flows in the post-project condition, and thereby reduce the amount of runoff being discharged into the existing storm water drainage system. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, the revised project would incorporate construction and post-construction BMPs in compliance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 13.42). The proposed site design/structural BMPs includes the collection of the on-site surface water throughout the property by overland flow, curb/gutter, and brow ditches, which would be directed into one biofiltration basin located in the southwest corner of the property that would capture and treat the collected runoff. Therefore, the revised project would not generate runoff that would exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems and would not provide substantial sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c(iv). No New Impact/No Impact. Review of Figure 8-1 of the General Plan Safety Element determined that the project site is not located within the 100year floodplain. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, the revised project would reduce peak flows during the 100-year storm event from 98.04 cfs to 97.92 cfs, and thereby reduce the potential for flooding. Therefore, the revised project would not impede of redirect flood flow. No new impact would occur. d. No New Impact/No Impact. As discussed in Section 15.10.c(iv), the project site is not within the 100year floodplain. The project site, along with the rest of the City, is located in the San Diego river valley. Reservoirs upstream of the project site include the San Vicente, El Capitan, and Lake Jennings.
Figure 8-2 of the General Plan Safety Element delineates the areas potentially subject to inundation in the event of failure of each dam. The project site is outside the potential inundation areas. The project site is located approximately 17 miles inland from the coast, at approximately 500 feet AMSL.
The risk of tsunami is negligible due to the distance from the ocean and high elevation. There would be no risk from a seiche, as the site is not located near a large body of water, such as a lake. Therefore, the revised project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation associated with flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones. No new impact would occur. e. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, the revised project would reduce peak flows in the post-project condition. The revised project would not be subject to substantial erosion or siltation because both construction and operational BMPs would be employed to control potential erosion and siltation by retaining storm water and capturing runoff that may carry silt or other pollutants. Typical construction BMPs include silt fencing, fiber rolls, and sweeping.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Postconstruction BMPs are detailed in response 15.10.a, which includes one biofiltration basin.
Therefore, the revised project would not generate substantial amounts of runoff that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Although the revised project would increase impermeable surfaces, this slight increase of 1.27 acres would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
15.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?
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 environmental effect?
Sources: Project Description; City of Santee General Plan–Land Use Element; City of Santee Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan 2006; Lantern Crest/Santee Seniors Annual Management Report prepared by J. Whalen Associates, Inc. (2017; see Appendix D); 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan for the Lantern Crest Open Space Preserve memorandum prepared by Cummings Environmental, Inc. (January 3, 2018; see Appendix E); and Parking Analysis for the Proposed Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Living Assisted and Memory Care Development prepared by (Darnell and Associates (April 9, 2019; Appendix N).
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would result in the construction of a three story, 62-unit senior care facility within an urban environment. The revised project would be accessed via Sunset Trail and Lantern Crest Way on the southern side of the site from Graves Avenue. The western boundary of the project site is adjacent to multi- and single-family residential land uses, while the eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the Lantern Crest Ridge I Senior Housing facility. The revised project would be integrated into the existing Lantern Crest Ridge I Senior Housing facility through an enclosed bridge that would link the revised project to the adjacent facility, thereby improving community connectivity. Therefore, the revised project would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted project included a General Plan amendment (GPA 2018-1) and zone reclassification that changed both designations to R-14 (Medium High Density Residential). These actions increased the allowable unit density to 14 to 22 dwelling units per gross acre throughout the project site. The addition of 12 senior care units under the revised project would Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
be consistent with the density allowed under the R-14 (Medium High Density Residential) general plan and zoning designation.
As outlined in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, approval of higher densities is a discretionary action based on several criteria including compliance with specific goals, objectives and policies, adverse impacts to public facilities, consideration of environmental constraints, compatibility with community character, etc. The revised project is not within a Specific Plan Area, is adjacent to public facilities, and, as outlined in this Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum, would not result in significant unavoidable impacts. Adjacent occupied properties contain residential uses and are designated either R14 (Medium High Density Residential), west of the project site, or R22 (High Density Residential), east and south of the project site. Therefore, the revised project proposes uses that would be compatible with the character of surrounding residential uses and the proposed density would be consistent with the surrounding area. No conflicts with any General Plan policies have been identified and the revised project would assist with implementation of policies that support provision of housing for seniors, including Housing Element Policy 4.1 “Continue to support and actively market shared housing as an affordable housing option for seniors.” In addition, a parking analysis was completed for the previously adopted project (see Appendix O).
The parking analysis assessed the combined parking demand for the revised project and the associated Lantern Crest Ridge I development. The parking analysis determined the combined parking demand for the previously adopted project and Lantern Crest Ridge I by multiplying the number of units (126) by the peak parking demand ratio (0.375), plus four parking spaces for the proposed duplexes, which equaled 51 parking spaces. Multiplying the new total number of units under the revised project and Lantern Crest Ridge I (135 units) by the peak parking demand ratio (0.375) determined that new total parking demand would equal 51 spaces. The revised project would add 15 parking spaces, while the Lantern Crest Ridge I development contains an existing 38 spaces, for a total of 53 parking spaces, thereby exceeding the parking requirement of 51 parking spaces and complying with Chapter 13.24 of the Santee Municipal Code. Therefore, the revised project would not 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 environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
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?
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?
Source: City of Santee General Plan–Conservation Element. a. No New Impact/No Impact. As discussed in the General Plan Conservation Element, known mineral resources in Santee include sand, gravel, and crushed rock, which are collectively referred to as aggregate. These resources have been identified within the floodplain of the San Diego River. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project.
The project site is not located in the floodplain of the San Diego River and therefore has no known mineral resources. Additionally, the project site is located within a developed area surrounded by residential uses that would preclude the type of extraction operations typically associated with aggregate minerals (i.e., large-scale pits or quarries). As a result, extraction of mineral resources is not a viable use of the site. Therefore, the revised project would not 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. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any land use plans. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.13 Noise
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
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 general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
c. For a project located within the
vicinity 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 area
to excessive noise levels?
Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Noise Element; Santee Municipal Code; Technical Noise Supplement (Caltrans 2013); Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC 2010); and Noise Modeling Results (SoundPLAN Output Files) prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (January 4, 2022; Appendix P).
a. No New Impact/No Impact. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and, therefore, may cause general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Decibels (dB) are the standard unit of measurement of the sound pressure generated by noise sources and are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale for earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the noise energy would result in a 3 dB decrease.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A-weighted scale, which approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds, was devised. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written as dB(A). It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dB(A) (increase or decrease) and that a change of 5 dB(A) is readily perceptible. An increase of 10 dB(A) is perceived as twice as loud, and a decrease of 10 dB(A) is perceived as half as loud (Caltrans 2013).
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.
The noise descriptors used for this study are the equivalent noise level (Leq), the maximum noise level, and the 24-hour day-night average noise level (LDN).
The Leq is the equivalent steady-state noise level in a stated period of time that is calculated by averaging the acoustic energy over a time period; when no period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The maximum noise level is the highest sound level occurring during a specific period.
The LDN is a 24-hour equivalent sound level. The LDN calculation applies an additional 10 dB(A) penalty to noise occurring during the night, between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM The increase for certain times is intended to account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during the evening and night.
Construction Noise
Noise level limits for construction activities are established in Section 5.04.090 of the Santee Municipal Code. These limits state that a notice must be provided to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site if the construction equipment has a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dB and operates at a specific location for 10 consecutive workdays.
In addition, Section 5.04.090 of the Santee Municipal Code states that no construction equipment is permitted before 7:00 AM or after 7:00 PM on Mondays through Saturdays and all times on Sundays and holidays.
Construction noise would be generated by diesel engine-driven construction equipment used for site preparation and grading; removal of existing structures and pavement; loading, unloading, and placing materials and paving. Diesel engine-driven trucks also would bring materials to the site and remove the spoils from excavation.
Construction equipment with a diesel engine typically generates maximum noise levels from 80 to 90 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 50 feet (FHWA 2006). During excavation, grading, and paving operations, equipment moves to different locations and goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for nonequipment tasks, such as measurement. Although maximum noise levels may be 80 to 90 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet during most construction activities, hourly average noise levels from the grading phase of construction would be 82 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously. As the majority of project site would be graded, the acoustic center of the construction activity was modeled as the center of the project site.
A single-family residence is located at the southwestern project boundary approximately 220 feet from the center of construction. A construction noise level of 82 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet would attenuate to 69 dB(A) Leq at 220 feet. Multi-family uses are located west and northwest of the project site. The nearest building (the residential use located west of the project site) is approximately 170 feet from the center of construction. A construction noise level of 82 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet would attenuate to 71 dB(A) Leq at 170 feet. The Lantern Crest Ridge I senior facility is located east of the project site, approximately 140 feet from the center of construction. A construction noise level of 82 dB(A) Leq at Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
50 feet would attenuate to 73 dB(A) Leq at 140 feet. All other residential uses are located at greater distances from the project site. Although the adjacent residences would be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary. In accordance with Santee Municipal Code Section 5.04.090, construction activities would not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and holidays. Additionally, as required by the Santee Municipal Code, a notice would be provided to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site if the construction equipment has a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dB and operates at a specific location for ten consecutive workdays. However, because of the close proximity of sensitive receptors, mitigation measure NOS1 developed for the previously adopted project and presented in the MMRP is recommended, which would ensure impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
NOS-1: Construction Noise
Prior to issuance of any grading permit(s) for the project, the project applicant or its contractor(s) shall ensure that:
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• Construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging areas and occupied residential areas, and use of electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from or shielded from sensitive noise receivers. • During construction, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors.
• The project shall be in compliance with the City’s Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance such that construction shall occur on the weekdays (Monday through Friday) and Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and a notice of construction shall be mailed to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site no more than 10 days before the start of construction. Construction hours, allowable workdays and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. In the event that the City receives a complaint regarding construction noise, appropriate corrective actions shall be implemented and a report of the action provided to the reporting party.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
On-Site Traffic Noise
The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan establishes noise compatibility standards for various land uses. The revised project proposes a senior housing facility. The Noise Element land use category closest to the proposed use is Nursing Homes, which are compatible with noise levels up to 65 LDN (Figure 7-3, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guide, of the Noise Element).
Noise level predictions and contour mapping were developed using noise modeling software, SoundPlan Essential, version 4.1 (Navcon Engineering 2018). The main sources of vehicle traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site are Graves Avenue, SR-52, SR-67, and the freeway ramps. For the purpose of the future traffic noise compatibility analysis, the noisiest conditions are represented as the maximum LOS C traffic volume. This represents a condition where the maximum number of vehicles are using the roadway at the maximum speed. LOS A and B categories allow full travel speed but do not have as many vehicles, while LOS E and F have a greater number of vehicles, but due to the traffic volume travel at reduced speeds, thus generating less noise.
Traffic noise levels were calculated based on the peak-hour traffic volumes, which is approximately 10 percent of the average daily traffic volume. Typically, the peak-hour noise level is equivalent to the community noise equivalent level. The vehicle classification mixes were obtained from Caltrans truck count data. Caltrans does not include separate counts of buses or motorcycles. Therefore, one percent of the automobiles were modeled as buses, and one percent were modeled as motorcycles.
Table 8 summarizes the vehicle traffic parameters used for modeling on-site noise levels.
Table 8
Traffic Parameters
Roadway
Peak Hour
Volume
Speed
(mph)
Vehicle Mix (percent)
Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Buses
Motorcycles
Graves Avenue 900 35 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
SR-52
Eastbound
Westbound
3,760
3,760
65 95.4 2.0 0.6 1.0 1.0
SR-67 – North of Prospect Avenue
Northbound
Southbound
3,760
3,760
65 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
SR-67 – South of Prospect Avenue
Northbound
Southbound
6,768
5,640
65 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
Ramps
SR-52 Eastbound to SR-67 Southbound
SR-52 Eastbound to SR-67 Northbound
SR-67 Northbound to SR-52 Westbound
SR-67 Southbound to SR-52 Westbound
3,760
3,760
3,760
3,760
50 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
Sources: Caltrans 2016; San Diego Association of Governments 2018; City General Plan Circulation Element.
Noise level contours were modeled at the first-floor level. Noise levels were also modeled at the western property line closest to the roadways at first- through third-floor levels. Modeled noise levels do not account for shielding provided by intervening barriers and structures or topography, and Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
therefore this analysis provides a conservative assessment. Future vehicle traffic noise levels are summarized in Table 9. SoundPLAN data are contained in Appendix P.
Table 9
Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels
(LDN)
Location First Floor Second Floor Third Floor
Western Property Line –
105 feet north of Sunset Trail 60 64 65
Western Property Line –
215 feet north of Sunset Trail 60 63 65
Western Property Line –
320 feet north of Sunset Trail 60 63 65
Western Property Line –
430 feet north of Sunset Trail 60 63 65
Western Property Line –
535 feet north of Sunset Trail 60 63 65
SOURCE: Appendix P
As shown, traffic noise levels would be 65 LDN or less across the entire project site. Therefore, exterior noise impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
The interior noise compatibility level for noise sensitive areas, including residential uses, is 45 LDN.
Standard wood frame construction would achieve an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 25 dB(A) (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Thus, because exterior noise levels are projected to be less than 65 LDN, interior noise levels would be less than 45 LDN. Therefore, interior noise impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are dominated by vehicle traffic on area roadways. Existing noise levels on the project site were measured on April 17, 2018. Measured ambient noise levels on the project site ranged from 61 to 62 dB(A) Leq.
The revised project was forecast to generate 165 ADT compared to 125 ADT under the previously adopted project.4 The revised project would generate additional vehicle traffic on Graves Avenue.
However, the revised project would not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways, nor would the revised project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. Thus, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. Off-site traffic noise was modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model algorithms and reference levels. The revised project would generate 40 more ADT when compared to the original project. Off-site traffic noise associated with the original project was modeled for an opening year of 2018. For an equal comparison, off-site traffic noise associated with the revised 4 The Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis assumed development of 66 senior care units, which is greater than the 62 senior care units proposed under the revised project. Therefore, this impact analysis is conservative and evaluates a greater number of vehicle trips than would actually occur under the revised project.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
project was also calculated using an opening year of 2018 and adding 40 ADT to the opening day with project condition. Traffic noise levels were calculated at 50 feet from the centerline of the affected roadways to determine the noise level increase associated with the revised project. The model uses various input parameters, such as traffic volumes and vehicle mix, distribution, and speed.
For modeling purposes, “hard” ground conditions were used for the analysis since the hard site provides the most conservative impact assessment. Traffic volumes were obtained from the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the original project (see Appendix B-2). Opening day (2018) and cumulative traffic volumes and noise levels with and without the revised project are shown in Table
10. Modeled noise levels do not account for shielding provided by intervening barriers and structures.
Noise level calculations are contained in Appendix P.
Table 10
Graves Avenue Traffic Noise Level with and without Project Roadway Segment
Opening Day
(2018)
Opening Day (2018)
+ Project
Opening Day (2018)
+ Cumulative
Opening Day (2018)
+ Cumulative + Project
Graves Avenue
Traffic Volume 14,809 14,887 15,297 15,365
Noise Level (LDN) 69 69 69 69
SOURCE: Appendix P
As shown, the revised project would not result in a measurable increase in ambient noise levels. The increase in noise levels due to the revised project would not be a perceptible increase in the ambient noise environment. Therefore, the traffic generated by the revised project would not result in a significant ambient noise increase at adjacent off-site receptors, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
On-Site Generated Noise
On-site generated noise is regulated by the City’s Municipal Code, Title 5 Health and Safety, Chapter
5.04 Noise Abatement and Control. Section 5.04.040 of the Santee Municipal Code states that “it is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, within the limits of the City, any disturbing, excessive or offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area.” Section 5.04.040 also provides the following requirements for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units:
4. Heating and Air Conditioning Equipment and Generators. a. It is unlawful for any person to operate or allow the operation of any generator, air conditioning, refrigeration or heating equipment in such manner as to create a noise disturbance on the premises of any other occupied property, or if a condominium, apartment house, duplex, or attached business, within any adjoining unit.
b. All generators, heating, air conditioning, or refrigeration equipment are subject to the setback and screening requirements in this code.
Operational noise sources after construction would include vehicles arriving and leaving and landscape maintenance machinery, and would be similar to noise sources from adjacent land uses.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
With the exception of rooftop HVAC units, none of these noise sources would have the potential to produce excessive noise or result in a substantial permanent increase in existing noise level. HVAC units would be on the rooftop within a mechanical well, and would be screened in accordance with the Section 5.04.040 requirements above. It is not known at this time which manufacturer, brand, or model of unit or units would be selected for use in the revised project. For the purposes of this analysis, to determine what general noise levels the HVAC units would generate, it was assumed that each unit would generate noise levels similar to a 5ton Carrier Model 38 HD50VG-A HVAC unit. The 38 HDR50VG-A units have a sound power level of 75 dB(A) which is equivalent to 68 dB(A) Leq at 3 feet.
Property line noise levels due to rooftop HVAC units were modeled using SoundPLAN. The modeling results are summarized in Table 11. SoundPLAN data is contained in Appendix P. As shown, property line noise levels would range from 33 to 43 dB(A) Leq. Noise at this level would not be considered a noise disturbance. Therefore, the revised project would not generate onsite noise that would exceed City noise limits, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Table 11
On-site Generated Noise Levels
Location
Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
Southwest corner of property 36
Western property line
37 40
41 41
38 Northwest corner of property 37
Northern property line 36
Northeast corner of property 38
Eastern property line
39 42
43 39
33 Southeast corner of property 36
Southern property line 36
SOURCE: Appendix P
b. No New Impact/No Impact. Construction operations have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. Vibration perception would occur at structures, as people do not perceive vibrations without vibrating structures.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Project construction equipment used during site grading and excavation would have the greatest potential to generate vibrations that would affect nearby residential land uses. Construction equipment would include loaded trucks, an excavator, as well as a dozer or loader. Vibration levels from these pieces of equipment would generate vibration levels with a peak particle velocity (PPV) ranging from 0.035 to 0.089 inches per second (in/sec) PPV at the nearest residence. Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in as well as individual sensitivity. For example, vibration outdoors is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying. Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying. Based on several federal studies the threshold of perception is 0.035 in/sec PPV, with 0.24 in/sec PPV being a distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2013). Neither cosmetic nor structural damage of buildings occurs at levels below 0.1 in/sec PPV. Consequently, construction vibration levels would be below the distinctly perceptible threshold. Therefore, the revised project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, and impacts would be less than significant.
No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. The property is located within the Airport Influence Area, Review Area 1 of the Gillespie Field Airport. However, the project site is located outside the ALUCP noise contours for the Gillespie Field Airport. As a result, the revised project would not expose people to excessive noise levels from airport noise, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
15.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Sources: Project Description; City of Santee General Plan–Land Use Element; and San Diego Association of Governments Data Surfer.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The revised project would increase the number of senior care units to 62 compared to 50 under the previously adopted project. As described in Section 15.3.a above, the proposed senior facility would serve seniors who have previously been living Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
independently in the region and require assisted living and health care support. Therefore, the revised project is anticipated to accommodate approximately 62 persons already living in the region.
Per the SANDAG Series 13 growth forecast, the population within the City was estimated to be 59,497 in 2020, and is estimated to increase by 4,315 people to 63,812 in 2035. As such, the approximately 62 non-senior residential uses left vacant by the relocation of seniors to the proposed senior facility would serve to help accommodate anticipated population growth as projected by SANDAG. While the revised project would be located in a vacant lot, it would not require any new infrastructure that would accommodate or encourage new development. As described in Section 15.3.a above, project construction would last 12 months and would not affect population growth. Therefore, the revised project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project, which is vacant. Therefore, the revised project would not displace any existing people or housing. No new impact would occur.
15.15 Public Services
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
(i) Fire protection?
(ii) Police protection?
(iii) Schools?
(iv) Parks?
(v) Other public facilities?
Sources: Santee School District and Grossmont Union High School District School Facility Letters (Appendix Q); City of Santee General Plan; City of Santee Fire Department; San Diego County Sheriff’s Department; Santee School District website, http://www.santeesd.net/; City of Santee Community Services Department http://www.ci.santee.ca.us/Index.aspx?page=28; and Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Operations (County of San Diego 2014).
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
a(i). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. The City operates two fire stations: one located at 8950 Cottonwood Avenue and the other at 9130 Carlton Oaks Drive. The City’s Fire Department response time goal is to provide an average maximum initial response time of no more than six minutes, with an average maximum response time of no more than ten minutes for supporting paramedic transport units 90 percent of the time. The project site is located approximately 1.4 roadway miles from the nearest fire station on Cottonwood Avenue. Based on a review by the Santee Fire Department, existing fire services are available to serve the revised project and no new facilities would be needed to accommodate the additional 12 senior care units. A fire hydrant and water utility lines would be installed within the project site, which would serve the revised project. Additionally, the City is a member of the San Diego County (central zone) for Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Operations. Each participating member has a mutual aid agreement with each other to provide paramedic and fire protection services in the event that additional fire-fighting units are required.
Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. a(ii). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. Police protection for the project area is provided by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department under contractual agreement with the City and operating out of the Santee Substation at 8811 Cuyamaca Street. The average priority call response time for general law enforcement within the City is 8.2 minutes and the average for traffic law enforcement is 7.5 minutes.
Appropriate staffing levels for law enforcement personnel are evaluated at every contract renewal.
The addition of 12 senior care units under the revised project would not affect police response times to the site. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered police protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. a(iii). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would increase the number of senior care units to 62 compared to 50 under the previously adopted project. The 62 senior care units that would not serve families with school-aged children. Therefore, the revised project would not generate a new student population that would increase demand for school services. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the proponent of the revised project would be required to pay applicable school fees before a construction permit is issued. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered school facilities. No new impact would occur. a(iv). No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be required to pay park-in-lieu fees that would fund City public park facilities based on forecasted City-wide park demand The addition of 12 senior care units would not substantively increase demand for parkland and recreational services compared to the previously adopted project. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered park facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
a(v). No New Impact/No Impact. All public facilities discussed in Section 15.15.a(i). through a(iv). are available to serve the revised project. No other required public facilities have been identified. The 62 senior care units proposed by the revised project would serve seniors who have previously been living independently in the region, and thereby provide additional health care services within the City. Therefore, the revised project would not affect existing public facilities related to health care services. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.16 Recreation
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Source: City of Santee Community Services Department,
http://www.ci.santee.ca.us/Index.aspx?page=28; and Project Description. a. No New Impact/No Impact. The addition of 12 senior care units would not adversely affect existing City park facilities or create the need for new park facilities because the increase in use would be minimal in relation to the availability of parkland in the City and surrounding area. Therefore, the revised project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project does not include the provision of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No new impact would occur.
15.17 Transportation
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
c. Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Sources: Project Description; Project Description, Analysis Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis prepared by Darnell and Associates (December 9, 2021; see Appendix B-1); Santee Fire Department; ALUC 2010; City of Santee General Plan–Mobility and Safety Elements; San Diego Metropolitan Transit System website (https://www.sdmts.com/); and FAA Letter of Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (April 2, 2018; Appendix K); and Lantern Crest Ridge II Assisted Living Construction Traffic prepared by Darnell and Associates (October 31, 2019; Appendix R). a. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site as the previously adopted project. Access to the project site would be provided via Sunset Trail, Lantern Crest Way, and Graves Avenue from Prospect Avenue and SR-67. Graves Avenue is a north-south collector street that provides access between Sunset Trail and Prospect Avenue. The following discussion is based on information from the Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (see Appendix B-1).
The revised project was forecast to generate 165 ADT compared to 125 ADT under the previously adopted project.5
Trips under the revised project would include 7 AM and 14 PM peak-hour trips.
Appendix B-1 compared the revised project to Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region dated May 2019. Based on ITE Guidelines, projects that are consistent with the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the General Plan, generate fewer than 1,000 ADT, generate fewer than 110 AM Peak hour trips, and generate fewer than 20 PM Peak hour trips to any existing on or off ramps are not required to prepare a transportation analysis. The revised project would be consistent with the existing land use designation and would generate fewer ADT than the ITE Guidelines thresholds listed above. The revised project is not required to prepare a transportation analysis, and the revised project would not generate enough ADT to impact the circulation network. Therefore, operation traffic volumes generated by the revised project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy 5 The Revised Lantern Crest Ridge II Senior Care Project Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis assumed development of 66 senior care units, which is greater than the 62 senior care units proposed under the revised project. Therefore, this impact analysis is conservative and evaluates a greater number of vehicle trips than would actually occur under the revised project.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Construction activities would temporarily contribute additional vehicle trips on the local circulation system, and would generate up to 14 daily trips during an approximately 12-month period (see Appendix R). Deliveries of construction materials would periodically generate up to eight additional vehicle trips, which would result in a maximum of up to 22 trips per day. This maximum of 22 construction trips per day would be less than 165 operational trips per day that were forecasted for the revised project and determined to be less than significant. Therefore, construction traffic volumes generated by the revised project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
The nearest bus stops are located approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the project site along Graves Avenue south of the intersection with Prospect Avenue. The nearest transit stop is the Gillespie Field Trolley Station located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project site. Implementation of the revised project would not include any off-site improvements that would impact any of these facilities.
Review of Figure 7-2 of the General Plan Mobility Element determined that there are no existing or proposed bike lanes along Sunset Trail that fronts the project site, nor is there an existing sidewalk along Sunset Trail. The revised project would install an ADA compliant pedestrian ramp on the south side of the project site (at site entrance) to allow access to cross Sunset Trail. All internal sidewalk ramps would be ADA accessible. The revised project would provide a connection to the adjacent Lantern Crest Ridge Phase I building via a covered pedestrian bridge. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the performance of active transportation, and impacts would be less than significant. b. No New Impact/No Impact. Appendix B-1 compared the revised project to ITE Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region dated May 2019. Based on ITE Guidelines, projects that generate fewer than 1,000 ADT are not required to prepare a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, and impacts are presumed to be less than significant. The revised project would generate fewer than 1,000 ADT and is not required to prepare a VMT Analysis. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would be accessed from Sunset Trail and Lantern Crest Way and would construct an internal access road and cul-de-sac, along with a 65-foot-long firetruck turn around area, as under the previously adopted project. The revised project would not result in changes to the existing traffic patterns or roadway design along Sunset Trail. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. d. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project has been reviewed by the City’s Fire Chief and determined to be consistent with all applicable policies. The internal access road would be constructed to a curb-to-curb width of at least 16 feet to allow for fire truck access. In addition, the site would include a firetruck turnaround area at the northern end of the internal access road to a total of 65 feet from the centerline of the turnaround. Therefore, the revised project would not result Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
15.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 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:
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)?
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 © of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivisi©(c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Source(s): Results of the Archaeological Survey for the Lantern Crest Ridge II Project prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (September 17, 2018; see Appendix F). a. No New Impact/No Impact. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Code Section 5020.1. As discussed in Sections 15.5.a and 15.5.b, the project site does not support any historic or cultural resources. In accordance with SB 18 and AB 52, the Native American Heritage Commission was notified of the previously adopted project on August 29, 2018 and the tribes were notified of the previously adopted project on September 12, 2018 and June 19, 2019. On September 28, 2018, the City received a letter from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians requesting that sacred site be avoided with adequate buffer zones, compliance with NEPA, CEQA, and NAGPRA, and contacting the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on any changes or inadvertent discoveries.
As discussed in Section 15.5.b above, due to the low sensitivity of the project site, it is not anticipated to support significant cultural resources; however, as unknown tribal cultural resources may have the potential to be present in the region, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 presented in the MMRP would ensure that any unknown cultural or tribal cultural resources or human remains discovered during project-related ground disturbing activities are properly identified and protected over the long-term. Through consultation with the City, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians concurred that implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would satisfactorily reduce impacts on unknown tribal cultural resources to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur. The revised project would be located within the same 2.74-acre site and utilize the same grading footprint as the previously adopted project. Therefore, design of the revised project would not result in any changes to the conclusions reached during AB 52 consultation for the previously adopted project.
15.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provided which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
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?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
Sources: City of Santee, General Plan, Conservation Element; Public Service Availability Forms from the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, (May 4, 2017 Appendix S); Santee Municipal Code; Project Site Plan; County of San Diego Countywide Five-Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (September 2012); Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for Lantern Crest Ridge II prepared by REC Consultants, Inc., (July 2019; see Appendix M); CEQA Drainage Study for Lantern Crest Ridge Addition prepared by REC Consultants, Inc. (November 8, 2021; see Appendix N); and Padre Dam Municipal Water District website (http://www.padredam.org/). a. No New Impact/No Impact. Public Facility Availability Forms were completed documenting that PDMWD has adequate water and sewer capacity to serve the previously adopted project (Appendix S). The addition of 12 senior care units under the revised project would not adversely affect PDMWD water supply or wastewater treatment capacity. Existing water and sewer facilities are available adjacent to the site, and improvements would be limited to extension of pipelines onto the project site. Consequently, potential impacts associated with proposed improvements have been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the revised project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities that would cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
As discussed in Section 15.10.a and 15.10.c(i), the revised project would construct three on-site storm water biofiltration basins and would not change the existing off-site runoff pattern. All on-site facility construction would be consistent with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 13.42) and engineering standards, and the revised project would reduce peak flows compared to existing condition. These storm water facilities would be located within the project footprint. Consequently, potential impacts associated with construction of these storm water facilities have been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the revised project would not Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
require construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Existing energy and telecommunication facilities are available adjacent to the site, and improvements would be limited to extensions onto the project site. Consequently, potential impacts associated with these energy and telecommunication connections have been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the revised project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication services facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. A Public Facility Availability Form was completed documenting that PDMWD has adequate water supplies available to serve the previously adopted project (see Appendix S). The addition of 12 senior care units under the revised project would not adversely affect PDMWD water supply. Therefore, adequate water supply would be available to serve the revised project, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. A Public Facility Availability Form was completed documenting that PDMWD has adequate wastewater treatment capacity available to serve the previously adopted project. The addition of 12 senior care units under the revised project would not adversely affect PDMWD wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to serve the revised project, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. City Municipal Code Section 13.38.060 requires that a minimum of 65 percent by weight of construction and demolition debris be diverted from landfills through recycling, reuse, and diversion programs. The revised project would develop a construction and demolition debris management plan demonstrating how it would comply with the City Municipal Code diversion requirements prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit.
Solid waste generated by the revised project that cannot be recycled would be sent to area landfills.
Based on the Five-Year Review Report of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan for the County of San Diego, remaining capacity at area landfills would be adequate to handle the revised project’s solid waste disposal needs. Most of the solid waste collected in the City is disposed of at the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill, which has remaining capacity through the year 2054. Other landfills that handle waste from San Diego and Santee include the Miramar Landfill and the Otay Landfill, which have remaining capacity. Therefore, the revised project would be served by landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. e. No New Impact/No Impact. The revised project would comply with the City’s construction and demolition recycling ordinance (Santee Municipal Code Section 13.38.060) and Solid Waste Ordinance #3239-A, which are consistent with state solid waste and recycling regulations requiring a minimum of 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition be diverted from the landfills.
Therefore, the revised project would comply with applicable management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
15.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
a. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.9.f, the project site is located in an existing developed area with access to major roadways that would allow for emergency evacuation. The Santee Fire Department has reviewed the revised project and determined adequate emergency access is available to the project site. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.9.g, the project site is identified within an area considered a “non-very high fire hazard severity zone.” However, the project site is located within a Wildland Urban Interface area, which requires the revised project to comply with certain fire protection requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. (Municipal Code, Title 11, Chapter
11.18). The project site does not contain sufficient area to provide a 100-foot fuel modified defensible space between the proposed structures and open space area to the east. Therefore, the revised project proposed an alternate method of fire protection that was developed for the previously Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
adopted project (Appendix L). The revised project would provide 56 feet of space between the structure and the open space to the east. In order to address the reduced fuel modified defensible space, the revised project’s design includes a 5-foot fire barrier in the form of a non-combustible wall along the top of the slope along the eastern boundary of the project site as shown on Figure 4.
The revised project was able to retain this design feature because it would be located along the eastern boundary of the three-story senior care facility that retained a very similar building footprint compared to the previously adopted project. The construction of this fire barrier wall as part of the revised project’s design would minimize the potential exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, the revised project would not expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.19.a, above, the revised project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the revised project would not require construction or maintenance of any other infrastructure facilities. Therefore, the revised project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.9.g, the project site is not within the 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area, and is located outside the potential inundation areas delineated on Figure 8-2 of the General Plan Safety Element. Furthermore, the project site is generally flat and surrounded by an urban environment Therefore, the revised project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No new impact would occur.
15.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
futures projects)?
c. Have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
a. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.4.a above, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and sensitive species to a level less than significant, and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to nesting birds and wildlife nursery sites to a level less than significant. As described in Section 15.5.a above, the revised project would not impact any historical resources. As described in Section 15.5.b above, implementation of mitigation measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level less than significant. As described in Section 15.5.c above, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would further reduce impacts related to human remains to a level less than significant. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. In addition to evaluation of potential project-specific effects, this evaluation considered the revised project’s potential for incremental effects that may be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, or probable future projects in the area. Cumulative projects in the project area are shown in Table 12.
Table 12
Cumulative Project List
Project Location Description Status
Fanita Ranch Northern edge of City Master Plan Residential Community (approx. 2,949 residences) Approved
RiverView RiverView Parkway 128-detached condominium units Under Construction Walker Trails
Magnolia Ave., north of
State Route 52 and west of
State Route 67
Specific Plan Amendment for 83
residences at the RCP Block & Brick
site.
Under Construction
Slope Street Estates South side of Slope Street 11 single-family units Application Under Review
Gas Station/
Car Wash
Mission Gorge Road and
West Hills Parkway
New gas station with renovated
convenience market Approved
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Table 12
Cumulative Project List
Project Location Description Status
Parkside Eastern Terminus of Mast
Boulevard 128 condominium units Application under review Caribbean project East side of Caribbean Way 42 condominium units Under Construction Tyler Street
Subdivision
Southern terminus of Tyler
Street 14 single-family units Application under review
Gas Station Cuyamaca Street and
Prospect Avenue
New gas station, convenience
market and car wash Approved
Coffee shop and
mini- market
Graves Avenue and
Prospect Avenue New coffee shop and mini market Approved Palm Tree Homes Prospect Avenue and Our
Way 4 single-family detached homes Application Under Review Pinnacle Peak Mission Gorge Road 113 condominium units Under Construction Lantern Crest III Graves Avenue 113 congregate care units Under Construction Carlton Oaks
Country Club Inwood Drive
232 condominium units, 53 singlefamily residences, assisted living, hotel, and restaurant expansion
Application Under
Review
Palazzo Villas West side of Olive Lane 8 condominium units Approved Atlas View Atlas View and Prospect
Avenue 11 condominium units Application Under Review
Prospect Estates II North of Prospect Avenue,
east of Marrokal Lane
38 attached condominiums and 15
single-family residences Approved
D’Lazio Fanita Drive 20 condominium units Under Construction Woodside Terrace Woodside Terrace 4 single-family units Under Construction E Heaney Circle Carlton Oaks 10 townhomes Approved
Mission Greens Buena Vista Drive and
Mission Greens 40 condominium units Under Construction
Robinson Lane Robinson Lane near
Caribbean Drive 10 condominium units Under Construction SOURCE: City of Santee, Department of Development Services As discussed in this environmental document, all impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. Air quality is a regional issue and the cumulative study area for air quality impacts encompasses the SDAB as a whole. Therefore, the cumulative analysis addresses regional air quality plans and policies, such as the RAQS, as well as the revised project’s contribution to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SDAB is listed as a non-attainment area. As described in Section
15.3.a, the revised project would not be significantly different from the growth projections of the General Plan, and would not result in an increase in emissions than are already accounted for in the RAQS. As described in Section 15.4.a, implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and sensitive species to a level less than significant, and implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to nesting birds and wildlife nursery sites to a level less than significant. This mitigation would be consistent with the requirements of the NCCP. Projects that comply with the NCCP would not result in a significant cumulative impact for biological resources. Cumulative projects listed in Table 18 would also be required to comply with the NCCP and mitigate for impacts to biological resources as necessary.
Climate change is, by its nature, a cumulative issue. As described in Section 15.8.b, the revised project would not conflict with the applicable plans developed to reduce GHG emissions at the regional level. As described in Section 15.13.a, potential impacts associated with noise would be mitigated to Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
a level less than significant. Due to the varied schedules and for construction of cumulative projects listed in Table 18, it is unlikely construction activities would overlap, thereby avoiding significant cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors. The impact analysis presented in Section 15.17.a is cumulative in nature, which determined that the revised project would not result in a cumulative traffic impact to the Graves Avenue roadway segment. Cumulative projects listed in Table 18 would also be required to conduct cumulative traffic impact analyses and implement mitigation as necessary to reduce cumulative impacts to a level less than significant. All other project impacts were determined to be less than significant, and due to the limited scope of the revised project, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. As discussed throughout this document, no hazardous conditions on the project site or in the surrounding area were identified that could adversely affect human beings.
It is not anticipated that demolition or construction activities would create conditions that would significantly directly or indirectly impact human beings. Development of the project site would comply with all State and City regulations that would ensure the building is safe and designed to protect future occupants. The revised project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly, and impact would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.
16.0 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) be adopted upon certification of an EIR or adoption of an MND to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented. The MMRP specifies the mitigation developed for the previously adopted project that would be applicable for the revised project, when in the process the mitigation measure should be accomplished, and the entity responsible for implementing and/or monitoring the mitigation. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. After analysis, potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were identified for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise. The MMRP is presented below in Table 13.
Table 13
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Status/Date/
Initials
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat
Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1 mitigation ratio) at the Willow Road Conservation Bank, which is fully endowed to provide a non-wasting
funding source that pays for management, and is protected with a Conservation Easement (CE) over the entire
property. If the Willow Road Conservation Bank were
unavailable, the applicant would secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1
mitigation ratio) at another location approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS that would be similarly subject to
perpetual conservation with a recorded CE and require a Prior to
Construction
City of Santee/
Qualified
Biologist
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Table 13
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Status/Date/
Initials
non-wasting endowment to fund management in
perpetuity.
BIO-2: Non-Native Grassland Habitat
Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall secure no less than 1.30 acres of non-native grassland habitat (at a 1:1 mitigation ratio) at the Willow Road Conservation Bank, which is fully endowed to provide a non-wasting funding source that pays for management, and is protected with a Conservation Easement (CE) over the entire property. If the Willow Road Conservation Bank were unavailable, the
applicant would secure no less than 2.02 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (at a 2:1 mitigation ratio) at another location approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS
that would be similarly subject to perpetual conservation with a recorded CE and require a non-wasting endowment
to fund management in perpetuity.
Prior to
Construction
City of Santee/
Qualified
Biologist
BIO-3: Nesting Birds and Wildlife Nursery Sites
To remain in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the spring/summer migratory songbird breeding
season, defined as from 15 February to 31 August of each year. Limiting activities to the non-breeding season will minimize chances for the incidental take of migratory
songbirds or raptors. If vegetation removal activities were to occur during the songbird breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting survey within the limits of disturbance and within 300 feet of the limits of disturbance where feasible, including within the Diegan coastal sage scrub adjacent to the project site. This survey must occur no more than three days prior to any
site activities to ensure compliance with the standard
seasonal restrictions. The preconstruction nesting survey would need to be repeated if construction is not initiated within three days following completion of the survey. If active nests or nesting behaviors are detected, construction must be delayed until such time as nesting is complete. The results of the survey shall be provided in a report to the City Planning Department, for concurrence with the
conclusions and recommendations.
Prior to and
during
Construction
City of Santee/
Qualified
Biologist
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Archaeological Monitoring
If during grading or construction activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered on the project site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist and the most likely descendant Tribe (Tribe) and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Any
unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall During
Construction
City of Santee/
Qualified
Archaeologist
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project
Table 13
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Timing of
Verification
Responsible for
Verification
Status/Date/
Initials
be evaluated and a final report prepared by the qualified archaeologist. The report shall include a list of the
resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of the resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or recovery for identified
resources. If the qualified archaeologist determines the cultural resources to be either historic resources or unique archaeological resources, avoidance and/or mitigation will be required pursuant to and consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. This mitigation measure shall be
incorporated into all construction contract documentation.
CUL-2: Tribal Cultural Monitoring
A Tribal Cultural Monitor shall be present for all ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Should any cultural or tribal cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Director of Development Services, or designee, is
satisfied that treatment of the resource has occurred. In the event that a unique archaeological resource or tribal
cultural resource is discovered, and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)(1), (2), and (4), the resource shall be moved and buried in an open space area of the project site, such as slope areas, which will not be subject to further grading activity, erosion, flooding, or any other ground disturbance that has the potential to
expose the resource. The onsite area to which the resource is moved shall be protected in perpetuity as permanent
open space. No identification of the resource shall be made onsite; however, the project applicant shall plot the new location of the resource on a map showing latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates and provide that map to the
Native American Heritage Commission for inclusion in the Sacred Lands File. Disposition of the resources shall be at the discretion of the City of Santee.
During
Construction
City of Santee/
Qualified
Archaeologist
CUL-3: Human Remains
If during grading or construction activities, human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the
County Coroner determines the remains to be Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable time frame.
Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission
shall identify the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage
During
Construction
City of Santee/
Qualified
Archaeologist
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lantern Crest Ridge II Project