Agenda packet — Santee City Council, February 23, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

MEETING INFORMATION
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers | Building 2
10601 Magnolia Ave • Santee, CA 92071
TO WATCH LIVE:

AT&T U-verse channel 99 (SD Market) | Cox channel 117 (SD County) www.cityofsanteeca.gov

IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE
Please be advised that current public health orders require unvaccinated attendees to wear a face covering while inside the Council Chambers. If you enter the Council Chambers without a face covering, you are self-certifying that you have been vaccinated.

LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public who wish to comment on matters on the City Council agenda or during Non-Agenda Public Comment may appear in person and submit a speaker slip, before the item is called. Speakers must adhere to the public health order requirement to wear a face covering if unvaccinated. Your name will be called when it is time to speak.

PLEASE NOTE: Public Comment will be limited to 3 minutes and speaker slips will only be accepted until the item is called. The timer will begin when the participant begins speaking.

February 23, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
2 ROLL CALL: Mayor John W. Minto
Vice Mayor Ronn Hall
Council Members Laura Koval, Rob McNelis and Dustin Trotter LEGISLATIVE INVOCATION: Assistant Pastor James Class – Calvary Chapel of Santee

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATION: Proclamation Naming March 5, 2022, as Little League Day in Santee CONSENT CALENDAR:

PLEASE NOTE: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved by one motion, with no separate discussion prior to voting. The public, staff or Council Members may request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion or action. Speaker slips for this category must be presented to the City Clerk at the start of the meeting. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.
(1) Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances and Resolutions on the Agenda. (City Clerk – Ortiz)
(2) Approval of Meeting Minutes of the Santee City Council for the February 09, 2022, Regular Meeting. (City Clerk – Ortiz)
(3) Approval of Payment of Demands as Presented. (Finance – McDermott) (4) Approval of the Expenditure of $78,770.93 for January 2022 Legal Services and Reimbursable Costs. (Finance – McDermott)
(5) Adoption of a Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract for the Parking Lot Resurfacing 2022 Project (CIP 2022-35) to United Paving Company, Inc., Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act for a Total Amount of $42,619.92. (Development Services – Engineering)
(6) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Amend the Professional Services Agreement with D-Max Engineering, Inc. for Storm Water Program As-Needed Staffing Services, for a Total Contract Not to Exceed $316,300.00. (Development Services – Engineering) February 23, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
3 NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (15 minutes):

Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items not on the posted agenda may do so at this time. In accordance with State law, Council may not take action on an item not scheduled on the Agenda. If appropriate, the item will be referred to the City Manager or placed on a future agenda. This first Non-Agenda Public Comment period is limited to a total of 15 minutes. Additional Non-Agenda Public Comment is received prior to Council Reports.

PUBLIC HEARING:
(7) Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit (P2020-3), Variance (V2020-2) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (AEIS2020-2) to Permit the Construction of a Gasoline Dispensing Station with Mini Mart and Accessory Car Wash at 9015 Mission Gorge Road, in the General Commercial (GC) Zone (APN 383-121-64- 00). (Development Services – Planning)
Recommendation:

1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing; and

2. Consider granting the hearing continuance request; or

3. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration AEIS2020-2 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as complete and in compliance with the provisions of CEQA per the Resolution and authorize filing a Notice of Determination; and

4. Approve Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 and Variance V2020-2 per the Resolution.
(8) Public Hearing for the “Lantern Crest Ridge II” Major Revision (MJR2021-1) to Conditional Use Permit (P2017-4) and 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 (APN: 384-142-04). Applicant: M. Grant Real Estate, Inc. (Michael Grant). (Development Services – Planning)
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 Resolution and authorize a filing of a Notice of Determination; and

3. Approve Major Revision MJR2021 to Conditional Use Permit P2017-4 per the Resolution.

February 23, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
4 NEW BUSINESS:
(9) Resolution Awarding the Design-Build Construction Contract to Implement the Weston Park Improvements, Playground Installation (CIP 2022-44) Project to Anton’s Service, Inc. and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Development Services – Engineering)
Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution:

1. Awarding the Design-Build construction contract to implement the Weston Park Improvements, Playground Installation (CIP 2022-44) project to Anton’s Service, Inc. for a total amount of $217,882.00; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $25,000.00; and

3. Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
(10) Resolution Rejecting a Bid Protest and Awarding the Construction Contract for the Cuyamaca Street Resurfacing and Woodside Avenue Street Repairs (CIP 2022-08 and CIP 2022-09) Project to SRM Contracting & Paving, Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Development Services – Engineering)
Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution:

1. Rejecting the bid protest submitted by Ramona Paving and Construction Corporation; and

2. Awarding the construction contract for the Cuyamaca Street Resurfacing and Woodside Avenue Street Repairs Project (CIP 2022-08 and CIP 2022-09) to SRM Contracting & Paving for a total amount of $620,684.83; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $62,068.00; and

4. Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act.

February 23, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
5 (11) Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract for the Citywide Concrete Repair and Replacement Program 2021 (CIP 2021-05) and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act. (Development Services – Engineering) Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution:

1. Awarding the construction contract for the Citywide Concrete Repair and Replacement Program 2021 (CIP 2021-05) to Portillo Concrete, Inc. for a total amount of $163,920.00; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $40,980.00; and

3. Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued):

All public comment not presented within the first Non-Agenda Public Comment period above will be heard at this time.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

CITY MANAGER REPORTS:

CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:

CLOSED SESSION:

ADJOURNMENT:

February 23, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
6 Feb 03 SPARC Council Chamber
Feb 09 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Feb 14 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber Feb 23 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Mar 01 DEI workshop Council Chamber
Mar 03 SPARC Council Chamber
Mar 09 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Mar 14 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber Mar 17 SMHFPC Council Chamber
Mar 23 Council Meeting Council Chamber
The Santee City Council welcomes you and encourages your continued interest and involvement in the City’s decision-making process.

For your convenience, a complete Agenda Packet is
available for public review at City Hall and on the
City’s website at www.CityofSanteeCA.gov.

The City of Santee complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, as required by Section 12132 of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC § 12132). Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (619) 258-4100, ext. 112 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES

FEBRUARY & MARCH MEETINGS

Minutes DRAFT
Santee City Council
Council Chamber – Building 2
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California
February 9, 2022
This Regular Meeting of the Santee City Council was called to order by Mayor John W.

Minto at 6:31 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor John W. Minto, Vice Mayor Ronn Hall and Council Members Laura Koval Rob McNelis and Dustin Trotter – 5.

Officers present: City Manager Marlene Best, City Attorney Shawn Hagerty, and City Clerk Annette Ortiz
INVOCATION was given by Pastor Marshall Masser – Lakeside Christian Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member Rob McNelis RECOGNITION: Certificates of Commendation: Santee Pee Wee and Junior Varsity Ravens Pop Warner Cheerleader Champions
Ravens Cheer Coaches made brief comments and played a video showcasing their talents and expressed how much the team means to them.

Council Member Trotter recognized Gene Chubb for his contributions to the City of Santee.

Council Members made brief comments regarding Gene Chubb.

CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances and Resolutions on the Agenda. (City Clerk – Ortiz) (2) Approval of Meeting Minutes of the Santee City Council for the January 12 and 26, 2022, Regular Meetings. (City Clerk – Ortiz) (3) Approval of Payment of Demands as Presented. (Finance – McDermott) (4) Purchase of Three Multi-Function Copy Machines from Sharp Business Systems. (Finance – McDermott)
(5) Adoption of a Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract for the City Hall Fiberoptic Cable Replacement Project (CIP 2022-30), and Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Determining a Categorical Exemption Pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act for a Total Project Budget of $65,000.00. (Development Services – Engineering) (Reso 010-2022) (6) Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Final Map for an 80-Unit Residential Condominium Subdivision (TM2020-2) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Associated Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Location: 7739 Mission Gorge Road. Applicant: Cornerstone Communities. (Development Services – Engineering) (Reso 011-2022) (7) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Additional Change Order Authorization for the Streetlight Maintenance Contract with CTE, Inc. for FY 2021-22 and Appropriating Funds. (Development Services – Engineering) (Reso 012-2022)
ACTION: Council Member McNelis moved approval of the Consent Calendar.

Vice Mayor Hall seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto:

Aye; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter:

Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0.

NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (15 minutes): None
PUBLIC HEARING:
(8) Public Hearing for Consideration of Revised City Council District Electoral Boundaries as Required by Elections Code Section 21621. (City Clerk – Ortiz)
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:00 p.m. The City Clerk introduced the Item and Stephanie Smith with Best Best and Krieger provided a PowerPoint presentation.

Council Members provided direction to Ms. Smith regarding the district electoral boundaries.

The Public Hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m.
(9) Public Hearing to Assess Community Development Needs and to Solicit Proposals for Program Year 2022 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Program Funding Consistent with the Consolidated Plan. (Development Services – Engineering)
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. The Senior Management Analyst provided a PowerPoint presentation.

Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2022 Page 3 of 6 PUBLIC SPEAKER(S):
• Steven Anderson – Crisis House
• Gretchen Veihl – Elder Help
• Dennis Martins – Santee Food Bank
• Tim Ray – Meals on Wheels
• Stephanie Chapel Yoo – YCMA
• Tonya V. Hendrix – Santee Santas
• Kelly Douglas – Voices for Children
The Public Hearing was continued at 8:24 p.m. to March 9, 2022. (10) Public Hearing Considering a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the City of Santee and Excel Acquisitions, LLC, for Development of Real Property Known as Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 18857 Located in Trolley Square. (City Manager – Best) (Reso 013-2022)
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:24 p.m. The City Manager introduced the item and Elizabeth Hall with Best Best and Krieger provided a PowerPoint presentation.

ACTION: Council Member McNelis moved approval of staff recommendation.

Vice Mayor Hall seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto:

Aye; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter:

Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0.

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m.

CONTINUED BUSINESS:
(11) Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 13 of the Santee Municipal Code (“SMC”), “Zoning” (Case File: ZA2022-1), and Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 2 of the SMC, “Administration and Personnel,” Title 9 of the SMC, “Public Services” and Title 10 of the SMC, “Vehicles and Traffic”. (City Attorney – Hagerty) (Ord 599 and 600)
The City Attorney introduced the item and the Assistant City Attorney provided a PowerPoint presentation.

ACTION: Vice Mayor Hall moved approval of staff recommendation.

Council Member Koval seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto: Aye; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter: Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0.

Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2022 Page 4 of 6 NEW BUSINESS:
(12) Resolution Authorizing the Implementation of a Permitting and Land Management System, Including Authorization to: Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Tyler Technologies for the EnerGov Land Management System and Mobile Eyes Fire Inspection Software; Purchase Bluebeam Software; Execute a Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence for Implementation Consulting Services; and Appropriate Funds. (Development Services – Planning) (Reso 014-2022)
The Principal Planner introduced the item and the Senior Planner provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions.

ACTION: Council Member Koval moved approval of staff recommendation.

Council Member McNelis seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto: Aye; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter: Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0.
(13) Draft Pavement Management Report 2022 and Pavement Maintenance Workshop. (Development Services – Engineering)
The Principal Civil Engineer provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions.

ACTION: Council Member Trotter moved approval the Draft Pavement Management Report and of zones CE, CD and EB to be resurfaced with the additional recommendations of El Nopal from Magnolia Avenue to the eastern City limits and Carlton Oaks Drive from Pebble Beach Drive to Wethersfield Road and Magnolia Avenue to Prospect Avenue to the south City limits.

Council Member McNelis seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto: No; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(14) Resolution Proclaiming an Emergency, Authorizing the Construction of Firebreaks and Fuel Reduction Throughout the San Diego River Corridor, Waiving the Requirement for Competitive Bidding, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into a Contract to Construct a Firebreak. (City Manager – Best) (Reso 015-2022)
Council Member Koval recused herself from the dais at 10:14 p.m.

The Deputy Fire Chief, the Public Works Supervisor and the Park and Landscape Supervisor provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions.

Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2022 Page 5 of 6 ACTION: Vice Mayor Hall moved approval of staff recommendation.

Council Member Trotter seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto: Aye; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 0. Recuse: 1.

Council Member Koval returned to the dais.
(15) Purchase of Five (5) Bottle Filler Stations from Most Dependable Fountains, Inc. (Public Works)
ACTION: Council Member Trotter moved approval of staff recommendation.

Council Member McNelis seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Mayor Minto: Aye; Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; and Trotter: Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0.
(16) Resolution Authorizing the Fourth Amendment to the Employment Agreement of the City Manager. (Mayor Minto) (Reso 016-2022) Mayor Minto provided a brief report.

ACTION: Vice Mayor Hall moved approval of staff recommendation.

NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: (Continued)
None.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

Council Member Koval stated that the Chula Vista Mayor is requesting the toll be removed from the South Bay Expressway, CA 125 and the impact that will have on traffic.

Mayor Minto also spoke regarding the removal of the toll for the South Bay Expressway; he also stated he would be attending a League of California Cities meeting.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS:

The City Manager reported that Lieutenant Bodine would no longer be at the Santee City Council meetings.

Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2022 Page 6 of 6 CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:

None.

CLOSED SESSION:

Council Members recessed at 10:32 p.m. and convened in Closed Session at 10:34 p.m. (17) Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(2))
Significant Exposure to Litigation: One case
Council Members reconvened in Open Session at 10:42 p.m. with all members present.

Mayor Minto stated the report was received from the City Attorney.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned in memory of Gene Chubb at 10:44 p.m.

Date Approved:

Annette Ortiz, CMC, City Clerk

vchlist
01/31/2022
Bank code:

Voucher
1224
6:06:11PM
ubgen
Date Vendor
2/1/2022 10353 PERS
Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
Vouchers in this report
Prepared by: (oM£{f,�
Date: · �a:�-�� --2";,-:V: ___ _
Approved br�:L� 4iL11 (/J
Date: �d�-,....,.-,_ .. t131��------- (S I
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO# Description/Account
01 22 4 RETIREMENT PAYMENT
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers :

Page: 1
Amount
116,954.57
116,954.57
116,954.57
116,954.57
Page:
vchlist
02/03/2022 11:51:26AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129591 2/3/2022 12060 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS INC
129592 2/3/2022 10010 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC
129593 2/3/2022 10006 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
129594 2/3/2022 10412 AT&T
129595 2/3/2022 10516 AWARDS BY NAVAJO
129596 2/3/2022 12506 BEST, MARLENE
129597 2/3/2022 13292 BORDER TIRE
129598 2/3/2022 10023 BUILDERS FENCE COMPANY INC
129599 2/3/2022 13561 CAREFREE EAST HOA
129600 2/3/2022 11190 CDCE INC
129601 2/3/2022 12349 CHOICE LOCKSMITHING
129602 2/3/2022 14471 CHRISTIAN MENDEZ
129603 2/3/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
12236585 53612
1860968
299361-2212
301053963 JAN22
1221323 53429
68524
8027885 53406
1889774 53711
2004392.001
139445 53706
011022COS 53521
Ref000076518
4107341936 53483
Description/ Account
TEMPORARY ACCOUNTING SPECl1
Total:

SANTEE DISCOVERY DAY
Total:

MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
Total:

MAST PARK 01/20-02/19/2022
Total:

NAMETAGS
Total:

ICSC LAS VEGAS
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:

FENCING MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
Total:

RECREATION REFUND
Total:

COMM EQUIPMENT
Total:

LOCKSMITH SERVICES
Total:

LI Refund Cst #26213
Total:

UNIFORM/PARTS CLEANER RNTL
Page: 2
Amount
1,325.56
1,325.56
334.00
334.00
579.00
579.00
100.94
100.94

23.71 23.71
685.24
685.24
157.32
157.32
549.91
549.91
193.00
193.00
1,270.00
1,270.00
126.31
126.31

92.00 92.00

66.51 Page: 2
vchlist
02/03/2022 11:51:26AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129603 2/3/2022 10032 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694
129604 2/3/2022 10050 CITY OF EL CAJON
129605 2/3/2022 10486 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
129606 2/3/2022 10486 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
129607 2/3/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS
129608 2/3/2022 13067 DAVID CLARK COMPANY INC
129609 2/3/2022 11521 DFM ASSOCIATES
129610 2/3/2022 12438 DIESEL PRINT CO, LLC
129611 2/3/2022 14472 DUSTIN WEBSTER
129612 2/3/2022 10054 ELDERHELP OF SAN DIEGO
129613 2/3/2022 10196 FIRE PREVENTION SERVICES INC
129614 2/3/2022 12760 FOCUS PSYCHOLOGICAL
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
120921-09
01212022
202200047
052335901-JAN 2022
063453006- JAN 2022
064114701-JAN 2022
066401501-JAN 2022
112256001- JAN 2022
RINV746078 53655
01262022
2721 53636
Ref000076519
12312021-ELDERHELP 53689
020122
SANTEE2021-12 53523
Description/Account
Total:

TRAINING REGISTRATION
Total:

COUNTY RECORDER FEE - NOE
Total:

RECORDED DOC FEE
Total:
8950 COTIONWOOD AVE USAGE (
9534 VIA ZAPADOR USAGE CHARG
8115 ARLETIE ST - USAGE 01/15-0:
10601 N MAGNOLIAAVE USAGE 01
9130 CARLTON OAKS DR USAGE 0
Total:

EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
Total:
2022 CA ELECTIONS CODE
Total:

HOLIDAY LIGHTING
Total:

LI Refund Cst #26226
Total:

CDBG SUBRECIPIENT
Total:

WEED ABATEMENT
Total:

PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
Page: 3
Amount

66.51 1,036.00
1,036.00

50.00 50.00

20.00 20.00
179.74

91.90 193.92

74.36 91.22
631.14
715.50
715.50

81.51 81.51

75.43 75.43

43.00 43.00
1,747.95
1,747.95
824.98
824.98
750.00
Page: 3
vchlist
02/03/2022 11:51:26AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129614 2/3/2022 12760 12760 FOCUS PSYCHOLOGICAL
129615 2/3/2022 10065 GLOBAL POWER GROUP INC
129616 2/3/2022 10490 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC
129617 2/3/2022 10256 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
129618 2/3/2022 11807 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY
129619 2/3/2022 13247 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS
129620 2/3/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC
129621 2/3/2022 10538 MEALS ON WHEELS
129622 2/3/2022 10079 MEDICO HEALTHCARE LINEN
129623 2/3/2022 11783 MINTO, JOHN
129624 2/3/2022 14208 MINUTEMAN PRESS EL CAJON
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
78884 53495
78885 53495
51105 53305
0160756 53410
0973212 53410
1151557 53410
4906217 53602
4925195 53602
4971131 53602
01072021
1165803 53477
2-21-22 53677
20535689 53546
20535691 53546
95641
63232 53586
Description/Account
Total:

GENERATOR MAINT & REPAIRS

GENERATOR MAINT
Total:

SAFETY & ENV JUSTICE ELEMENT
Total:

STATION SUPPLIES

STATION SUPPLIES
Total:

IRRIGATION PARTS

IRRIGATION PARTS
Total:

REITREE HEALTH INSURANCE- DIF
Total:

EMS SUPPLIES
Total:

CDBG SUBRECIPIENT
Total:

MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE

MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE
Total:

ICSC CONFERENCE
Total:

BUSINESS CARD-CM
Total:

Page: 4
Amount
750.00
505.00
695.00
1,200.00
8,025.00
8,025.00
128.22

28.60 17.75
174.57

66.71 806.86
167.98
1,041.55
129.60
129.60
5,952.36
5,952.36
1,230.00
1,230.00

20.62 13.01

33.63 196.14
196.14

45.78 45.78
Page: 4
vchlist
02/03/2022 11:51:26AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129625 2/3/2022 10080 MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS INC
129626 2/3/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST
129627 2/3/2022 14308 ROSSI, VINCENT
129628 2/3/2022 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
129629 2/3/2022 10768 SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT
129630 2/3/2022 10768 SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT
129631 2/3/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC
129632 2/3/2022 13554 SC FUELS
129633 2/3/2022 10110 SECTRAN SECURITY INC
129634 2/3/2022 13206 SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS
129635 2/3/2022 11072 SHOW STOPPER WAX PRODUCTS
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
66596 53700
90000367-JAN 2022
1040
0422 970 321 8JAN22
2237 358 004 2JAN22
4394 020 550 9JAN22
7990 068 577 7 JAN22
8509 7 42 169 4JAN22
9115 53415
9116 53500
2038598-IN 53480
0493112-DEF 53488
0493112-F 53481
22010504 53532
9003626677 53579
6044 53465
Description/Account

DRINKING FOUNTAIN REPLACEME
Total:

GROUP BILL USAGE 12/06-01/10
Total:

SENIOR PROGRAM PRESENTATIOt
Total:

STREET LIGHTS- USAGE 12/01-12/:

TRAFFIC SIGNALS- UDAGE 12/11/-C
LMD USAGE 12/11-01/11/2022
PARKS USAGE 12/11-1/11/22
CITY HALL GROUP BILL USAGE 12/
Total:

CHET HARRITI FIELD LIGHTS
Total:

JOINT USE FIELDS - RIO SECO
Total:

DELIVERED FUEL
Total:

FLEET CARD FUELING

FLEET CARD FUELING
Total:

FY 21/22 ARMORED CAR TRANSPC
Total:

SHARP COPIES JAN 2022+QTR OC
Total:

VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Total:

Page: 5
Amount
6,065.29
6,065.29
13,898.06
13,898.06

75.00 75.00
40,094.68
6,491.64
4,348.60
17,595.27
10,127.52
78,657.71
666.90
666.90
238.96
238.96
1,303.87
1,303.87

15.94 1,836.85
1,852.79
141.67
141.67
1,041.36
1,041.36
260.22
260.22
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List
02/03/2022 11:51:26AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
129636 2/3/2022 12223 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 114312604 114336256
114410641
114503965
114515522
114784769
115042249
115042936-001
115136590
115610426
115610426-002
115610426-003
115771322-001
115784592-001
115784592-002
115910516-001
129637 2/3/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3495326422
3496929168
3496929169
129638 2/3/2022 10027 STATE OF CALIFORNI A 555132
129639 2/3/2022 10250 THE EAST COUNTY 00113620
00113953
129640 2/3/2022 10482 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 105502
129641 2/3/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES 114-127 4 7 483 129642 2/3/2022 12888 VINYARD DOORS 104703
PO# Description/Account
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS/JAN-JUN 2022
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
53733 IRRIGATION PARTS
Total:
53467 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES
53548 OFFICE SUPPLIES - DDS
53467 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:

FINGERPRINT COSTS
Total:
53538 INVITATION TO BID - CITYWIDE CO
53574 CLERK OFFICE PUBLICATIONS
Total:
53598 WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Total :
53419 PORTABLE TOILETS, TEMP FENCE
Total:
53549 APPARATUS GATE/DOOR REPAIRS
Page: 6
Amount
162.94
106.27

57.37 270.87
655.81
446.00

64.04 215.48
124.60
1,222.07
556.87

44.98 1,424.01

67.47 67.47
214.89
5,701.14

61.00 57.01

75.71 193.72
271.00
271.00
861.00
416.50
1,277.50
7,197.25
7,197.25
159.79
159.79
352.00
Page: 6
vchlist
02/03/2022 11:51:26AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
129642
129643
129644
129645
Date Vendor
2/3/2022 12888 12888 VINYARD DOORS
2/3/2022 10704 VIRTUAL GRAFFITI INC
2/3/2022 10136 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC
2/3/2022 10537 WETMORE'S
55 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
55 Vouchers in this report
Date:

Prepare
02--/rJ�/ Q by: f JJMd ,Z <.? 2,L-
��
Appm,ed by�� Date: ,;2} .

Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
1169874
179280
179907
179908
179909
179911
180239
06P27037
PO#
53710
53070
53070
53503
53503
53503
53070
53475
Description/Account
Total:

SOFTWARE RENEWAL
Total:

URBAN FORESTRY PLAN

URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT

URBAN FORESTRY PLAN
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR SUPPLIES
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 7
Amount
352.00
6,173.37
6,173.37
5,600.00
7,840.00
1,495.20
2,498.32
2,136.00
6,440.00
26,009.52
219.21
219.21
181,263.97
181,263.97
Page: 7
vchlist
02/09/2022 12:51:08PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129646 2/9/2022 12060 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS
129647 2/9/2022 13456 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL
129648 2/9/2022 10010 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC
129649 2/9/2022 12136 BOB MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
129650 2/9/2022 13292 BORDER TIRE
129651 2/9/2022 14342 BW RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP INC
129652 2/9/2022 10299 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
129653 2/9/2022 10299 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
129654 2/9/2022 14356 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CO
129655 2/9/2022 12349 CHOICE LOCKSMITHING
129656 2/9/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694
129657 2/9/2022 10033 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
129658 2/9/2022 10050 CITY OF EL CAJON
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
12249850 53612
624479 53491
12/31/2021
9375 53731
8027840 53406
SNTE-003 53581
11102-548485 53407
11102-548373 53407
BC20004A
011922COS 53521
4108020526 53483
STE/077512 53698
0000015986
Description/Account
TEMPORARY ACCOUNTING SPECl1
Total:

PEST CONTROL SERVICES
Total:

SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE FOR
Total:

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVI!
Total:

TIRES
Total:

DEi COMMUNITY SURVEY
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:

REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT
Total:

LOCKSMITH SERVICES
Total:

UNIFORM/PARTS CLEANER RNTL
Total:

STREETLIGHT LUMINAIRES
Total:
3RD QTR MEMBER ASSESSMENT
Page: 8
Amount
1,368.32
1,368.32

50.00 50.00
1,243.00
1,243.00
11,039.72
11,039.72
191.25
191.25
1,500.00
1,500.00

78.75 78.75.

42.37 42.37
198.32
198.32

83.51 83.51

81.53 81.53
1,824.16
1,824.16
88,655.18
Page: 8
vchlist
02/09/2022 12:51:0SPM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129658 2/9/2022 10050 10050 CITY OF EL CAJON
129659 2/9/2022 10039 COUNTY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY INC
129660 2/9/2022 10171 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUDITOR &
129661 2/9/2022 10234 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
129662 2/9/2022 10486 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
129663 2/9/2022 10040 COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
129664 2/9/2022 10145 CULLIGAN OF SAN DIEGO
129665 2/9/2022 10046 D MAX ENGINEERING INC
129666 2/9/2022 12593 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY, LLC
129667 2/9/2022 14446 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST
129668 2/9/2022 14216 EXTREME SAFETY INC.

Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
551139 53435
11/2021 AGENCY REV
11/2021 OMV REVENUE
11/2021 PHOENIX REV
2462-1982-Rl-2021 53522
02032022
47714 53436
1215366 53643
1215367 53643
1215369 53643
1215370 53643
6994 53614
6994-CR
2021-12-10 53567
FMR0165191 53705
00103249 53637
Description/Account
Total:

VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Total:
11/2021 AGENCY PARK CITE REPT
11/2021 OMV PARK CITE REPT
11/2021 PHOENIX CITE REV REPT
Total:

GENERATOR PERMITS
Total:

COUNTY RECORDER FEE - NOE
Total:

HVAC MAINT
Total:

FILTERED WATER SERVICE

FILTERED WATER SERVICE
Total:

CONSTRUCTION SW INSPECTIOW

CONSTRUCTION SW INSPECTIOW
Total:

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICE
Total:
2022-02 FLEET LEASE PAYMENT
Total:

SCBA EQUIPMENT
Total:

Page: 9
Amount
88,655.18

45.66 45.66

86.25 256.25
712.25
1,054.75
481.00
481.00

50.00 50.00
4,644.00
4,644.00

93.10 744.80

93.10 186.20
1,117.20
4,207.50
-130.00
4,077.50
1,500.00
1,500.00
460.02
460.02
10,231.06
10,231.06
Page: 9
vchlist
02/09/2022 12:51:0SPM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129679 2/9/2022 10204 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC
129680 2/9/2022 10079 MEDICO HEALTHCARE LINEN
129681 2/9/2022 10507 MITEL LEASING
129682 2/9/2022 12991 NATIONAL LIGHTING SUPPLY LLC
129683 2/9/2022 10308 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS
129684 2/9/2022 14324 PACK LEADER MARKETING
129685 2/9/2022 10092 PHOENIX GROUP INFO SYSTEMS
129686 2/9/2022 10095 RASA
129687 2/9/2022 10791 RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC
129688 2/9/2022 10097 ROMAINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
129689 2/9/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC
129690 2/9/2022 13554 SC FUELS
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
20539451 53546
20539453 53546
903533345
903533388
903533391
131014 53665
2968-463120 53458
Ref000072748
122021031 53605
5586 53630
64878 53341
12-055340 53413
2042716-IN 53480
2044770-IN 53480
0498335-DEF 53488
0498335-F 53481
Description/Account
Total:

MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE

MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE
Total:

MONTHLY RENTAL 124690 FEB 22
MONTHLY RENTAL 130737 FEB 22
MONTHLY RENTAL 131413 FEB 22
Total:

LIGHTING/ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
Total:

VEHICLE SERVICE
Total:

REFUND - DUPLICATE APPLICATIO
Total:

FY 21/22 PARKING CITE PROCESS
Total:

MAP CHECK
Total:

SANTEE GP AMEND & ZONE CHAN
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PART
Total:

DELIVERED FUEL

DELIVERED FUEL
Total:

FLEET CARD FUELING

FLEET CARD FUELING
Page: 10
Amount
4,568.37

20.62 13.01

33.63 312.66
276.33
266.16
855.15
412.90
412.90

21.53 21.53

92.00 92.00
535.92
535.92
320.00
320.00
56,644.25
56,644.25
216.39
216.39
487.86
1,011.39
1,499.25

7.62 1,858.61
Page: 10
vchlist
02/09/2022 12:51:0SPM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129690 2/9/2022 13554 13554 SC FUELS
129691 2/9/2022 13206 SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS
129692 2/9/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
129693 2/9/2022 10617 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
129694 2/9/2022 13019 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY
129695 2/9/2022 10250 THE EAST COUNTY
129696 2/9/2022 13332 THE HAY GUY
129697 2/9/2022 14354 TRILOGY MEDWASTE WEST, LLC
129698 2/9/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES
129699 2/9/2022 11194 USAFACT INC
129700 2/9/2022 10136 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
12998696 53604
3496072104 53467
3497259159 53416
3497329093 53631
3497886923 53513
3497886924 53513
L0575712528
01007519 53535
00113283 53538
00113372 53538
00114119 53574
Santee1 53736
864753
864754
114-12588623 53419
2011519
181289 53503
Description/Account
Total:

SHARP MFP PURCHASE FS#4
Total:

STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES

OFFICE SUPPLIES

AS NEEDED OFFICE SUPPLIES

OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE

OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
Total:

UNEMPLOYMENT 10/21-12/21
Total:

TRAFFIC SIGNS, MATERIALS & SUF
Total:

INVITATION TO BID - PARKING LOT

INVITATION TO BID - CUYAMACAN

CLERK OFFICE PUBLICATIONS
Total:

FIDO FEST
Total:

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL

BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL
Total:

PORTABLE TOILETS, TEMP FENCE
Total:

BACKGROUND CHECK
Total:

URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Page: 11
Amount
1,866.23
168.09
168.09
121.97
312.02

18.09 44.73

23.81 520.62
1,150.00
1,150.00
175.64
175.64
854.00
854.00
227.50
1,935.50
301.70
301.70
225.46
116.75
342.21
159.79
159.79

39.32 39.32
3,631.20
Page: 11
vchlist
02/09/2022 12:51 :08PM
Bank code : ubqen
Date Vendor
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Voucher Invoice
129700 2/9/2022 10136 10136 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC (Continued) 55 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
55 Vouchers in this report
Prepare
Date:
�- "J-. { D by: � �
'(/ 'J--.2-
Appm,oo by JV1Au,J.MvA� Date: d./<J._ I
------ PO# Description/Account
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers :

Page: 12
Amount
3,631.20
235,093.55
235,093.55
Page: 12
vchlist
02/09/2022 2:00:29PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
129701 2/9/2022 12903 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE CO
129702 2/9/2022 10208 ANTHEM EAP
129703 2/9/2022 10334 CHUC
129704 2/9/2022 10785 RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE
129705 2/9/2022 10424 SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS
129706 2/9/2022 10776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
129707 2/9/2022 10001 US BANK
7 Vouchers for bank code ubgen
7 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
6043481
046587833136
2951964
February 22
PPE 02/02/22
PPE 02/02/22
PPE 02/02/22
PO# Description/Account

FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT
Total:

EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAI
Total:

HEALTH INSURANCE
Total:

VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE
Total:

DUES/PEG/BENEVOLENT/BC EXP
Total:

WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:

PARS RETIREMENT
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 13
Amount
2,069.64
2,069.64
273.06
273.06
178,572.76
178,572.76
501.16
501.16
3,353.49
3,353.49
449.53
449.53
793.64
793.64
186,013.28
186,013.28
Page: 13
vchlist
02/15/2022
Bank code:
12:35:05PM
ubQen
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
_o_vu_ch_er ______ D_ate ___ _ Ven__d_or __________________ lnv_o_i_ce __________ PO_# ______ Description/Accoun t
17078 2/10/2022 10482 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT
Vouchers for bank code ubgen
Vouchers in this report
·�)
Prepared �J.;� Date: Q-..,L.- 1 ,
Appm,edS, �� Date :J I f '2--:
114272 WORKERS COMPERNSATION LOSSES
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page:

Page:

Amoun t
22,433.88
22,433.88
22,433.88
22,433.88
14 14
vchlist
02/11/2022 9:14:23AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
690765
690766
Date Vendor
2/11/2022 10959 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENT/457
2/11/2022 10782 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT/801801
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Preparedby:_/_ � Date�� Appm,e:=� Date: .;2 // ( 1
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 02/02/22
PPE 02/02/22
------ PO# Description/Account
ICMA-457
Total:

RETIREE HSA
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 15
Amount
31,165.19
31,165.19
4,221.74
4,221.74
35,386.93
35,386.93
Page: 15

LEGAL SERVICES BILLING SUMMARY Attachment 1
JANUARY 2022

CURRENT INVOICE

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT NUMBER NOTES
Retainer $ 15,743.00 926219
1001.00.1201.51020 15,743.00
Labor & Employment:

Labor & Employment 6,755.40 926192
1001.00.1201.51020 6,755.40
Litigation & Claims:

Litigation & Claims 364.50 926193
Parcel 4 Litigation 954.70 926217
Brooks Receivership 899.10 926196
1001.00.1201.51020 2,218.30
Special Projects (General Fund):

Community Oriented Policing 2,788.00 926194
Theater 850.50 926207
Annual Municipal Code Update 10,852.38 926197
Climate Action Plan 99.50 926210
CEQA Special Advice 1,263.60 926218
Water Quality 48.60 926213
Election Legal Services 534.60 926200
Parcel 4 Hotel 3,256.20 926215
Housing Element 3,086.10 926216
Advanced Records Center Services for PRA 72.90 926198
Cannabis 4,131.00 926201
1001.00.1201.51020 26,983.38
Special Projects - CSA 69 (General Fund)
CSA 69 Dissolution 4,290.20 926203
1001.03.2203.51020
Special Projects (Other Funds):

Mobile Home Rent Control Commission 97.20 926206 2901.04.4106.51020 COVID-19 Emergency Response 382.15 926220 2402.99.9001.51020 Cuyamaca Street Right-of-Way Acquisition 267.30 926195 cip71402.30.05 746.65
Third-Party Reimbursable:

Lantern Crest 1,545.70 926199 mjr2101a.20.05
Castlerock (Weston) 10,765.60 926202 spp0801a.10.05
MSCP Subarea Plan 1,470.30 926212 spp2101a.91.05
HomeFed Project 1,193.40 926214 spp1704a.10.05
HomeFed Project 1,140.10 926214 ehp2101a.10.05
Redevelopment of Carlton Oaks Golf Course 1,319.50 926204 cup1906a.10.05 Arco Station (9015 Mission Gorge) 1,093.30 926208 cup2003a.10.05 8504 Fanita Drive 1,771.90 926209 tm21002a.10.05
Shadow Hill Road Project 1,734.20 926211 res2103a.10.05 22,034.00
Total $ 78,770.93
LEGAL SERVICES BILLING RECAP Attachment 2
FY 2021-22
Adopted Revised Previously Spent Available Current Request Category Budget Budget Year to Date Balance Mo/Yr Amount General Fund:

General / Retainer $ 190,920.00 $ 190,920.00 $ 94,476.12 $ 96,443.88 Jan-22 $ 15,743.00 Labor & Employment 60,000.00 60,000.00 17,432.55 42,567.45 Jan-22 6,755.40 Litigation & Claims 275,000.00 275,000.00 65,060.29 209,939.71 Jan-22 2,218.30 Special Projects 271,000.00 271,000.00 162,704.40 108,295.60 Jan-22 31,273.58 Total $ 796,920.00 $ 796,920.00 $ 339,673.36 $ 457,246.64 $ 55,990.28 Other City Funds:

MHFP Commission $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 8,869.50 $ (3,869.50) Jan-22 $ 97.20 American Rescue Plan Act - 382.15 - 382.15 Jan-22 382.15 Capital Projects 75,000.00 75,000.00 19,093.46 55,906.54 Jan-22 267.30 Highway 52 Coalition 5,000.00 5,000.00 801.90 4,198.10 - Total $ 85,000.00 $ 85,382.15 $ 28,764.86 $ 56,617.29 $ 746.65 Third-Party Reimbursable:

Total $ 55,529.38 $ 22,034.00
`
Total Previously Spent to Date
Total Proposed for Payment
General Fund $ 339,673.36 General Fund $ 55,990.28
Other City Funds 28,764.86 Other City Funds 746.65
Applicant Deposits or Grants 55,529.38 Applicant Deposits or Grants 22,034.00 Total $ 423,967.60 Total $ 78,770.93
FY 2021-22

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA,

AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PARKING LOT
RESURFACING 2022 PROJECT (CIP 2022-35) TO UNITED PAVING COMPANY, INC., DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS A CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

ENVIRONEMTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, on the 26th day of January, 2022 publicly opened and examined sealed bids for the Parking Lot Resurfacing 2022 Project, (CIP 2022-35) (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the lowest received bid was submitted by United Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $42,619.92; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Santee Municipal Code section 3.24.100 (E), staff has determined that the bid submitted by United Paving Company, Inc. conforms in all material respects to the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids; and WHEREAS, United Paving Company, Inc. was found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with a total bid amount of $42,619.92; and WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the construction contract to United Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $42,619.92; and
WHEREAS, staff requests authorization for the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve changes orders in a total amount not to exceed $10,654.00 for unforeseen change orders and additional work.

WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 (existing facilities) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, as follows:

Section 1: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution.

Section 2: The construction contract for the Parking Lot Resurfacing 2022 Project, (CIP 2022-35) is awarded to United Paving Company, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $42,619.92 and the City Manager is authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

Section 3: The City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer is authorized to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $10,654.00 for unforeseen items and additional work.

RESOLUTION NO.

Section 4: The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 (existing facilities) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act as maintenance of existing facilities.

Section 5: The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at Santee City Hall, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071. The City Clerk is the custodian of record of proceedings.

Section 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

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
$93,000.00
$42,619.92
$51,932.27
$69,737.00
$73,423.05
$83,765.32
$30,000.00
$40,000.00
$50,000.00
$60,000.00
$70,000.00
$80,000.00
$90,000.00
$100,000.00
Engineer's Estimate United Paving Co. Asphalt & Concrete Enterprises, Inc.

Eagle Paving Co. Ramona Paving &
Construction Corp.

J&S Asphalt
Parking Lot Resurfacing 2022, CIP 2022-35

CARDOZA DRIVE PRATT COURT VIA LESLIE

GEM TREE WAY

ALLENWOOD WAY

ASHDALE LANE

WAYNECREST LANE

WOODROSE AVENUE

WOODPARK DRIVE LAUREN WAY CAREFREE DRIVE CAREFREE DRIVE MAGNOLIA AVENUE EL NOPAL EL NOPAL DOMER ROAD

MANDEVILLE ROAD

CARLTON OAKS DRIVE EL NOPAL SILVERADO CT

CUYAMACA ST GOLDEN WEST LANE CUYAMACA STREET

TIMBERLANE WAY HALBERNS BLVD

HALBERNS BLVD

SNELSON WAY

CARMACK WAY

TUTHILL WAY

MARKWOOD DR

LAKE CANYON RD

GANDY AVE

HALBERNS BLVD CECILWOOD DR HORNBUCKLE DR CATHYWOOD DR FOWLER AVE

MENDECK AVE

LAKE CANYON RD

LAKE CANYON PL CARLTON HILLS BLVD

LAKE CANYON RD

KNABE LN GUARDIAN ANGELS CHURCH LAPEER CT

CARRIE ELLEN CT

LAKELAND DR MARCELLA CT

CARLTON PL

SELBY CT

HIRSCH RD

STRATHMORE DR

HOLMBY WY

DALEHURST RD

SETTLE RD

SWANTON DR LAS LOMAS DR
SETTLE RD SEE SHEET 3
NORTH NTS PROJECT MAP Parking Lot Resurfacing 2022 CIP 2022-35 Project Location Exhibit C- Shadow Hill Park Exhibit D- West Hills Park Exhibit B- City Operations Center

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH D-MAX ENGINEERING, INC.

FOR STORM WATER PROGRAM AS-NEEDED STAFFING SERVICES

WHEREAS, the City of Santee entered into a Professional Services Agreement with D-Max Engineering, Inc. (“D-Max”) on August 25, 2021 to provide Storm Water Program as-needed staffing services for a six-month period (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, staff proposes the City Council authorize an amendment to the Agreement in the additional amount of $89,500 for an additional four months to expire on June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santee is required to implement the requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2013-0001(MS4) permit, as amended; the San Diego River Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); and other relevant regulations and agreements; and
WHEREAS, due to continued vacancies in the Storm Water Program Division, there is a need for expert consulting services to ensure compliance with the MS4 Permit, Investigative Orders and other compliance enforcement orders; and WHEREAS, D-Max has unique knowledge and history from working with the City for over twelve years, and provides specialized services specifically tailored to storm water permit compliance and provides similar services for various other agencies in San Diego County and can provide the necessary staff; and
WHEREAS, funding is provided by various budgeted funds in the adopted FY2021- 22 Zone 2 Flood Control District Fund including savings from the vacant Storm Water Program Manager position and expert consulting services; as well as, reimbursements for full cost recovery from developer deposit accounts when performing work related to Land Development projects.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santee, California, authorizes the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with D-Max Engineering, Inc. in the additional amount of $89,500 for an additional four months expiring on June 30, 2022 for a total amount not to exceed $316,300.
2 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

D-MAX Engineering, Inc.

Consultants in Water & Environmental Sciences
February 15, 2022
Mr. Carl Schmitz, P.E.

City Engineer
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Re: Proposal for Extension of Stormwater Program Assistance through June 2022 Dear Mr. Schmitz:

D-MAX Engineering, Inc. (D-MAX) is pleased to submit this proposal to extend stormwater program assistance with the City of Santee (City) through June 30, 2022. Stormwater program assistance includes completing tasks required by San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit), as amended. A summary of our proposed scope of services and costs for completing these services is provided below.

Scope of Services
The scope of services for each task will be consistent with the original proposal. Notes on work to be performed for each task for which additional budget is requested are provided below.

Task 2: Program Technical Support
D-MAX staff will continue to assist the City with as-needed technical support. This is expected to be mainly investigations and follow-up for illicit discharges.

Task 4: Structural BMP Inspections
D-MAX staff will complete the routine maintenance verification mailing (done via email) to responsible parties for sites with post-construction structural BMPs, which is expected to occur in spring or summer 2022. D-MAX will also inspect the high priority structural BMPs in spring or summer 2022.

Task 6: TMDL Compliance Support
We anticipate the San Diego Water Board will release a Bacteria TMDL Time Schedule Order (TSO) in May or June or 2022. Additional work for this task consists of advising the City on actions needed to comply with the TSO and providing review comments on the TSO.

Task 7: Building Plan Reviews
D-Max staff will continue to provide stormwater reviews for building permit projects. The Mr. Carl Schmitz
February 15, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

additional budget is the amount needed to fund the additional four months of work. This value is based on a combination of the expected remaining budget from the original contract and the average monthly charges to this task.

Task 8: SWQMP Reviews (Recoverable)
D-Max staff will continue to provide stormwater reviews for building permit projects. The additional budget is the amount needed to fund the additional four months of work. This value is based on a combination of the expected remaining budget from the original contract and the average monthly charges to this task.

Task 9: Construction Stormwater Inspections (Recoverable) D-MAX staff will continue routine construction stormwater inspections through the end of the fiscal year. The amount of additional budget requested is based on the amount billed per month for the past several months. The actual amount to be spent will depend on the number and priority of active construction sites. Construction stormwater inspections are typically a recoverable cost that is charged to project proponents.

Task 10: Industrial and Commercial Inspections
D-MAX staff will update and prioritize the City’s stormwater inventory of industrial and commercial businesses based on business license data and last year’s inspection program results. We will then complete the required number of inspections (at least 20% of the inventory); this is expected to be similar to last fiscal year, when about 150 inspections were completed. We also will follow-up with responsible parties for sites that require corrections. DMAX has completed this same work for the last two fiscal years for the City of Santee. These inspections are required to be completed by June 30, 2022 to meet MS4 Permit requirements.

Other Tasks
Tasks for which no additional budget has been requested still have sufficient budget to cover work for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Cost Estimate
The original Agreement covered six months of work (September 2021 through February 2022).

The proposed amendment will cover an additional four months of work (March 2022 through June 2022). The additional budget requested for this amendment is $89,500. We will continue to provide the services detailed above on a time and materials basis in accordance with the fee schedule included in the Agreement. A detailed cost breakdown is provided in the table on the following page.

Mr. Carl Schmitz
February 15, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

Table 1. Original and Proposed Additional (Amendment) Budgets by Task Task Original Amendment
Non-Recoverable Costs
Task 1: Stormwater Meeting Support $5,400 $1,000
Task 2: Program Technical Support $14,400 $12,000
Task 3: Annual Reporting Support $12,000 $4,000
Task 4: Structural BMP Inspections $12,000 $12,000
Task 5: As-Needed Stormwater Plan Updates $8,000 $0
Task 6: TMDL Compliance Support $44,000 $5,000
Task 7: Building Permit Reviews $35,000 $15,500
Task 10: Industrial and Commercial Inspections $0 $20,000 Subtotal $130,800 $69,500
Recoverable Costs
Task 8: SWQMP Reviews $20,000 $5,000
Task 9: Construction Stormwater Inspections $76,000 $15,000 Subtotal $96,000 $20,000
Total $226,800 $89,500
Please feel free to call me at (619) 742-1055 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this proposal in more detail. We look forward to working with you on this project.

Sincerely,
D-MAX Engineering, Inc.

John Quenzer, MS, CPSWQ, QSD
Vice President

STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P2020-3), VARIANCE (V2020-2) AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (AEIS2020-2) TO PERMIT

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GASOLINE DISPENSING STATION WITH MINI-MART AND ACCESSORY CAR WASH LOCATED AT 9015 MISSION GORGE ROAD, IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONE (APN 383-121-64-00).

APPLICANT: ROYAL SHARE LLC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022
A Public Hearing Notice was published in the East County Californian on February 11, 2022 and six adjacent owners or residents of property within 300 feet of the request were notified by U.S. Mail on February 11, 2022.

Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 2 ends

A. SITUATION AND FACTS

1. Requested by ................................................. Royal Share LLC

2. Land Owner..................................................... Royal Share LLC

3. Type and Purpose of Request ......................... Conditional Use Permit for new gasoline station with mini-mart and accessory car wash;
Variance to reduce setbacks, distance between
buildings and minimum amount of required
parking

4. Location........................................................... 9015 Mission Gorge Road

5. Site Area ......................................................... 0.77 acres

6. Existing Zoning................................................ GC (General Commercial)

7. Height Limit of GC Zone .................................. 40 feet_________________________________

8. Proposed Height.............................................. 24’ – 6” (Mini-mart)

9. Surrounding Zoning ......................................... North: Public (PUB)_____________________ South: General Commercial (GC) __________
East: General Commercial (GC) __________
West: Transportation right-of-way _________

10. General Plan Designation................................ General Commercial (GC)

11. Existing Land Use............................................ Car Wash

12. Surrounding Land Use..................................... North: Mission Gorge Road_______________ South: Commercial uses
East: Commercial uses
West: Vegetated open space and SR-125

13. Terrain Relatively level site, 327 feet above mean sea_ level__________________________________

14. Environmental Status....................................... Mitigated Negative Declaration_____________

15. APN................................................................. 383-121-64-00

16. Within Airport Influence Area ........................... Yes, site is partially within Safety Zone 6.

However, all structures proposed are located
outside of Review Area 1 of the Gillespie Field
Airport Land Use Plan, and accordingly, no
determination of consistency from the Airport
Land Use Commission is required for the project.

Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 3 ends

B. BACKGROUND
Site Description – The 0.77-acre project site is developed with a car wash and accessory improvements such as paved parking areas, automobile detail canopy, trash enclosure and site lighting. The subject property fronts on the south side of Mission Gorge Road, east of SR-125 and west of Fanita Drive. The project site is adjacent to other commercial establishments to the south and east including a vacant building formerly occupied by Mary’s Donuts, the Qwik Korner gasoline station and Santee Car Wash at the corner of Mission Gorge Road and Fanita Drive. This area is zoned General Commercial, with R-7 zoned-property further south. The site was once Caltrans property, and the legal lot was created by a Caltrans Director’s Deed.

Project Description – The proposed project consists of an application for a Conditional Use Permit (P2020-3) to replace an existing full-service car wash with a new 2,488 squarefoot Arco mini-mart and gas station with a 3,576 square-foot fueling canopy. The mini-mart includes sales areas, walk-in cooler / freezer areas, cashier, office, utility room and restrooms. The fueling canopy provides shelter for six fuel dispensing stations with twelve fueling positions.

The existing one-story, full-service car wash would be altered to remove existing waiting and office areas and retain the car wash tunnel for use as an automated self-service wash.

A 12-foot-wide driveway will serve the automated car wash and would wrap around the mini-mart building for adequate queuing capacity. The existing vacuum and air-water unit located on the east end of the property will remain. The existing detail canopy along the Mission Gorge frontage will be removed, and the existing trash enclosure on the west end of the site will be demolished and replaced with a new 16’ x 10’ trash / recycle enclosure near the mini-mart.

The site is accessed from two driveways connected to Mission Gorge Road, located in the middle and east end of the site. Both driveways also serve as utility and ingress/egress easements providing legal access to abutting property to the south. Underground storage tanks serving the Arco gas Station are proposed along the southern property line between two access driveways.

C. ANALYSIS
This section discusses the General Plan consistency, requirements of the Santee Municipal Code, land use compatibility, traffic and access.

General Plan Consistency:

The Santee General Plan designates the subject property for General Commercial use.

This land use designation provides for commercial areas with a wide range of retail and service activities. The proposed gas station, mini-mart and accessory car wash is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation and goal of promoting development of a well-balanced and functional mix of uses in the City.

Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 4 ends

Santee Municipal Code – General Commercial Zone District The General Commercial zone permits automotive services such as gas stations subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The General Commercial zone also establishes development standards for building height and setbacks.

Building Height
The maximum height limitation in the General Commercial zone is 40 feet for primary buildings, and 16 feet for detached auxiliary structures in accordance with SMC Chapter

13.30. The mini-mart has a maximum height of 24’ - 6” to the top of the uppermost parapet and the fueling canopy is proposed to be 17 feet in height to the top of canopy (matching the height of the Costco fueling canopy). The auxiliary trash enclosure is 10’ - 6” in height at the uppermost portion of the roof. The project complies with height limitations.

Minimum setbacks
In terms of building setbacks, the proposed mini-mart, fueling canopy and trash enclosure comply with the minimum setback requirements.

In terms of parking setbacks, the Municipal Code requires a 10-foot front setback, 5-foot side setback, and 0-foot rear setback. Parking stalls in the northern portion of the property, such as stalls seven and eight, are proposed to encroach into the front setback area and are subject to Variance V2020-2. The encroachment into the front setback is not obvious due to ample landscape area along Mission Gorge Road.

In terms of landscape setback, the Municipal Code requires a 10-foot front setback, 5-foot side setback, and 0-foot rear setback. The front landscape setback does not comply because most of this area is devoted to parking or drive aisles. The drive aisle serving the car wash reduces the 5-foot west side setback to approximately 2 feet. Therefore, landscape setbacks are subject to Variance V2020-2.

Santee Municipal Code – Parking Regulations
There are 20 existing off-street parking stalls in two locations as shown on the topographic survey included in the Arco development plans. The applicant proposes to provide 20 parking stalls with the new layout, and is including the under-canopy area used for fuel dispensing.

Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 5 ends

Minimum required parking is calculated as follows:

Mini-mart 10 spaces
(2,488 square feet x 1/250 = 10)
Self-service car wash 2.5 spaces
Gas station 3 spaces
Minimum Required Parking 15.5 or 16 spaces total
Proposed parking stalls are shown in the following areas:

Mini-mart area 5 spaces
Between the existing driveways 2 spaces
East side of the property 1 space
Under the fueling canopy at each
dispenser location
12 spaces jointly used at dispensers
Total Parking Provided 20 spaces
The minimum required off-street parking is 16 spaces. The applicant proposes five spaces in front of the mini-mart, three on the north and east sides of the site and 12 fueling canopy spaces proposed as “dual use” spaces for fueling and for off-street parking for those who would also utilize the mini-mart (i.e. for cash payments). Without counting the fuel dispensing area, the project would not meet the requirement by 8 spaces. Therefore, offstreet parking is subject to Variance V2020-2 because the applicant proposes to count 12 fuel dispensing spaces as off-street parking.

Variance V2020-2
Variances provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity.

Variances may be processed in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit application and do not require a separate application or separate public hearing in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.06.040.B.3. Variance V2020-2 would:
• Reduce the 10-foot minimum building separation between the main building and the car wash to four feet.
• Reduce the minimum 10-foot parking setback along the front (street yard) to five feet. • Reduce the 10-foot landscape setback along the front property line (Mission Gorge Road) to zero along portions of the property frontage.
• Reduce the 5-foot landscape setback along the west side yard to approximately 2 feet along portions of the west property boundary.
• Reduce the amount of required off-street parking spaces from 16 spaces to eight spaces and permit 12 spaces as “dual use” fueling and off-street parking spaces where Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 6 ends

the fuel dispensers are located.

Findings in support of a Variance for the proposed project are included in the attached Resolution based on the following considerations:
• The strict enforcement of all development standards would create an unnecessary physical hardship because of the unusual triangular shape of the project site. The west side of the site has approximately 131 feet of lot depth while the eastern portion of the site tapers to zero with the convergence of the front and rear sides of the property. This configuration limits where structures and accessory elements such as parking can be located.
• Providing the 16 required off-street parking spaces would create an unnecessary physical hardship given the configuration of the site because it would limit the ability of the applicant to provide the three-function mini-mart, fuel dispensing, and accessory car wash services typically offered by full-service stations. The applicant proposes all three services within the limited site area by providing eight off-street spaces plus 12 “dual use” spaces intended for both dispensing and off-street parking, expecting that the majority of customers would not park for extended periods as they “grab and go” from the mini-mart or fuel-and-go from the fuel dispensing area. Counting the fuel dispensing spaces as off-street parking creates a total of 20 parking spaces available to serve the proposed uses.

Compatibility with Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses:

The proposed Arco Station is compatible with surrounding uses including Mission Gorge Road to the north, commercial uses to the south and east, and SR-125 to the west. The location of the gas station will not interfere with the functions of adjacent land uses because all adjacent uses have access to Mission Gorge Road either directly or using established access easements. The proposed gas station is compatible with surrounding uses in that it replaces an existing full-service car wash with new gas station services, including a selfservice car wash. The subject property is fully developed and contains no endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal or vegetation species.

Traffic and Access:

Two existing driveways provide access to the subject property. From eastbound Mission Gorge Road, the first driveway is 36-feet wide. The applicant proposes to modify the west side of the driveway apron by providing a radius (curve) to accommodate fueling truck movement into the property. A second driveway further east along the Mission Gorge Road frontage is 30’ – 3” wide, and will be widened to 36 feet as a project condition of approval.

The applicant proposes to modify the east side of the driveway apron by providing a radius (curve) to accommodate fueling truck movement exiting the property. Due to street medians within the Mission Gorge Road right-of-way, only right turns will be allowed when exiting the property. Utility, ingress and egress easements were recorded in 2000 Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 7 ends

providing utility and vehicle access from Mission Gorge Road to the adjoining property to the south. The driveway improvements will not interfere with the existing easements because they are located within the public right-of-way.

Regarding internal circulation, the project proposes a one-way drive aisle to provide direct access to the mini-mart on the north side of the fueling canopy, and a one-way exit driveaisle to the south of the fueling canopy. The southern one-way drive aisle would serve mini-mart patrons as well as the automated car wash.

At the exit of the existing car wash building, a left-turn only sign directs customers to turn left to avoid crossing into the neighboring property to the south. A recommended condition of approval requires this left-turn only sign with the redevelopment of the site.

A traffic impact analysis for the project was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan dated October 5, 2020 and an analysis on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was conducted.

Since the project is deemed a local serving business it was concluded that VMT impacts would be insignificant. Overall, the project results in 1,329 new average daily trips and all study intersections and roadway segments would operate at an acceptable level of service. By subtracting the traffic from existing uses, the project nets an additional 439 daily trips.

Noise:

Due to the location of the site in a commercial area along Mission Gorge Road, noise is considered a less than significant impact. Vehicular noise from roadways is the dominant source of ambient noise in the project area. Operational noise from the periodic use of the automated self-service car wash is considered a less than significant impact because the equipment is located inside the wash tunnel building.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The analysis indicated that there will not be significant adverse impacts on the environment with mitigation. Mitigated Negative Declaration AEIS2020-2 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120425) was prepared and advertised for public review starting December 17, 2021 for the requisite 30-day public review period, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are recommended for approval. All comments received have been reviewed and considered, and no substantial new information has been received that has not already been analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. No revisions made to the Draft MND in response to comments constitute substantial revisions as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. A full discussion of the environmental issues and response to comments is found in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Royal Share LLC Gasoline Station
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Page 8 ends

E. ESTIMATED FEES
Development of the proposed project will require the payment of Development Impact Fees estimated to be $51,343.89 for the Traffic fee, and $8,283.42 for the Traffic Signal fee, for a total of $59,627.31. Since the site is already developed, and no increase in impervious area is proposed, no Drainage impact fee is required.

F. PROJECT OPPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR HEARING CONTINUANCE The neighboring gas station to the east, owned by Lemon Grove Ultra Mart, LLC and represented by the law office of Julie Hamilton, opposes the Arco project. The Department of Development Services received a request for a hearing continuance from Ms. Hamilton on February 11, 2022, which was the same day that the East County Californian published the newspaper notice advertising the public hearing. It is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report and presentation, accept public testimony on the item, and consider continuing the hearing to a “date certain” time and date to avoid the expense of republishing a new hearing notice. As with any public hearing matter, the City Council may i) approve the application; ii) approve the application with staff-recommended conditions; iii) deny the application; or iv) continue the hearing.

G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct and close the public hearing; and

2. Consider granting the hearing continuance request; or

3. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (AEIS2020-2) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as complete and in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per the attached Resolution and authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination; and

4. Approve Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 and Variance V2020-2 per the attached Resolution.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (AEIS2020-2) AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GASOLINE DISPENSING STATION WITH MINI-MART AND ACCESSORY CAR WASH LOCATED AT 9015 MISSION

GORGE ROAD, IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONE
APPLICANT: ROYAL SHARE LLC
APN: 383-121-64
(RELATED CASE FILES: P2020-3, V2020-2)
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020 Royal Share LLC applied for Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 to allow a gasoline dispensing station with mini-mart and accessory car wash located at 9015 Mission Gorge Road, in the City of Santee, County of San Diego, State of California; and
WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project would not have significant impacts on the environment with mitigation incorporated, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared for the Project, and a Draft Initial Study/MND, State Clearinghouse No. 2021120425 (“MND”) was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services scheduled Conditional Use Permit (DR2020-3), Variance (V2020-2) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (AEIS2020-2) for a public hearing on February 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on Conditional Use Permit (DR2020-3), Variance (P2020-2) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (AEIS2020-2); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15072, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND was posted by the Clerk for the County of San Diego for the requisite 30-day public review period, and published in the East County Californian; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Draft MND was also submitted to the State Clearinghouse for state agency review and, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15073; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft MND, including any technical appendices, were available for review and inspection at City RESOLUTION NO.

Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Santee Branch of the San Diego County Library system at 9225 Carlton Hills Boulevard, #17; and
WHEREAS, one comment letter was received during the public review period, which did not raise any new environmental issues; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed all comments and prepared responses to each comment as reflected in the Final MND; and
WHEREAS, the Final MND consists of the Draft MND, comments and responses on the Draft MND, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and WHEREAS, the MND and the MMRP are attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” respectively; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, the City solicited Tribal input on the Project on May 6, 2021, and received feedback on August 24, 2021 from the Jamul Indian Village of California requesting cultural monitoring during any grading operations; 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 the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the MND, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, as well as feasible mitigation measures, have been adequately evaluated; 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 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 had heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the Initial Study, MND, and MMRP; and WHEREAS, the MND reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments submitted during the public review period, or made during the public hearing conducted by the City Council, and no additional information submitted to the City require substantial revisions to the MND necessitating recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5; and
RESOLUTION NO.

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 Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, comments received, other documents contained in the administrative record, and all other written and oral evidence presented to the City Council for the Project (collectively, the “Record”). The City Council further finds that the MND and the MMRP have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Based on the whole record before it, the City Council finds that the Project would have potentially significant impacts but that those impacts can be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures outlined in the MND and the MMRP. The City Council finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

No new significant environmental effects have been identified in the Final MND and no changes to the Final MND constitute substantial revisions requiring recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. All of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP have been made conditions of Project approval in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15074 (d).

SECTION 4. WILDLIFE RESOURCES. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c), all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a filing fee for each proposed project, as specified in subdivision 711.4(d) for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends unless a “no effect” finding is made by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This fee is due and payable as a condition precedent to the County Clerk’s filing of a Notice of Determination. The City of Santee hereby notifies the Applicant that in order to comply with State Law, 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 8 below) of this approval, a certified check payable to the "County Clerk, County of San Diego" in the amount of $2,598.00. This fee includes an authorized County administrative fee of $50. Failure to remit the required fee in full within the time specified above will result in notification to the State that a fee was required but not paid, and could result in State imposed penalties and recovery under the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In addition, Section 21089 (b) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 711.4 (c) of the Fish and Game Code, RESOLUTION NO.
provide that no project shall be operative, vested, or final until the required filing fee is paid.

SECTION 5. ADOPTION OF THE MND. The Final MND, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, is hereby approved and adopted.

SECTION 6. ADOPTION OF THE MMRP. The MMRP prepared for the Project, attached hereto as “Exhibit B”, is hereby approved and adopted.

SECTION 7. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the San Diego County Clerk within five (5) working days of approval of the Project and adoption of the Final MND.

SECTION 8. LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials associated with the Project and the MND 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 9. 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, CITY CLERK
Attachments: Exhibit A – Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Negative Declaration FORM “E”

EXHIBIT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1. Name or description of project: Arco Gas Station Project – Applications for a Conditional Use Permit (P2020-3) and Environmental Initial Study (AEIS2020-2) for the development of a new gas station and food mart project (project). The project involves the construction of a gas station with mini-mart, fuel pump canopy with gasoline dispensing islands, and accessory car wash that replaces an existing full-service car wash on a 0.77-acre property at 9015 Mission Gorge Road in the GC (General Commercial) Zone. The subject property is located on the south side of Mission Gorge Road, west of Fanita Drive and east of the SR-125 and is further identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number 383-121-64-00.

The proposed mini-mart building is 2,488 square feet in size and the 12- dispenser gas station canopy is 3,576 square feet in size. The existing fullservice car wash building (with business office and waiting room) is proposed to be reduced in size from 2,731 square feet to 1,598 square feet to retain only the wash tunnel for use as a self-service car wash. Vehicular access into the subject property would be provided from two driveways on Mission Gorge Road.

Variances from development standards are proposed regarding i) separation between buildings; ii) building, parking and landscape setbacks; and iii) number of parking stalls.

2. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably
a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical
map identified by quadrangle name):
9015 Mission Gorge Road; cross streets are State Route 125 to the west and Fanita Drive to the east.

3. Entity or Person undertaking project: Click to enter name A. Entity Royal Share LLC
(1) Name: Click to enter name.
(2) Address: Click to enter address
B. Other (Private) A&S Engineering, c/o Royal Share LLC (1) Name: A&S Engineering (phone: 661-250-9300), Attention: Ahmad Ghaderi (2) Address: A&S Engineering, 28405 Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA 91387
The Lead Agency, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project, having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public meeting of the Lead Agency, and having reviewed the recommendation of the Lead Agency’s Staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Lead Agency’s findings are asfollows:

The Project is compatible with the Santee General Plan in that the proposed gas station / food mart is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation and with the Land Use Element goal of promoting the development of commercial and other land uses. The Project site is physically suitable and has adequate infrastructure including water, sewer, and electricity to support the proposed type and intensity of development. The Project would be developed in accordable with the Sustainable Santee Plan and not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, nor frustrate the intent of state policy relative to greenhouse gas emissions.

All potentially significant environmental impact can be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to the environment.

Negative Declaration FORM “E”
The Lead Agency hereby finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study is attached.

The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Lead Agency based its decision to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration are as follows:

City of Santee, Development Services Dept
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Project Planner / Phone
No.:

Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner (619) 258-4100, ext. 182 Date Received
for Filing: February 23, 2022
Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner
F-1

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-1
A-1 The comment states that the project will result inincreased traffic congestion and requests preparation of a traffic study for the proposed project. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed project as part of the discretionary review process that is included as Appendix D of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), with the results summarized in Section XVII of the IS/MND. As identified in the IS/MND, no significant traffic impactswould result from implementation of the project The project-specific TIA concluded that intersections and roadway segments in the project vicinity would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the project as determined by the City’s established guidelines. Furthermore, the proposed driveways, turn radii, and internal circulation associated with the project site have been designed in accordance with City standards.

Off-site improvements are also proposed to Mission Gorge Road that would include improved ingress and egress turn lanes (corner curb line radius) to accommodate the proposed project and existingtraffic.

Therefore, there would be no significant impacts related to traffic design hazards or associated safety issues resulting from the project.

Traffic impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are now determined based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Auto delay, on its own, is no longer an environmental impact. However, the TIA goes above and beyond CEQA requirements by including a level of service (LOS) analysis for informational purposes. The comment also questions the ownership and use of the shared access driveways along F
-2

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-1
cont.

A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-1
cont. Mission Gorge Road that provide ingress/egress to both theproject site and the commentor’s property. As identified in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the IS/MND (page 3), there is an existing reciprocal joint-access agreement between the commentor and the owners of the project site.

Vehicles commonly use the driveway on the adjacent property for access to either property. Use of either driveway is allowable based on recordation of an off-site access easement that benefits both properties.

The proposed modifications to the project site revised entrance are intended to enhance access to both properties.

With regard to the claim that there was an error during the recordation of the ownership of the access driveway, the title reports show that a utility and ingress/egress easement is recorded per Caltrans document number 0185855 and Caltrans Right-of-Way Map 47544.2M. In addition, Caltrans was provided the opportunity to review the project site plans as part of the discretionary review process through the City. Caltrans’ October 27, 2021, response to the City did not raise the issue of ownership. Caltrans noted that as designed, the project does not conflict with the Caltrans right-of-way.

The comment also notes that the “Left-Turn Only” sign had been removed from the applicant’s property; however, please note that there is an existing “Left-Turn Only” sign on the property, which is installed on a light standard immediately west of the access drive into the site that directed vehicles toward Mission Gorge Road. Vehicles exiting the proposed car wash facility would continue to be restricted to left-turn movements out of the car wash and to exit the site via Mission Gorge Road, where turning movements would be restricted from the project site as right turn only onto Mission Gorge Road. Signage would be installed in the car wash area and is included in the project plans that were submitted as part of the project application.

A-2 The comment is in opposition of any variances proposed for theproject.

Variances from development standards are proposed regarding separation between buildings, landscape setbacks, and parking.

Specifically, the applicant is requesting variances to allow for (1) less than 10 feet between on-site structures; as proposed, there would be four feet of separation between the proposed convenience store and thecar F-3

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-2
cont. With regards to parking, the minimum number of requiredon-site spaces is 16 (10 spaces for the convenience store, three for the gas station,and

2.5 for the car wash). The project applicant proposes a total of 20 on-site spaces, which includes five spaces in front of the convenience store, three spaces adjacent to Mission Gorge Road, and 12 spaces at the fuel islands. The IS/MND is clarified to identify that the fuel island spaces are considered as part of the on-site parking requirement (see Section 1.0, Introduction, page 1, and Table 1, Existing and Proposed Facilities). These spaces would accommodate both gas and convenience store customers, in that those purchasing fuel and also goods at the convenience store would remain parked at the fuel islands (as opposed to moving their vehicle to one of the other parking spaces). Thus, there would be adequate on-site parking for the proposed project.

The comment also states that customers of the proposed project would park on the adjacent property because there would not be adequate onsite parking. As discussed above, a total of 20 on-site parking spaces would be provided. Consequently, there would be no demand for project customers to use off-site parking on adjacent properties, with no anticipated need to monitor and enforce unauthorized off-site parking.

This comment does not affect the analysis completed or conclusions in the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

A-3 The comment states that no access restrictions to the adjacent business or use of the adjacent property for construction activities will be granted.

As discussed in response A-1, the project would not impact existing access to your property. In fact, the project proposes access improvements that would be beneficial to both properties. With regard to construction activities, the project would not include the staging or storing of materials or equipment on adjacent properties. Equipment and materials may be delivered to the site using the existing shared driveway; however, this would not occur on a routine basis and as a condition of approval no construction equipment or materials would be stored in this location. In the event that equipment uses the shared drive to access the project site, the equipment would move through the drive to a location that is solely on the project site to maintain the access that isalso F-4

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-3
cont. granted through the recorded easement (per Caltransdocument number 0185855 and Caltrans Right-of-Way Map 47544.2M) to the properties to the south of the project site. Additionally, the project would apply for a one-time encroachment permit from the City of Santee for the delivery and installation of the fuel tanks if use of the public right-of-way is required. It is the preference of the project applicant to park the cranes along the project frontage that would perform this work along the south side of Mission Gorge Road for approximately three to fourhours.

However, in the event that the City does not issue an encroachment permit, the cranes could operate solely onsite to deliver and install the fuel tanks without operating on adjacent properties.

This comment does not affect the analysis completed or conclusions in the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

A-4 The comment states that the project requires a special permit and specialized construction and reports due to its location next to a waterway and also inquires whether a project-specific geotechnical evaluation was conducted. It is acknowledged that the project site is adjacent to a drainage to the San Diego River immediately west of the project site. This drainage is located on land owned by Caltrans. As identified in Section 1.0, Introduction, of the IS/MND (see page 2), no disturbances or improvements would occur within the drainage area due to the proposed project. Thus, no regulatory permits for impacts to the drainage are required.

A preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for Foundation Design (Geotechnical Investigation) was prepared for the proposed project, as well as a third-party review of the Geotechnical Investigation, which are included as Appendix E to the Final IS/MND. These reports were inadvertently omitted from the Draft IS/MND but have been incorporated into the Final IS/MND (refer to Section VII). According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the surface and subsurface soils are adequate to support the proposed project. The Geotechnical Investigation and third-party review contain recommendations that are designed to meet the criteria set forth in the California Building Code (CBC), which is adopted into the Santee Municipal Code as F-5

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-4
cont. Chapter 11.20.010. Accordingly, these recommendations arerequired by the CBC and have been incorporated into the projectdesign.

A-5 The comment states that the site may contain contaminated soil and requires preparation of soil and/or groundwater management plans. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix B to the IS/MND. As discussed in Section IX of the IS/MND, the Phase I ESA noted the potential for residual soil and groundwater contamination below the eastern portion of the project site near the proposed underground fuel storage tanks. In 2018, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)provided a closure letter addressing the potential contamination and recommended that land use changes be evaluated to determine if the changes pose an unacceptable risk to human health, and that any contaminated soil encountered or excavated as part of future subsurface construction be managed in accordance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. As identified in Section IX of the IS/MND, the project would implement the following mitigation measure to reduce impacts to less than significant.

HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Soils Management Plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Appropriate engineering controls shallbe incorporated into the improvement plans, as may be required by DEH and RWQCB. Evacuation, management, and disposal of impacted soils shall be managed as approved/required by DEH, RWQCB, and local, state, and federalrequirements.

The comment also requests information about soil removal. As discussed in Section I of the Final IS/MND, approximately 350 cubic yards of soil would be removed to prepare an 18-foot-deep hole to install the two underground fuel storage tanks. Removed soil would be rebalanced onsite unless the soil is determined to be contaminated, in which case it would be disposed of at an approved landfill facility.

This comment does not affect the analysis completed or conclusions in the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

F
-6

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-6
cont.

A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-6 The comment expresses concern about the location ofthe proposed utility lines and access restrictions to the adjacent business. There is an existing storm drain that runs underneath the access driveways that would be protected in place. Additionally, proposed fire water and water lines would extend under the project site and access driveways to connect with existing lines in Mission Gorge Road. The placement and design of utilities are subject to a variety of regulations and the City’s Engineering Department reviews all utility plans for consistency with the CBC (encoded as Section 11.20.010 of the Santee Municipal Code). In particular, the CBC contains regulations specific to the depth, location, and design of pipelines and utilities to avoid situations such as rupture as described in the comment. Additionally, the location of utilities, especially water and fire lines, are also subject to the standards of the Padre Dam Municipal Water District and the Fire Department; both agencies confirm access for emergency response and pressure flow. The Padre Dam Municipal Water District has submitted as part of their Conditions of Approval that the existing six-inch sewer servicing the adjacent properties shall be relocated away from the fueling facilities at the applicant’s expense and that all sewer services shall be located outside of the driveways. It may occur that during construction one of the two drives would be temporarily closed to allow for the installation of utility infrastructure. At no time would both drives be restricted, and access would remain to the properties to the south from FanitaDrive.

Fuel and delivery trucks would use the two driveways for the proposed project to access the project site. However, fuel and delivery trucks would not idle at this location; they would ingress and continue to traverse the project site and then egress onto Mission Gorge Road. There may be times when other customers using the shared drives could experience an ingress/egress delay if they are located behind a delivery vehicle; however, these delays would not be a typical or regular experience. While it cannot be guaranteed, it is typical of deliveries to occur during non-peak hours so as to not impede access for customers or disrupt business operations.

This comment does not affect the analysis completed or conclusions in the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

F-7

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-7 The comment asks about project facilities proposed in the area just north of the former Mary’s Donuts building and states that there are existing utilities located in this area that serve both the project site and the adjacent site. It is acknowledged that these existing utilities, including a subsurface storm drain pipeline and above-ground electrical transformer boxes, serve both properties. As shown in Figure 1, Site Plan, of the IS/MND, this portion of the project site (north of the Mary’s Donuts building and between the two access driveways) would include two landscaped areas, a portion of the on-site access road, and underground fuel tanks. The landscaped areas would contain a variety of ornamental vegetation within a linear swathe along the southern site boundary and a larger landscaped area along the Mission Gorge Road frontage. The access road would be paved and would also include two parallel parking spaces in this area. The fuel tanks would be installed under the access road immediately north of the linear landscaped swathe. These proposed improvements would not impact the existing storm drain pipeline in this area or the above-ground electrical transformers. The storm drain facility within this area would be protected in place, and the transformers would be located within the linear landscaped swathe (refer to IS/MND Figure 1). In addition to the existing storm drain being protected in place, a series of project-related catch basins and a biofiltration system as well as other storm drain infrastructure would be installed to adequately handle storm water runoff from the project site. The project would not result in storm water impacts and would not interfere with the municipal system that serves the project site and surroundingproperties.

This comment does not affect the analysis completed or conclusions in the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

A-8 The comment states there is not enough land area within the project site to construct the proposed project and expresses concern over disruptions to the adjacent business during the construction period. As part of the conditions of approval, the project shall maintain unobstructed access to adjacent business to the south and east of the subject property shall be maintained at all times during and after construction.

F-8

COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-8
Cont. The City prepared an IS/MND as part of the reviewprocess. Construction of the project can be accommodated on the project site. As noted, on Response to Comments A-3 and A-7, the project can be constructed without interfering with the adjacent property owners. The largest piece of equipment, the cranes required for the installation of the tanks would either be placed on Mission Gorge Road or on the project site. It is understood that there is a shared drive and at times, delivery trucks may use this drive to provide services to the project. However, this is consistent with existing business operations and does not pose a unique circumstance that would hinder the use of the adjacent property. At no time would access be denied to the adjacent property as a result of project-related deliveries or other activities. Additionally, as noted in Response A-1, there is an existing, “Left-Turn Only” sign affixed to a permanent light standard at the point of access to the property to the south that is visible to drivers as they exist the car wash. This would remain as part of the proposed project and is identified on the Preliminary Grading Plan.

Comment noted with regard to the statement about past disputes among the property owners. However, this comment does not identify any environmental issues or concerns relative to the CEQA, nor does it address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.

A-9 The commenter speculates regarding future compliance with project conditions of approval. This comment does not identify any environmental issues or concerns relative to CEQA, nor does it address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft IS/MND.

No further response isrequired.

A-10 The comment is a closing statement about retaining legal counsel to address the right-of-way and access easement issues raised in the comment letter. It also requests responses to the concerns discussed in the comment letter. Comment noted regarding legal counsel. Responses are provided above in responses A-1 through A-9 that address the concerns relative to environmental issues pursuant toCEQA.

Santee Arco Station Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
February 2022 | 04779.00001.001
Prepared for:

Royal Share LLC
9312 Mission Gorge Road
Santee, CA 92071
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Section Page
FOREWORD ......................................................................................................................................iii

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Information Sheet....................................... 1

1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected....................................................................... 5

1.3 Determination..................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist...................................................................................... 7 I. Aesthetics............................................................................................................................ 8 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 11 III. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 12 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 17 V. Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 19 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 21 VII. Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................. 22 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 26 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................... 28 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 33 XI. Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................... 37 XII. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 38 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 39 XIV. Population and Housing.................................................................................................... 42 XV. Public Services................................................................................................................... 42 XVI. Recreation......................................................................................................................... 43 XVII. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 44 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 46 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 48 XX. Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 50 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................. 51

3.0 References...........................................................................................................................54

4.0 Preparers.............................................................................................................................56 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Outputs and Sustainable Santee Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
C Hydrology Reports
D Transportation Impact Analysis
E Geotechnical Reports
F Responses to Comments
G Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Site Plan............................................................................................................................................ 2 2 Regional Location............................................................................................................................. 4 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 4

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Existing and Proposed Facilities....................................................................................................... 1 2 Construction Activities by Phase...................................................................................................... 3 3 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions........................................................................................ 14 4 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ......................................................................................... 15 iii

FOREWORD
A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Santee Arco Station Project (project) was prepared and circulated for a 30‐day public review beginning December 17, 2021 and ending on January 18, 2022 (SCH No. 2021120425). Written comments received on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period, responses to the comments, and revisions to the Draft IS/MND have been incorporated into this Final IS/MND.

This Final IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA guidelines. The purpose of the Final IS/MND is to provide the decision‐making body, in this case the City of Santee (City), public and quasi‐public agencies and groups, and the general public environmental impact information relative to the proposed project.

The City will consider the information contained in this Final IS/MND prior to approving the project.

The Final IS/MND includes the Draft IS/MND with minor revisions, Technical Appendices, and copies of the public letter commenting on the Draft IS/MND and the City’s responses thereto. Each public comment is assigned a comment number that corresponds to a response number. A single comment letter was received during public review of the Draft IS/MND regarding the potential impacts associated with parking, setbacks, construction, utility locations, and circulation of the proposed project. This comment letter and the City’s responses are included in Appendix F of this Final IS/MND.

No new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). Specifically, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the project or from new mitigation measures proposed for implementation. The Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment. More specifically, clarifications have been made to Section 1.0, Introduction, Section VII, Geology and Soils, response to item I c) and response to item XI b). Further, Appendix E, Geotechnical Reports, was inadvertently omitted from the Draft IS/MND and is included as an appendix to the Final IS/MND with the appropriate references included in Section 3.0, References. The addition of new information that clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications does not require recirculation as there are no new significant impacts and no new mitigation identified. An environmental document need only be recirculated when there is the identification of new significant environmental impacts or the addition of a new mitigation measure required to avoid a significant environmental impact. The text modifications within the Final IS/MND do not affect the environmental analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND are reflected in a strikeout/underline format.

The Final IS/MND also includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, appended to this document as Appendix G.
iv
This page intentionally left blank
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INFORMATION SHEET

1. Project Title: Santee Arco Station

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santee
10601 North Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner 619‐258‐4100 Ext. 182

4. Project Location: 9015 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, CA92071

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Ghazwan Kalasho/Royal Share LLC 9312 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, CA 92071

6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (GC)

7. Zoning: General Commercial (GC)

8. Description of Project
The proposed Santee Arco Station Project (project) involves the redevelopment of a former full‐service car wash into a self‐service car wash with a food mart building and gas station canopy. As shown in Table 1, Existing and Proposed Facilities, the project would involve the demolition of about 1,200 square feet (sf) of the office and waiting room portions of the existing car wash structure and the construction of a 2,488‐sf convenience store, referred to as the food mart building, a 3,576‐sf gas station canopy area with 12 fuel pumps, and the conversion of an existing full‐service car wash building into a self‐service car wash comprising about 1,531 sf. The proposed food mart building would be a single‐story structure with a building height of 24.5 feet. Other proposed site improvements include installation of utility connections, landscaping along the site perimeter, underground fuel storage tanks for fuel storage, a trash enclosure, 2320 parking spaces, which includes 12 fuel island parking spaces, and two bicycle parking spaces. The project would be accessed via the two existing drives that would be modified to be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.

Table 1

EXISTING AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
1 This includes the existing 18 spaces for an additional 5 spaces12 fuel island parking spaces Land Use Existing Proposed
Office/Waiting Room 1,200 sf 0
Convenience Store 0 2,488 sf
Car Wash 1,531 sf 1,531 sf
Gas Station Canopy 0 3,576 sf
Automobile Parking Spaces 18 23201
Bicycle Parking Spaces 0 2
Fuel Station 0 12
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 As shown on Figure 1, Site Plan, the proposed layout would include a food mart building in the western portion of the site with a 12‐foot car wash driveway circling around the western edge of the building.

The converted car wash building would remain near the southern property line south of the food mart building. Gas islands and pumps would be located near the center of the project site, west of the existing driveways. Three underground fuel storage tanks would be installed at a depth of 18 feet in the southeastern portion of the site.1 A reinforced concrete curb planter would be constructed around the proposed car wash driveway. Off‐site improvements would be limited to landscape and sidewalk enhancements along the frontage of Mission Gorge Road. No disturbances or improvements would occur within the drainage area west of the project site owned by Caltrans.

Permits associated with the project primarily include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for automotive services in a General Commercial (GC) zone in accordance with City Municipal Code section

13.12.030.B.10. A Grading Permit from the City would also be required and would involve concurrent review of a precise grading and landscape plan. A Demolition Permit and Sign Permit from the City would also be required to demolish the office and waiting room portions of the existing building and to allow new signage, respectively. Lastly, the applicant is requesting variances to allow for (1) less than 10 feet between on‐site structures; as proposed, there would be four feet of separation between the proposed convenience store and the car wash; (2) a landscape setback along the Mission Gorge Road project frontage to accommodate parking (three stalls encroach into the 10‐foot setback) and the 5‐foot setback on the western edge of the property that abuts the Caltrans property to allow for the drive lane for the car wash; and (3) use of fuel island parking spaces to count toward on‐site parking requirements.

Project grading and construction would occur over three phases over an approximately eight‐month period and is anticipated to begin as early as January 2022 and end in August 2022 Due to the relatively flat nature of the site and its location adjacent to existing development, grading operations would be minimal. Approximately 350 cubic yards of soil would be removed to prepare an 18‐foot‐deep hole to install the two underground fuel storage tanks. Removed soil would be rebalanced on‐site unless the soil is determined to be contaminated, in which case it would be disposed of at an approved landfill facility.2 Construction equipment and conceptual construction phasing information is provided in Table 2, Construction Activities by Phase. Archaeological construction monitoring would be conducted during ground disturbing activities. Once construction is completed, the project site would operate as a commercial gas station with a food mart and self‐service car wash. The gas station and food mart would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and daily and operation of the car wash would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
1 The project includes three tanks: a 25,000‐gallon tank, 10,000‐gallon tanks, and a 12,000‐gallon diesel tank. 2 The air quality modeling included a conservative analysis assuming an export of 350 cubic yards of soil (22 round trip haul truck trips).

I:\PROJECTS\R\RoyalShare_04779\RSL-01_Santee_Arco\Map\IS\Fig1_SitePlan.indd 04779.1.1 12/06/21 -RK Santee Arco Station

NEW MISSION ROAD
S
S
D
T
D
Source: A&S Engineering 2021
Site Plan
Figure 1
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 Table 2

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BY PHASE
Phase Start Finish Duration
(months) Activities
1 – Site Prep,
Demolition, and
Grading
January 2022 February 2022 2 Prepare site for construction; demolish existing office and waiting room (about
1,200 sf); perform remedial grading;
prepare an 18‐foot‐deep hole for three fuel
storage tanks.
2 – Building, Site
Construction,
Landscaping
March 2022 July 2022 5 Construct food mart (2,488 sf); gas station canopy area (3,576 sf); convert full‐service
car wash to self‐service; install site
landscaping, including off‐site
improvements to Mission Gorge Road
frontage.
3 – Paving and
Architectural
Coating
August 2022 August 2022 1 Complete paving and painting of buildings; clean site and remove construction debris.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project is located on approximately 0.77 acre at 9015 Mission Gorge Road in the western portion of the City of Santee (City) in San Diego County (see Figure 2, Regional Location). Regional access is provided via State Route (SR) 52 and SR 125, which intersect just south and west of the project site.

Vehicle access into the project site is provided at two driveways along Mission Gorge Road (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). South of the western portion of the project site are various structures (including uninhabited pre‐fabricated homes and storage trailers) and vehicles stored on bare ground, just northof SR 52. Forrester Creek and the San Diego River occur north of Mission Gorge Road, opposite the project site. A drainage to the San Diego River also occurs immediately west of the project site and drains beneath Mission Gorge Road. This drainage is owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Areas south of the eastern portion of the project site include a vacant building, gas station, and commercial development that are accessible via a driveway along Mission Gorge Road near the intersection with Fanita Drive. There is an existing reciprocal joint‐access agreement between the owners of the project site and adjacent gas station property. Vehicles commonly use the adjacent property through a recorded off‐site access easement for project site access and vice versa. Areas east of the project site, beyond the adjacent gas station property, include Fanita Drive, followed by commercial development including a car dealership, convenience stores, and fast‐foodrestaurants.

The project site consists of a flat triangular lot located between SR 125 and Fanita Drive south of Mission Gorge Road that is completely developed. Existing development includes a vacant full‐service car wash, office, and waiting room comprising 2,731 sf in the southwestern part of the property. The project site is almost entirely paved with asphalt and the existing building includes a single‐story structure 15.7 feet in height with 20 parking stalls. A landscaped area between the project site and Mission Gorge Road exists along the northern property line and includes a concrete sidewalk and landscaping with a pedestrian connection into the parking lot.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• State Water Resources Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit)
• California Board of Equalization (Underground Storage Tank [UST]Registration) • San Diego Air Quality Management District (Authority to Construct; Permit toOperate) • San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (Permit to Operate, UST Monitoring Plan, UST Leak Response Plan, California Environmental ReportingSystem) • San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB; Dewatering Permit)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality,etc.? In accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City sent notifications to four Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. Notification letters were sent to: Barona Band of Mission Indians, Jamul Tribe, Kumeyaay Tribe, and Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians. The Jamul Indian Village Tribe of the Kumeyaay Nation (Jamul Tribe) responded on August 24, 2021, noting the project site is not within the boundaries of the Jamul Indian Reservation. However, the project site is within the boundaries of the tribe’s traditional use area. Therefore, the tribe recommended the presence of a qualified Kumeyaay cultural monitor during ground disturbing activities given the proximity to known cultural resources.

Santee Arco Station
Figure 2
!"^$
I:\PROJECTS\R\RSL\RSL-01_Santee_Arco\Map\IS\Fig2_Regional.mxd RSL-01 11/9/2020 -RK !
ORANGE
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY

CAMP PENDLETON

FALLBROOK
!"a$ ?¹
?³!
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
¹? WARNER

SPRINGS
!"^$ OCEANSIDE
!
VISTA
?¸ SAN
MARCOS !
WÌ
Lake Wohlford

ESCONDIDO
Lake Henshaw

CARLSBAD

ENCINITAS
Lake
San Marcos !"a$ ?¸
Lake
Sutherland
Reservoir
?¸ JULIAN
SOLANA
BEACH
ÌW Hodges
!
Lake Poway
POWAY
Lake Ramona ?¦RAMONA
Pacific
DEL MAR ?t ! WÊ
Miramar Reservoir
Santee ?¦ SANTEE
San Vicente
Reservoir
El Capitan Reservoir
Ocean %&s(
LA
Lakes
n?
Lake
Jennings !"_$ ?¹
JOLLA!"^$
Ag !"a$ !"_$ Lake
Murray

EL CAJON
Aä
Project Site ALPINE !
Loveland Reservoir
SAN
DIEGO

CORONADO

LA MESA
LEMON
GROVE
?p
Sweetwater Barrett Lake

NATIONAL
CITY Reservoir ?Ë

IMPERIAL
BEACH
CHULA VISTA Aä
&s(%
OTAY
%&u(
Otay
Reservoir DULZURA

TIJUANA
0 8 MilesK !
Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
Regional Location
?Ë
!
?p
Santee Arco Station
Figure 3
I:\PROJECTS\R\RSL\RSL-01_Santee_Arco\Map\IS\Fig3_Aerial.mxd RSL-01 11/9/2020 -RK Project Site
?n
äA
0 200 FeetK Source: Aerial (Esri 2017)
Aerial Photograph
r Cree
Fanita
Dr
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.  Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources X Cultural Resources  Energy
X Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water
Quality
 Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources
 Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation X Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service
Systems
 Wildfire X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 1.3 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION will be prepared.
 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT isrequired.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyzeonly the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

December 17, 2021
Date
Chris Jacobs Principal Planner, City of Santee
Printed Name Title
Signature
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
The lead agency has defined the column headings in the environmental checklist as follows:

A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR isrequired.

B. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the inclusion of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross‐referenced.

C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact thatexceeds a stated significance threshold.

D. “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis).

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 I. Aesthetics
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
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 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 publicly accessible vantage point). Ifthe 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 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
   
   
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas in the City are identified in the General Plan Community Enhancement Element, which describes several areas within and adjacent to the City that provide scenic relief and vistas and backdrops, including views of “scenic undisturbed hills and ridgelines” that surround the City, open space areas, and scenic views of the San Diego River corridor along Mission Gorge Road (City 2003). No designated scenic vistas are located on the project site. The Community Enhancement Element identifies Mission Gorge Road as a local scenic road and contains Mission Gorge Road Design Standards that establish specific design standards for properties along the Mission Gorge Road corridor. These design standards pertain to architectural theme of commercial buildings, signage, access, and landscaping, and are intended to improve the appearance and enhance the viability of commercial properties within the Mission Gorge Road corridor.

The proposed project would be consistent with applicable design standards. Specifically, Design Standard 1 calls for new and remodeled commercial buildings west of Carlton Hills Boulevard to be designed with an Old Western, Turn‐of‐the‐Century, Alpine, or other distinctive theme exclusive of Mediterranean. Consistent with this standard, the proposed buildings would include colors, materials, and building forms characteristic of the noted architectural themes. Design Standards 2 and 3 pertain to signage and requires City review of project signage for consistency with signage regulations and compatibility with the surrounding area. Project approval would require City review and approval of proposed signage. Design Standard 4 pertains to the consolidation of entrance points and shared access points. The project site contains an existing shared access with the adjacent property that would remain upon project construction. Design Standard 5 calls for themed street trees along Mission Gorge Road, and the project would include street trees along the Mission Gorge frontage. Design Standard 6 requires a landscaped buffer and meandering sidewalks along Mission Gorge Road. A landscape buffer and Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 meandering sidewalk already exist along the project frontage of the roadway, and these elements would be improved during project construction. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Mission Gorge Road Design Standards and would not adversely impact this designated local scenic road.

In addition, the Community Enhancement Element identifies the San Diego River corridor and its tributaries as important scenic resources. Forester Creek, a tributary, is located to the north across Mission Gorge Road, and the San Diego River is located further north of the project site. Views of mature trees within the San Diego River corridor are currently visible from the project site, and public vantage points that include surrounding local roadways and SR 52. The proposed project would not substantially change views of these trees within the river corridor because the proposed convenience store building and car wash would be located in a similar location as the existing on‐site structures and the canopy would allow views to be maintained across the site from public vantage points. Further, the existing structure is 23 feet, and the proposed new structure would be 24.5 feet, the additional height would not create a substantial new obstruction; views of the trees and the corridor across the central and eastern portion of the site toward the river corridor would be maintained. Therefore, project implementation would not significantly impact a scenic vista because currently there is intervening development between the corridor and public vantage points and the project would be redeveloped with similar uses at a comparable scale. Thereby, the existing views of the corridor would continue to be maintained like present conditions. Impacts would be less thansignificant.

Consequently, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Impact. There are no designated state scenic highways in the project area. A portion of SR 52 is an officially designated state scenic highway due to the available scenic views towards Mission Trails Regional Park, which includes the Mission Trails Summit and Cowles Mountain.

About 3.5 miles of SR 52 within the City of San Diego is designated as a state scenic highway between Mast Boulevard and Santo Road, which is approximately two miles west of the project site (Caltrans 2019). The entirety of SR 52 is identified as eligible for designation as a state scenic highway between Interstate (I‐) 5 and SR 67 but has not been officially designated. The proposed project would not be visible from the designated portion of SR 52 due to the project’s low‐lying elevation, distance from the scenic segment, and the intervening topography. Furthermore, the project site is not situated between SR 52 and Mission Trails Regional Park and does not contain any trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or other scenic resources. Redevelopment of the project site would be visible from the eligible portion of SR 52, just south of the site; however, the project would not be highly noticeable from the nearby segments of SR 52 as it would generally appear similar to existing conditions with enhanced landscaping. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant. c) In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of publicviews of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenicquality? Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, the project site is in an urbanized area that is surrounded by commercial land uses, including a gas station and vacant commercial building to the east, and major transportation facilities including Mission Gorge Road, SR 52 and SR 125. The project site itself formerly supported a full‐service car wash. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of the former full‐service car wash into a self‐service car wash with a food mart building and gas station canopy.

The project site is zoned for General Commercial (GC) and the proposed uses would be consistent with this designation. The project would also comply with the site development criteriaheight limitations of the GC zone such as height limitations and setbacks as designated in Municipal Code Section 13.12.040.

In addition, the project would be consistent with the General Plan Community Enhancement Element’s Scenic Policies 6.1 and 6.2, which ensure that all new commercial developments contribute towards an overall positive and cohesive visual identity in the City and encourage the rehabilitation of underutilized commercial sites (City 2003). Therefore, the proposed uses are consistent with the GC zone and would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a developed area with existing light sources.

The proposed project would include exterior lighting for the fuel canopy station, parking lot, and car wash. Due to the use of the site as a gas station, it is anticipated lighting would be used 24 hours a day.

Light spillover and glare are regulated by Section 13.30.030(B) of the Santee Municipal Code, which states that all lighting shall be designed and adjusted to reflect light away from any road or street, and away from any adjoining premises. The proposed project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code and is in a developed area with existing nighttime lighting sources from the adjacent roadways and surrounding commercial development. As noted on Figure 1, the project would include energy efficient lighting that would potentially reduce the need for the existing yard lighting, and project lighting would be shielded to confine light spread to within the project site. In addition, the project area currently has lighting sources in operation for 24 hours a day because of the presence of freestanding streetlights, light fixtures on buildings, traffic signals, and vehicle headlights. South of the western portion of the project site are uninhabited pre‐fabricated homes, storage trailers, and vehicles stored on bare ground, just north of SR 52. However, the introduction of new light sources would not increase the intensity of lighting in the area given the current conditions and the distance between these structures and the project’s lighting sources. Therefore, although the project would introduce new sources of light, since the sources are of a similar nature to the surrounding land uses and the project would adhere to the applicable regulations, impacts related to lighting would be less than significant.

With regard to glare, the proposed buildings would include primarily stucco and composite facades.

Such architectural elements are not sources of glare. Glass would be limited to windows and doors on the food mart building, typical of small‐scale commercial retail construction and no other highly reflective surfaces would be provided. The extent and surface area of glass on the food mart building would not be at a scale to generate adverse glare effects. As such, glare impacts would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:
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 timberlandzoned
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 inconversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non‐ forest use?
   
   
   
   
   
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 ofthe California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?
No Impact. According to mapping available from the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder (California Department of Conservation 2016) the project site is mapped within an area defined as “Urban and Built‐Up Land,” and does not support agricultural uses. The project site does not contain lands mapped by the California Department of Conservation as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016).

Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Actcontract? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in area that is under Williamson Act contract. The project site has a land use designation of General Commercial (CG), is zoned CG, and does not support agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
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))? No Impact. The project area is not zoned as forest land or timberland, and no related impacts would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forestuse? No Impact. The proposed project is not within or near forest land. Accordingly, project construction and operation would not convert forest land to non‐forest use, and no impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
No Impact. The project site does not support agricultural or forestry uses, and implementation of the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

III. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
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 non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambientair 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 ofpeople)?
   
   
   
   
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 Information below is based in part on the findings of the Air Quality and GHG Model Run Outputs (HELIX 2021), included in Appendix A of this IS/MND.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable airquality plan? No Impact. The proposed project is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Air quality in the SDAB is regulated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAPCD is the government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the County of San Diego (County).

Currently, the SDAB has a “non‐attainment” status for criteria pollutants ozone (O3), 10‐micrometer or less particulate matter (PM10), and 2.5‐micrometer or less particulate matter (PM2.5). The SDAPCD has prepared an Attainment Plan for San Diego County (Attainment Plan), the applicable air quality plan, to provide control measures to achieve attainment status for these criteria pollutants. The AttainmentPlan relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including mobile and area source emissions and information regarding projecting growth in the County, to project future emissions and then determine strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and the County. Projects that propose development that are consistent with the growth anticipated by the City’s General Plan are therefore consistent with the Attainment Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of General Commercial (GC) and, therefore, would be consistent with the Attainment Plan. Moreover, the proposed project does not include growth‐generating components, such as residential uses supporting expanded population growth. The proposed project would serve the existing population in the City. As such, no impact would occur.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard? Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of six specific pollutants identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the general public (i.e., criterial pollutants). These pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, and lead.

Construction Emissions
Air pollutants would be generated by the proposed project during construction activities. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant and dust emissions generated primarily from construction equipment exhaust, earth disturbance/excavation, and construction worker vehicle trips. Construction emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) emissions inventory model. Detailed construction emissions assumptions and CalEEMod inputs and outputs are provided in Appendix A.

Table 3, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, provides a summary of the daily construction emission estimates. The maximum daily emissions are provided for each individual construction activity, as well as a total amount of emissions that assumes all construction activities would overlap concurrently.

Screening thresholds established by the SDAPCD have been used based on SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3 Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources to determine significance for air emissions impacts. According to Rules 20.2 and 20.3, if these incremental levels are exceeded, an AQIA must be conducted to demonstrate that the project would not cause or contribute to Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 a violation of an air quality standard. For CEQA purposes, these screening‐level thresholds can be used to demonstrate that a project’s emissions would not result in a significant impact to air quality. Because the AQIA thresholds do not address reactive organic gases (ROG), the screening‐level for ROG used in this analysis is from the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance. For PM2.5, the USEPA’s “Final Clean Air Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards” recommends a significance threshold of 10 tons per year, which equates to 55 pounds per day. The screening level thresholds are included in Table 3.

Table 3

MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Phase ROG1 NOX
1 CO1 SO21 1
PM10 PM2.51
Demolition 0.71 6.41 7.47 0.01 0.46 0.34
Site Preparation 0.58 6.93 3.96 <0.01 0.79 0.29
and Grading 0.71 6.41 7.47 0.01 1.16 0.74
Building, Site Construction, and
Landscaping

0.69 7.02 7.15 0.01 0.37 0.34
Paving 0.37 5.92 7.03 0.01 0.30 0.27
Architectural Coating 5.72 1.41 1.81 <0.01 0.08 0.08
Maximum Daily Emissions2 5.72 7.09 7.80 0.01 0.83 0.55
SDAPCD Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) 2 Maximum daily emissions of ROG occur during the architectural coating phase; maximum daily emissions of NOX and SO2 occur during building construction activities; and maximum daily emissions of CO, PM10, and PM2.5 occur during grading activities.

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter As shown in Table 3, emissions of criteria pollutants related to project construction would be below SDAPCD screening level thresholds. Therefore, direct impacts from criteria pollutants generated during construction would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Operational sources of emissions include area, energy, and transportation sources. Operational emissions from area sources include the use of consumer products, engine emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from repainting of buildings.

Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with project‐related vehicle trip generation and trip length. Project generated trips were estimated by the project specific Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Operational impacts were estimated using CalEEMod. CalEEMod default vehicle speeds, trip purpose, and distance were used. Operational emission calculations and model outputs are provided in Appendix A. Table 4, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, presents the summary of operational emissions for the project.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 Table 4

MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Category ROG1 1
NOX CO1 1SO2
1 PM10
1 PM2.5
Area 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 0.7 0.51 4.4 <0.01 0.50 0.14
Total Daily Emissions 0.8 0.51 4.4 <0.01 0.50 0.14
SDAPCD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter As shown in Table 4, emissions of criteria pollutants related to project operation would be below SDAPCD screening level thresholds. Therefore, direct impacts from criteria pollutants generated during operation would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Period Toxic Air Contaminants
There are no sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, an existing gas station is currently in operation immediately to the east of the project site. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction would be related to diesel particulate matter associated with heavy equipment operations during earth‐moving activities. Due to the short‐ term nature of construction activities, over the course of approximately eight months, diesel‐related cancer risks from construction equipment would not be an issue. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature. The assessment of cancer risk is typically based on a 30‐year exposure period. Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 30‐year exposure period, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed persons. As such, project‐related TAC emission impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operation Period Toxic Air Contaminants
The new fuel facility would require authority to construct (ATC) and permit to operate (PTO) approval from the SDAPCD, which will review the facility design and location for compliance with SDAPCD standards for criteria pollutants and air quality. All tanks and dispensers would be equipped with the latest Phase I and Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) air pollution control equipment technology per CARB regulations and associated Executive Orders. The Phase I EVR equipment controls the vapors in the return path from the tanks back to the tanker truck during offloading filling operations. Phase I EVR systems are 98 percent effective in controlling fugitive emissions from escaping into the environment. The Phase II EVR equipment, which also includes “in‐station diagnostics,” controls and monitors the vapors in the return path from the vehicles back to the tanks. Phase II EVR systems are 95 percent effective in controlling fugitive emissions from escaping into the environment. Therefore, the Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 operations expected to occur at the proposed fueling and maintenance facility would not emit toxic chemicals in any significant quantity. While there would be other toxic substances, such as cleaning agents in use on site, compliance with State and federal handling regulations would ensure that emissions remain below a level of significance. The use of such substances such as cleaning agents is regulated by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments as well as California‐adopted regulations for the chemical composition of consumer products. As such, project‐related TAC emission impacts during operation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Operation Period CO Hotspots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. If a project increases average delay at signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F or causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project to operate at LOS E or F with the project, a quantitative screening is required. With the project, existing roadways would continue to operate at LOS D or better and would therefore not have the potential to cause a CO hotspot (Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers [LLG]; 2021). As such, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would generate some temporary, intermittent odors such as diesel emissions and asphalt paving. While the project type could generate nuisance odors, there are no sensitive receptors in the project area and the project would not introduce a land use typically associated with objectionable odors. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations. The proposed project would not include these uses. The fueling station would emit odors during operation in the form of exhaust emissions from vehicles and operation of the fueling pumps. The increase in odor emission, however, would be minimal as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the area due to its proximity to Mission Gorge Road.

Additionally, solid waste generated by the proposed on‐site uses would be collected by a contracted waste hauler, and any odors resulting from on‐site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the proliferation of odors. Operational odor impacts would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 IV. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 othermeans?
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 nurserysites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
   
   
   
   
   
   
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService? No Impact. The City participates in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program and is in the process of preparing a MSCP Subarea Plan. As depicted in the 2006 Draft Subarea Plan, the project site is located within an area designated as “Developed” and not within a preserve area. The project site is developed and entirely paved with the exception of parking lot ornamental plantings near Mission Gorge Road. No sensitive habitat occurs within the project site that could support special status species. While a natural area that provides drainage to the San Diego River is located west of the project site, no disturbances or improvements would occur within the drainage area. The proposed project would, therefore, not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 local or regional plans or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is developed and almost entirely paved. No sensitive habitat occurs within the project site. A drainage that supports riparian habitat is located adjacent to the western site boundary; however, the proposed project would not develop or impact this area. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in any local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur.
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?
No Impact. The project site is developed and almost entirely paved. No wetlands are present on the project site. A drainage is located adjacent to the western site boundary; however, the proposed project would not develop or require staging areas immediately adjacent to this area or result in indirect impacts associated with hydrological interruption. Therefore, implementation of the project would not adversely affect state or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur. 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?
No Impact. The project site is not identified as a wildlife corridor within the City’s General Plan Conservation Element and does not function as a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery due to its developed condition. There are no trees or existing landscaping on‐site. Therefore, the proposed project would not 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. No impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy orordinance?
No impact. As noted above, the project site does not contain sensitive or protected biological resources.

The City participates in the San Diego MSCP under the NCCP program and is in the process of preparing a MSCP Subarea Plan. As depicted in the 2006 Draft Subarea Plan, the project site is located within an area designated as “Developed” and not within a preserve area. The project therefore would not conflict with the Draft Subarea Plan in terms of biological resources protection. The project also would not conflict with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance 421) because there are no trees present on the site. There are no other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that would be applicable to the project site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact wouldoccur.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? No impact. As described above in Item IV.e, the City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; therefore, the 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. As such, no impact would occur.

V. Cultural Resources
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
outside of formal cemeteries?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to§15064.5? No Impact. HELIX conducted a review of existing California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records filed at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) for the project area and vicinity and no historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the project site. The existing on‐site structures were constructed circa 2006; given their age, they are not considered potential historic resources. As no historical resources occur within or adjacent to the project site, no impacts to historical resources would occur.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In accordance with AB 52, the City contacted Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area.

Formal consultation letters were sent to the tribes on May 6, 2021. Four tribes were notified, including the Barona Band of Mission Indians, Jamul Tribe, Kumeyaay Tribe, and Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians. The Jamul Tribe responded on August 24, 2021, noting the project site is not within the boundaries of the Jamul Indian Reservation. However, the project site is within the boundaries of the tribe’s traditional use area. Therefore, the tribe recommended the presence of a qualified Kumeyaay cultural monitor during ground‐disturbing activities given the proximity to known cultural resources.

In May 2021, HELIX contacted the SCIC to conduct a records search within a one‐quarter mile radius of the project site. The records search conducted for the project did not identify archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the project site. However, two recorded archaeological resources are located within a quarter mile of the project site: a prehistoric artifact scatter (CA‐SDI‐10148) and Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of     c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred     Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 bedrock milling features (CA‐SDI‐5053) located east of the project site near the San Diego River. Given the developed nature of the site, the previously disturbed underlying on‐site soils, and the absence of known resources on the project site and surrounding areas, it is anticipated that no unknown archaeological resources would be encountered during project construction. In the unlikely event of accidental discovery, implementation of CUL‐1 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
CUL‐1 Archaeological Resources. The following procedures shall be undertaken during ground‐ disturbing activities:
• A Qualified Archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and a Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall be present during ground‐disturbing activity for project construction, includingbut not limited to site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation, for the duration of the proposed project or until the Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native American monitor determines monitoring is no longer necessary.
• Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Applicant and/or Contractor shall provide a written and signed letter to the Project Planner, stating that a Qualified Archaeologist and a Kumeyaay Native American Monitor have been retained at the Applicant or Owner and/or Contractor's expense to implement the monitoring program. A copy of the letter shall be included in the Grading Plan Submittals for the Grading Permit. • The requirement for cultural resource mitigation monitoring shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including demolition plans, grading plans,etc. • The Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native American Monitor shall attendall applicable pre‐construction meetings with the Contractor and/or associated Subcontractors.
• The Qualified Archaeologist shall maintain ongoing collaborative consultation with the Kumeyaay Native American monitor during all ground disturbing or altering activities,as identified above.
• The Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall preparedaily logs and submit weekly updates to the Project Planner at the City of Santee regarding the activities observed.
• The Qualified Archaeologist and/or Kumeyaay Native American monitor may halt ground disturbing activities if previously unidentified prehistoric or historic archaeological materials or potential human remains are discovered, ground disturbing activities shall be directed away from these deposits for a short time to allow a determination of potential significance. Ground disturbing activities shall not resume until the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Kumeyaay Native American monitor, deems the cultural resource or feature has been appropriately treated and/or protected.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 • The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and significant cultural resources and/or unique archaeological resources is the preferable mitigation for the proposed project. If avoidance is not feasible a Data Recovery Plan may be authorized by the City as the Lead Agency under CEQA. If data recovery is required, then the Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall be notified and consulted in drafting and finalizing any such recovery plan.
• At the completion of monitoring, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resources Monitoring Report to document the findings during the monitoring effort for the proposed project. The report shall include the monitoring logs completed for the proposed project and shall document any discoveries made during monitoring. The Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City of Santee and the South Coastal Information Center.

With implementation of CUL‐1, impacts in relation to the disturbance of unknown archaeological resources would be less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicatedcemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The presence of cultural resources, including human remains, is not anticipated to occur on site due to the developed nature of the project site and lack of known burial sites. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during project construction, the County Coroner would be contacted in accordance with State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, would be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

VI. Energy
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact 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?
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction oroperation? Less Than Significant Impact. Energy used for construction would primarily consist of fuels in the form of diesel and gasoline for the operation of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles.

While construction activities would consume petroleum‐based fuels, consumption of such resources Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. The petroleum consumed during project construction would be typical of similar construction projects and would not require the use of new petroleum resources beyond what are typically consumed inCalifornia.

Operation of the proposed project would not require extensions of energy infrastructure and no new energy supplies beyond existing facilities would be required. Operational energy consumption includes natural gas used for space and water heating. Electricity would also be used for car wash operations, space and water heating, as well as lighting and space cooling. Vehicles traveling to and from the site will use transportation fuels such as gasoline and diesel. The project would be required to meet the mandatory energy standards of CALGreen and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR) and would benefit from the efficiencies associated with these regulations as they relate to ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, and lighting. Compliance with California energy efficiency regulations on new construction ensures that the buildings would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy sources. Based on these considerations, construction andoperation of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energyefficiency? No Impact. The project would be built and operated in accordance with existing, applicable regulations, which include, but are not limited to, the California Green Building Standards Code, CARB regulations, and the Sustainable Santee Action Plan (City 2019). This plan aims to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by 40 percent below its 2005 levels by 2030. Construction equipment and operation equipment would be maintained to allow for continuous energy‐efficient operations. Additionally, the project would incorporate energy‐efficient features into the proposed buildings in compliance with these regulations, as described above in Item VI.a. The project would therefore not conflict with any state or local plan for energy efficiency, and no impacts would occur.

VII. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
   
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure,including
liquefaction?    
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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‐Bof the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
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?
   
   
   
   
The information below is based in part on the findings of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Foundation Design Proposed Service Station 9015 Mission Gorge Road Santee, CA (Geo Environ 2020) and the Geotechnical Third Party Review Arco Station (TM 2020‐01 APN 383‐121‐64) 9015 Mission Gorge Road Santee, California (GeoCon Incorporated 2021), included in Appendix E of this IS/MND. 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 onother substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Less Than Significant Impact. No active, potentially active, or inactive faults occur within the project site and the site does not lie within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (California Department of Conservation 2015). The closest known active fault is the Newport‐Inglewood–Rose Canyon fault zone located off‐shore approximately 15 miles west of the site (California Department of Conservation 2015).

Therefore, fault rupture on‐site is unlikely, and impacts would be less thansignificant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the seismically active southern California region. An earthquake along the Newport‐Inglewood‐Rose Canyon Fault could result in severe ground shaking at the project site. Near‐Source Shaking Zones have been mapped by the County where velocity effects need to be considered in the design of buildings within a specified distance of an active fault. The proposed project is approximately 15 miles from the closest Near‐Source Shaking Zone, which occurs along the Newport‐Inglewood–Rose Canyon fault zone west of the project site (County 2007).

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 Engineering and construction of the proposed project would be required to be in conformance with the International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code (IBC, formerly the Uniform Building Code; 2006) and related California Building Code (CBC; California Building Standards Commission 2010), and other applicable standards. Conformance with standard engineering practices and seismic design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant levels. iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the temporary loss of cohesion in saturated, granular soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a “quicksand” type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. The project site is located in an area identified as having potential for liquefaction hazards (County 2007). Building standards requiring specific bedding and fill materials would protect the project structures from potential liquefaction‐related effects. Based on these considerations, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are characterized by level terrain. The project site is identified as being in an area that is “Marginally Susceptible” for landslides on the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazards Map in the General Plan Safety Element. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in long‐term, operational impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil as the site would be paved and would not contain a substantial amount of exposed soil. In addition, although the project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site by 1,186 sf, the project’s net increase in off‐site runoff compared to existing conditions would be minimal due to the installation of bioretention basins (Waber Consultants, Inc. [Waber] 2020a). Potential short‐term erosion and sedimentation impacts from grading and construction activities would be addressed through compliance with applicable regulations as specified by the RWQCB, including compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the adoption and implementation of an Erosion Control Plan (ECP). Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction would minimize or avoid impacts to short‐term erosion and sedimentation from construction activities. BMPs may include the use of gravel bag barriers, silt fences, street sweeping, solid waste management, water conservation practices, and spill prevention and control. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed and has been engineered to support the existing development. Underlying soils and formations would similarly support the proposed facilities.

According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element Geotechnical/Seismic Hazards Map, the project site is located in an area identified as having moderate to high potential for liquefaction hazards and Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 marginally susceptible for landslides. Building standards requiring specific bedding and fill materials would protect the project structures from potential effects related to unstable soils. Based on these considerations, impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant. 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 orproperty? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on General Plan Safety Element Geotechnical/Seismic Hazards Map, the project site is located in an area identified as having variable soil expansion conditions. As described above, the proposed project would adhere to standard engineering practices contained within the IBC and CBC to reduce hazards related to expansive soils. Impacts would less than significant. 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 ofwastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to the existing sewer infrastructure within Mission Gorge Road. No impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is underlain with alluvial valley floodplain deposits. Based on its relatively young age and high‐energy depositional history, younger alluvium is considered unlikely to produce unique fossil remains and is assigned a low paleontological resource sensitivity (County 2007). However, in the event of an inadvertent discovery, the project would implement a paleontological monitoring program, as detailed below in mitigation measures GEO‐1.

Mitigation Measure
GEO‐1 Paleontological Resources. Prior to construction, a paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP) shall be prepared. It shall provide a description of a paleontological resources to inform construction personnel of the potential for fossil discoveries and of the types of fossils that may be encountered; detailed procedures for monitoring, fossil recovery, laboratory analysis, and museum curation; and notification procedures in the event of a fossil discovery by a paleontological monitor or other project personnel. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during the construction phase of the project, a curation agreement from an accredited museum repository shall be obtained.

With implementation of mitigation measure GEO‐1, impacts would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directlyor 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?
Information below is based in part on the findings of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Run Outputs and Sustainable Santee Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist, included as Appendix A of this IS/MND (HELIX 2021; Royal Share 2020). a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and certain hydro‐fluorocarbons. These gases, known as GHGs, allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth’s temperature.

Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed “global warming,” the trend of warming of the Earth’s climate from anthropogenic activities. Global climate change impacts are by nature cumulative; direct impacts cannot be evaluated because the impacts themselves are global rather than localized impacts.

California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds:

CO2, CH4, N2O, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. As individual GHGs have varying heat‐trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure.3 The most common GHGs related to the project are those primarily related to energy usage: CO2, CH4, and N2O.
3 The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions, and its global warming potential. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. For instance, CH4 has a global warming potential of 21, meaning that 1 gram of CH4 traps the same amount of heat as 21 grams of CO2. N2O has a global warming potential of 310.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 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 Executive Order (EO) S‐3‐05, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, EO B‐30‐15, and Senate Bill (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 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 Checklist includes a two‐step process to determine if a project would result in a GHG impact. Step 1 consists of an evaluation to determine the project’s consistency with existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site. Step 2 consists of an evaluation of the project’s design features compliance with the Sustainable Santee Plan’s GHG emission reduction measures.

A Checklist was completed for the proposed project by the project sponsor and submitted to the City as part of their application submittal in October 2020. Under Step 1 of the Checklist, the project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site. The project site has a land use and zoning designation of General Commercial (GC). The project would involve the construction of a car wash, food mart, and gas station, which are consistent with the GC land use and zoning designation. Therefore, the project is consistent with the land use assumptions used in the Sustainable Santee Plan.

Furthermore, completion of Step 2 of the Checklist demonstrates that the project would be consistent with applicable strategies and actions for reducing GHG emissions. This includes project features consistent with strategies related to energy efficiency and energy demand, non‐motorized transportation, solid waste reduction, and clean energy. The project would incorporate California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures, which include a suite of options that allow an applicant to select a combination of measures. Specific measures include designated parking for clean vehicles, outdoor lighting standards, reduction of potable water use, more stringent recycling protocols, and low emitting heating and cooling units. The specific Tier 2 Voluntary Measures would be determined prior to project approval and included in the project as conditions of project approval. The measures are discussed in the Sustainable Santee Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (City 2019; Appendix A).

Additionally, during construction as noted in the Checklist, the applicant would prepare a solidwaste diversion plan that outlines the measures that will be undertaken to reduce construction waste by 75 percent and once operational, the project would include rooftop solar photovoltaicpanels.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 Based on the project’s consistency with the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan demonstrated in the Checklist, the project’s contribution of GHGs to cumulative statewide emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the project would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Item VIII.a, the 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. The project is a development within the jurisdiction of the City of Santee. GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the project would be included in the City’s GHG inventory. Therefore, the GHG reduction targets and control measures contained in the Sustainable Santee Plan are applicable to the project. The Sustainable Santee Plan is discussed in detail in Checklist Item VIII.a. As demonstrated in the Checklist, the project would implement all applicable GHG reduction measures related to energy efficiency, solid waste, and clean energy required by the City’s Sustainable Santee Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (City 2019; Appendix A). As discussed under response to Item VIII.a, the project would include California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures that would be incorporated as a conditions of project approval as well as prepare a solid waste diversion plan and install rooftop solar panels. Therefore, the 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.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardousmaterials?
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 proposedschool?
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?
   
   
   
   
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact 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 interferewith an adopted emergency response plan oremergency    
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directlyor indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or deathinvolving     wildland fires?
Information below is based in part on the findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the proposed project by Allied Geotechnical Engineers, Inc (Allied 2020; Appendix B). a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Materials and waste are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, explode, or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous material” is defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25501[o]) as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment. Hazardous waste is defined as any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded, or recycled, as defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25125). The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the potential releases of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through many state and federal laws.

During the project construction period, hazardous substances used to maintain and operate construction equipment (such as fuel, lubricants, adhesives, and solvents) would be present. The use of these materials could potentially result in significant impacts through accidental discharge associated with use and storage of hazardous materials. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and/or wastes would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would require conformance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, as described in Item VII, Geology and Soils. Specifically, this would entail implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)to address the use of hazardous materials and the potential discharge of contaminants including construction‐related hazardous wastes through the installation of appropriate BMPs. While specific BMPs would be determined during the SWPPP process, the suite of BMPs would include standard industry measures and guidelines contained in the NPDES Construction Permit text and Stormwater Best Management Practices Construction Handbook (California Stormwater Quality Association [CASQA] 2019). Based on implementation of appropriate BMPs, hazardous material impacts related to construction activities would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 Operation of the proposed facilities would involve the routine use and storage of hazardous materials, which includes storage of gasoline in the project’s underground fuel storage tanks, as well as delivery of gasoline and subsequent refilling of the tanks. Gasoline is considered a hazardous waste, and therefore the installation and operation of underground fuel storage tanks are regulated by a variety of state and local agencies.

The USEPA has designed technical regulations for underground storage tanks to prevent releases from the tanks, last updated in 2015 (USEPA 2015). In addition, California’s Underground Storage Tank Act is contained in Chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code and Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. The program was developed to ensure that the facilities meet regulatory requirements for design, monitoring, maintenance, and emergency response in operating or owning underground storage tanks. This act requires an underground storage tank monitoring and response program. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Hazardous Materials Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Diego County responsible for enforcing the Underground Storage Tank Act. As the CUPA, the DEH is required to regulate hazardous materials business plans and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk management plans.

For project approval by DEH for the use of underground fuel storage tanks, the project would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBEP). The HMBEP is required to contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of onsite. The plan also contains an emergency response plan which describes the procedures for mitigating a hazardous release, procedures, and equipment for minimizing the potential damage of a hazardous materials release, and provisions for immediate notification of the DEH and other emergency response personnel such as the local fire agency having jurisdiction. Implementation of the emergency response plan facilitates rapid response in the event of an accidental spill or release, thereby reducing potential adverse impacts. As a result, impacts would be less than significant via compliance with regulatory requirements and oversight.
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 theenvironment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Below is a discussion of both construction and operational impacts.

Construction
During the temporary, short‐term construction period, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of these hazardous materials. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures to avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment.

The Phase I ESA noted the potential for residual soil and groundwater contamination below the eastern portion of the project site near the proposed underground fuel storage tanks (Case ID Nos. B3 through B9; Allied 2020). In 2018, the RWQCB provided a closure letter addressing the potential contamination associated with the direction of groundwater flow from the adjacent gas station property. The letter Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 recommended that land use changes be evaluated to determine if the changes pose an unacceptable risk to human health, and that any contaminated soil encountered or excavated as part of future subsurface construction/utility work be managed in accordance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. The ESA recommended the preparation of a Soil Management Plan to direct the proper use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) by construction workers if potentially contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction. To reduce impacts to less than significant, the following mitigation measure is required:

Mitigation Measure
HAZ‐1 Soil Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Soils Management Plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Appropriate engineering controls shall be incorporated into the improvement plans, as may be required by DEH and RWQCB. Evacuation, management, and disposal of impacted soils shall be managed as approved/required by DEH, RWQCB, and local, state, and federal requirements.

With implementation of HAZ‐1, the project would have less than significant impacts in relation to hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction.

Operation
As discussed under response to Item IX.a, the project would involve the routine use and storage of hazardous materials, which includes storage of gasoline in the project’s underground fuel storage tanks, as well as delivery of gasoline and subsequent refilling of the tanks. Gasoline is considered a hazardous waste, and therefore the installation and operation of underground fuel storage tanks are regulated bya variety of state and local agencies. However, these activities are regulated at the local, state, and federal level. In addition to the preparation of an emergency response plan as discussed above, the DEH is required to conduct ongoing routine inspections to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations, to identify safety hazards that could cause or contribute to an accidental spill or release, and to suggest preventative measures to minimize the risk of a spill or release of hazardous substances.

Impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with regulatory requirements. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The nearest school to the project site is PRIDE Academy, which is located greater than

0.25 mile from the project site at a distance of 0.5 mile to the southeast. Therefore, no impact would occur.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) requirements, the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2020) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2020) were searched for hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 site is not listed on a hazardous materials database and there are no active cleanup sites mapped in the vicinity of the project site. Specifically, according to the SWRCB GeoTracker database, there are fourteen sites within 0.5 mile of the project site; however, all of these sites have a closed case status. According to the Phase I ESA, groundwater flow from these sites is directed toward the project site (Allied 2020).

There are a total of nine cases within 0.5 mile of the project site pertaining to properties contaminated with hazardous substances that are under review by the San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) program. Many of these cases involved leaking underground storage tanks, one of which is the adjacent gas station to the east at the Ron’s Self‐Serve Gas and Dairy/Qwik Corner, however, none of the nine cases are currently open. The Phase I ESA noted a closed environmental investigation to remediate contamination from the leaking underground storage tank at the adjacent property. With the exception of the nearby gas station, none of the other cases could affect the proposed project.

The Ron’s Self‐Serve Gas and Dairy/Qwik Corner site was granted closure by the California RWQCB in 2018. The closure letter stipulated that land use changes may require reevaluation to determine if the changes pose an unacceptable risk to human health, and that any contaminated soil encountered or excavated as part of future subsurface construction/utility work must be managed in accordance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. As identified above in Item IX.b, the project would incorporate mitigation measure HAZ‐1 With implementation of HAZ‐1, impacts would be less than significant.
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 projectarea? No Impact. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for Gillespie Field Airport, which is located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site. However, the project would not conflict with airport operations or height restrictions due to the limited height of proposed buildings. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined the project would have no impact on aircraft safety or operation. The FAA issued a “No Hazard” determination for the proposed project in December2020.

Furthermore, as noted in response to Item XIII.c, the project site is not located in any of the noise contours associated with Gillespie Field and thus, people on the project site would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels. Therefore, no impacts would occur. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project site does not contain emergency facilities. Construction activities could temporarily block portions (e.g., up to one lane at a time) of Mission Gorge Road. However, the City requires that the contractor prepare and implement a traffic control plan which would include measures to minimize effects related to lane closures. The project would include two driveways that would accommodate access of emergency vehicles. In addition, a fire hydrant is located along Mission Gorge Road for fire‐related issues. Upon completion of construction, emergency access to surrounding areas would not be affected by the project. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as a state responsibility area, nor is it classified as or located near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2020). The project site is surrounded by existing development except for a drainage area to the west (and Forrester Creek and the San Diego River north of Mission Gorge Road) and is not located adjacent to undeveloped land or open space containing wildlands susceptible to wildfires. According to the VHFHSZ maps prepared by CAL FIRE, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 0.3 miles west of the project near the Carlton Oaks Country Club.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
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?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
   
   
   
   
   
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk releaseof pollutants due to projectinundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
   
   
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 The information below is based in part on the Preliminary Hydrology Report and Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed project included as Appendix C of this IS/MND (Waber 2020a; 2020b).
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwisesubstantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would entail demolition, paving, building construction, utility installation, and landscaping installation, which could potentially result in water quality pollutants including silt, debris, chemicals, paint, and other solvents. The project would be required to implement an ECP and is also considered a Priority Development Project (PDP), which means that the project involves new or substantial redevelopment and that additional technical documentation related to stormwater is required. Because the project is a PDP, a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) has been prepared (Waber 2020b). The ECP includes construction BMPs and the PDP SWQMP includes post‐construction BMPs in compliance with the City and SDRWQCB regulations such as source control, bioretention basins, and hydromodification designs. Implementation of these BMPs under the ECP and PDP SWQMP would preclude any potential violations of applicable standards and discharge violations. Therefore, the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of thebasin? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require the use of, or otherwise substantially interfere with, groundwater supplies or recharge compared to existing conditions. The project would not involve any long‐term use of groundwater and would obtain its water supply from the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, which obtains its water from surface reservoirs and imported sources. Due to the net increase in on‐site impervious surfaces (1,186 sf), the area available for groundwater recharge would decrease. However, the project would result in a minimal change to groundwater recharge and the runoff would be conveyed to the proposed catch basins. Groundwater is anticipated to be encountered at depths of 10‐15 feet according to the project’s Percolation Report (Waber 2020a). Groundwater could be encountered during construction of the underground fuel storage tanks. Therefore, the project could require the issuance of a Dewatering Permit for the temporary and localized dewatering activities that would occur during construction. The project would comply with applicable groundwater regulations and BMPs. As a result, impacts associated with groundwater would be less than significant.
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, ina manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the impervious surface area at the site. However, according to the Preliminary Hydrology Report, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern at the site (Waber 2020a; Appendix C). Runoff would continue to flow northwesterly to the existing storm drain system along Mission Gorge Road, but the project would include construction of two biofiltration basins to capture Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 project runoff. Additionally, as stated above in Item X.a, an ECP is required to address construction BMPs and PDP SWQMP has been prepared to establish post‐construction BMPs in compliance with the City and RWQCB regulations. Through implementation of the BMPs outlined in the ECP and PDP SWQMP, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. Impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would resultin flooding on‐ or off‐site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would redevelop the existing developed site with additional facilities that would increase the area of impervious surfaces, and thus increase the rate and amount of runoff. The existing on‐site impervious surfaces total 26,487 sf (Waber 2020a). Upon project completion, the total on‐site impervious surfaces would increase to 27,673 sf, resulting in a 1,186‐sf net increase from existing conditions. This increase in runoff would be accommodated by the stormwater control project design features. As stated above in Item X.a, a PDP SWQMP has been prepared for the project, and an ECP would be prepared. The PDP SWQMP would be implemented for the proposed project, which would establish BMPs to minimize impacts to existing drainage patterns of the area such that a substantial increase in the rate or volume of surface runoff and resultant flooding would not occur. The proposed biofiltration basins would decrease surface runoff rates such that flooding on or off site would not occur. Therefore, associated impacts would be less than significant. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of pollutedrunoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above in Item X.a, both an ECP and a PDP SWQMP would be implemented for the proposed project. Each would establish BMPs that would minimize impacts to existing drainage patterns of the area such that site runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff.

Additionally, as discussed in Item X.c.ii, project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse change in the existing drainage pattern at the site, and the net increase in runoff volumes would be accommodated by the proposed biofiltration basins. As such, the project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center (FEMA 2020), the project site is not mapped within a special flood hazard area or floodplains. The site is not within a mapped floodplain and thus, drainage alteration would not affect any flood flows. Although the project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces at the site, project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse change in the existing drainage pattern at the site, and the net increase in runoff volumes would be accommodated by the proposed biofiltration basins. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, orseiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in Item X.c.iv, the project site is not mapped within a special flood hazard area or floodplain (FEMA 2020) and thus would not subject to flood conditions.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 Furthermore, the project site is located approximately 15 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and thus, the project site would not be subject to inundation by tsunami. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area where seismically induced seiches are considered a potential hazard. The nearest enclosed body of water is Santee Lakes, located approximately one mile north of the project site.

Impacts related to floods, tsunamis, or seiches would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin and the regulatory boundaries of the RWQCB. The RWQCB is responsible for the adoption and implementation of water quality control plans, issuance of discharge permits, and performs other functions in relation to regulating the region’s water quality. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (RWQCB 2016) identifies the project site as within the Santee hydrologic subarea (HSA) of the Lower San Diego hydrologic area of the San Diego hydrologic unit (907.12). Downstream receiving waters listed as impaired on the Section 303(d) List include Forester Creek (for fecal coliform, pH, selenium, and total dissolved solids) and the Lower San Diego River (for enterococcus, fecal coliform, low dissolved oxygen, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and toxicity). Runoff from the project site would be collected by the on‐site storm drain system and biofiltration basins, treated in accordance with the water quality regulations, and then discharged into the existing storm drain system along Mission Gorge Road that ultimately discharges into Forester Creek and the San Diego River. The proposed project would be required to comply with all storm water quality standards during construction and operation. Conformance with the Basin Plan water quality objectives would be demonstrated through compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of construction and post‐construction BMPs. Thus, the project would be consistent with the BasinPlan.

In relation to sustainable groundwater management, the project site is located within the larger San Diego River Valley Basin that is comprised of four contiguous sub‐basins. The San Diego River Valley Basin has multiple users, is not adjudicated, and currently does not have an overall groundwater basin management plan. To comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program, in 2015, several local jurisdictions and water agencies formed a cooperative to monitor groundwater. Currently the San Diego River Valley Basin is not exhibiting signs of overdraft or being at risk of overdraft. The project would not directly involve groundwater use; however, groundwater may be encountered during excavation for the proposed underground fuel storage tanks. As such, de‐watering could be required during construction and could entail a Dewatering Permit from the RWQCB, which include the appropriate measures to safeguard against adverse impacts to groundwater recharge. Moreover, these activities would be temporary.Thus, impacts are less than significant in relation to this issue. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 XI. Land Use and Planning
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
a) Physically divide an establishedcommunity?
No Impact. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a self‐serve car wash, gas station, and convenience store on an existing developed lot in an urban area. The project site has a General Plan and zoning designation of General Commercial (CG) and is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses, which include commercial uses to the east. The project does not propose construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would physically divide any portion of the community. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur.
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of General Commercial (GC). The proposed project would redevelop a former full‐service car wash into a self‐service car wash with a food mart building and gas station canopy, which is consistent with the current land use designation and the zoning designation for the site. The City General Plan and Municipal Code (Section 13.12.030) permit convenience markets within the General Commercial land use designation and zone. Therefore, the proposed food mart convenience store would be an allowable use under the GC land use and zoning designation. The project would also comply with the site development criteria such height limitations and setbacks as designated in Municipal Code Section

13.12.040. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the operation of the proposed car wash and gas station and variances for the parking and setbacks. These variances would allow for the 12 fuel island parking spaces to serve a dual use as patrons who are pumping gas and also want to visit the convenience store as patrons would leave their vehicles parked at the fuel island.

Additionally, the applicant would apply for a project variance for this as well as the landscape setbacks to allow for the car wash drive aisle along the western perimeter adjacent to the Caltrans right‐of‐way and for parking stalls on the northern frontage along Mission Gorge Road. The project is consistent with the surrounding land uses, such as the adjacent gas station and commercial developments including a car dealership, convenience stores, and fast‐food restaurants. The variances proposed are not in relation to any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for purposes of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect.

Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?    
b) Cause significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for     Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 The City participates in the San Diego MSCP under the NCCP program and is in the process of preparing a MSCP Subarea Plan. As depicted in the 2006 Draft Subarea Plan, the project site is located within an area designated as “Developed” and not within a preserve area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.

XII. Mineral Resources
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a knownmineral 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?
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?
No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 required the classification of land into mineral resource zones (MRZ), according to known or inferred mineral resource potential. The process was based solely on geology, without regard to existing land use or land ownership. The proposed project site is located in an area designated as MRZ‐2, which includes areas where the potential for mining deposits exists (California Department of Conservation 2015). According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, areas within the City that contain valuable mineral resources are located along the floodplain of the San Diego River and on the surrounding hills underlain by granite. The project site is not located within these areas. Moreover, no existing or planned future mining operations occur on‐ site and site is not zoned for such uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed 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 impacts would occur.
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 useplan? No Impact. As described in Item XII.a, the project site is not zoned for mining operations and no existing or planned mining operations occur on‐site or in the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts would occur.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 XIII. Noise
Would the project result in:
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 groundborne vibration or
groundborne 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 project area to excessive noise levels?
   
   
   
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a developed area that includes commercial and industrial uses, as well as major transportation facilities (Mission Gorge Road, SR 125, and SR 52).

Vehicular noise along the freeways and roadways is the dominant source of ambient noise in the project area. According to the General Plan Noise Element (in Figure 7‐2), the project site is exposed to noise levels up to 70 LDN. Noise sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress or interference from excessive noise. The General Plan Noise Element defines NSLUs as areas containing residences, schools, hospitals, rest homes, or long‐term medical or mental care facilities. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. There are no NSLUs located on the project site or in the surrounding area.

Construction Noise
Construction of the project would potentially result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels from operation of construction equipment. Construction activities could temporarily produce elevated short‐ term noise levels in the project vicinity. However, as noted above there are no NSLUs in the immediate project area. While south of the western portion of the project site there are various structures, including uninhabited pre‐fabricated homes and storage trailers. Nevertheless, construction activities would comply with Municipal Code Section 5.04.090 (Noise Abatement and Control) which specifically pertains to construction equipment and prohibits operation of construction equipment outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except holidays, unless the operation is expressly approved by the Director of Development Services. Furthermore, this Municipal Code Section stipulates that construction equipment with a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dBA LMAX or greater may only operate at a specific location for ten consecutive workdays. If work involving such Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 equipment would involve more than ten consecutive workdays, a notice must be provided to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site no later than 10 days before the start of construction. Given the absence of NSLUs and compliance with the Noise Abatement and Control requirements, noise impacts resulting from temporary increases in ambient noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.

Operational Noise
The project entails the development of a car wash, food mart, and gas station in a developed area with other commercial and industrial uses. As noted above, major transportation facilities are present in the immediate project area that are the dominant noise source in the area. There are no NSLUs in the immediate area, nor are there any exterior use areas at the surrounding commercial and industrial uses.

The nearest NSLU is the unoccupied pre‐fabricated home located more than 500 feet from the project site.

The City of Santee provides no specific numerical noise limits for commercial or industrial land uses. The general ambient noise environment is considered high given the major roadways and freeways nearby (Mission Gorge Road to the north, Fanita Drive to the east, SR‐52 to the south overlooking the site, and the terminus of SR‐152 to the west). The nearest permanent known NSLUs are residential homes located a located approximately 535 feet north of the site and across Mission Gorge Road and the river corridor. The approximately 300 feet of vegetation associated with the river corridor would attenuate noise levels generated by the proposed uses. The pre‐fabricated homes, located approximately 340 feet to the south of the site, are not inhabited and therefore are not considered NSLUs.

The project would generate vehicular traffic that would utilize surrounding streets and have the potential to result in increased noise levels. A general rule of thumb is that a doubling of average daily traffic (ADT) would cause a doubling in noise (a 3 dBA increase), which would be considered a significant increase. According to the project’s TIA, the surrounding roadways currently have high levels of traffic and the addition of 490 new trips to these existing roadways would not double ADT. Thus, although the proposed project would generate noise associated with the car wash and gas station, such noise would not be excessive such that it would exceed applicable noise standards at nearby properties given the absence of NSLUs in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, increases in ambient noise levels resulting from project operations would be less than significant.

Noise – Land Use Compatibility
The General Plan Noise Element establishes noise – land use compatibility guidelines (in terms of exterior ambient noise levels) for various land uses. Normally acceptable noise levels are defined as satisfactory, based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally acceptable noise levels indicate that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Commercial uses are considered normally acceptable to exposure of noise levels between 50 and 70 LDN, and are considered conditionally acceptable between 70 and 75 LDN.

According to the General Plan Noise Element (in Figure 7‐2), the project site is exposed to noise levels up to 70 LDN.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 The car wash, which is situated along the southern property line, would be the loudest noise source due to the use of blowoff dryers. A typical dryer would generate noise levels of approximately 70 to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. However, the project would not change existing car wash noise levels because the project is not introducing a new car wash use, but rather converting an existing full‐service car wash to a self‐service car wash. Furthermore, the blowoff dryers would be setback within the car wash tunnel and would propagate noise directed to the adjacent parcel south and southeast of the carwash. The properties immediately south and southeast are designated as General Commercial and do not support NSLUs, including a car wash at the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Fanita Drive immediately east of the project site. It is noted that there are uninhabited pre‐fabricated homes approximately 340 feet to the south that are situated on land that is designated as General Commercial. However, source to receiver sound attenuation factor is approximately six dB per doubling of distance (with no additional intervening obstructions). Additionally, blowers would operate on a cycle triggered by car wash use and thus would not be a constant source of noise. The car wash would also not be in operation atnight.

Therefore, given the lack of NSLUs in the immediate area and the distance to the nearest potentially inhabited structures, impacts would be less than significant, and the addition of the proposed project’s commercial use would be consistent with the noise‐land use compatibility guidelines contained in the Noise Element.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. No vibration‐sensitive land uses (i.e., land uses where equipment or operations would be disrupted by excessive vibration) are located in the project area. Construction activities known to generate excessive ground‐borne vibration, such as pile driving or a vibratory roller, would not be conducted by the project. Land uses that may generate substantial operational vibration include heavy industrial or mining operations that would require the use of vibratory equipment. The proposed project does not include uses or equipment that would generate substantial vibration.

Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant. 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 project area to excessive noiselevels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area for Gillespie Field Airport, which is located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site. However, the project site is not located in any of the noise contours associated with Gillespie Field and thus, people on the project site would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 XIV. Population and Housing
Would the project:
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 otherinfrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
   
   
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)?
No Impact. The project entails the redevelopment of a former full‐service car wash to include a self‐ service car wash, commercial gas station, and food mart. The project is expected to serve the existing population and visitors. No new residences, roadways, utility corridors to currently unserved areas, or other infrastructure that would indirectly induce population growth are proposed as part of the project.

Therefore, the project would not induce substantial direct or indirect population growth. No impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No residential uses are located on the project site, and no existing housing would be displaced because of the project. No impacts associated with displacing housing or people would occur.

XV. Public Services
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project 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:
a) Fire protection?    
b) Police protection?    
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Schools?    
d) Parks?    
e) Other public facilities?    
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed project would generate an increase in the number of on‐site customers, a substantial increase in the number of calls for fire or police services is not anticipated. In addition, the demand for the self‐service car wash, commercial gas station, and food mart would be similar to the demand of the former full‐service car wash on the site due to the comparable ADT noted in the TIA (see Appendix D). The project site is located in a developed area currently served by fire and police protection services, and project implementation would not require the construction of new or expanded fire and police facilities. The nearest fire station, Santee Fire Station #5, is located 0.5 mile north of the project site on Carlton Oaks Drive. The nearest police station, the County of San Diego Sherriff’s Santee Station, is located one mile east of the project site on Cuyamaca Street. The project would not generate population or result in additional demand to these existing stations such that the construction of new facilities would be required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population, and there would be no increased demand on schools, parks, or other public facilities. No impacts would occur.

XVI. Recreation
Would the project:
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?
   
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
   
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 beaccelerated? No Impact. The proposed project does not include housing and would therefore not generate residents who would require parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts would occur to such facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project neither includes recreational facilities nor requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

XVII. Transportation
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The discussion below is based on the Impact Analysis prepared for the project by LLG, attached to this IS/MND as Appendix D.
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, includingtransit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the project’s TIA, the project would result in a net increase in trips of 490 ADT over the existing land use. The surrounding roadways all carry high volumes of existing traffic, including 41,100 ADT on Mission Gorge Road and 80,000 ADT along SR 52. Therefore, the project Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance orpolicy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,  roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
  
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA     c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometricdesign feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerousintersections) or  incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
  
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 would result in a minor increase in trips to the circulation system. Transit service in the project area is provided by San Diego Metropolitan Transit Service (MTS) Bus Route #834. This route extends along Mission Gorge Road, with the closest bus stop approximately 200 feet to the northeast (just east of the Mission Forge Road/Fanita Drive intersection). A Class II Bike lane is currently provided approximately 30 feet south of the project site along Mission Gorge Road west of Fanita Drive. The project would also provide two bicycle racks and would not impact the existing Class II bicycle lane on Mission Gorge Road.

A contiguous sidewalk currently exists on the south side of Mission Gorge Road along the project frontage. The project would include landscaping and sidewalk improvements to the area fronting Mission Gorge Road. The project’s traffic control plan would ensure construction‐related activities would not adversely affect the bus stop, bus route, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks in the project area. Once construction is complete, the project would have no potential to affect alternative transportation programs or facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. A TIA was prepared for the proposed project by LLG in April 2021 (LLG 2021; Appendix D). An assessment was conducted to determine the impacts on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the project in compliance with SB 743, which resulted in a shift in the measure of effectiveness for determining transportation impacts from Level of Service (LOS) and vehicular delay to VMT. VMT analyses are required for use in all CEQA documents as of July 2020. The City does not have guidelines available for the preparation of a VMT analysis. Therefore, the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region were used after consultation with the City by LLG. The proposed project is classified as a local‐serving retail project, which are presumed to have less than significant VMT impacts under these guidelines. This designation is applicable when a project is a locally serving retail/recreational project having less than 50,000 sf of gross floor area. The project would primarily serve the local population already driving by the site on Mission Gorge Road. Thus, the TIA concluded the project would have no significant impact on VMT for the purposes of CEQA, and no VMT‐related improvements are required. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farmequipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not include design features or incompatible uses that would affect traffic safety. The project would include two driveways off of Mission Gorge Road. The existing driveway would be shared with the adjacent gas station to the east. Fuel trucks would access the site via Mission Gorge Road. Likewise, a delivery truck to the convenience store component can utilize either entrance. The driveways are designed as right turn‐in/right turn‐out per the TIA.

Therefore, these larger trucks would not inhibit traffic on Mission Gorge Road during deliveries or exit.

All driveways, turn radii, and internal circulation (queue storage for fuel islands) have been designed in accordance with City standards. No queuing onto local streets would occur. Off‐site improvements to Mission Gorge Road would include improve ingress and egress turn lanes to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, due to design of the project’s driveways, substantial hazards would not occur, and impacts would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. During construction, no road closures or detours would be required. The project would include two driveways for access, both of which could be used for emergency vehicles. Internal drive‐ aisles are designed to meet City Municipal Code design standards for providing adequate emergency access. Therefore, the project would result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts would occur.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
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), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American Tribe.
   
   
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 thatis:
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)? No Impact. As discussed in Item V.a, HELIX conducted a review of existing CHRIS records filed at the SCIC for the project area and vicinity and no historical resources were identified within or adjacent to the project site. The existing on‐site structures were constructed circa 2006; given their age, they are not considered potential historic resources. As no historical resources occur within or adjacent to the project site, no impacts to historical resources would occur.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Tribal cultural resources (TCRs) 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 (CRHR) or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. As discussed in Item III.b, the records search conducted for the project did not identify archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the project site. However, two resources were located within one‐quarter mile of the project site.

In accordance with AB 52, the City contacted Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Formal consultation letters were sent to the tribes on May 6, 2021. Four tribes were notified, including the Barona Band of Mission Indians, Jamul Tribe, Kumeyaay Tribe, and Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians. The Jamul Tribe responded on August 24, 2021, noting the project site is not within the boundaries of the Jamul Indian Reservation. However, the project site is within the boundaries of the tribe’s traditional use area. Therefore, the tribe recommended the presence of a qualified Kumeyaay cultural monitor during ground disturbing activities given the proximity to known cultural resources.

In addition, the City requested a Sacred Lands File search on May 6, 2021 as part of their AB 52 consultation. The Sacred Land File did not identify the project site as being within a culturally sensitive site. Given the developed nature of the site and the absence of known resources on the project site and surrounding areas, it is anticipated that no unknown TCRs would be encountered during project construction.

In the unlikely event of accidental discovery, implementation of CUL‐1, as identified in Section V, Cultural Resources, would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
See mitigation measure CUL‐1.

With implementation of CUL‐1, impacts in relation to the disturbance of unknown TCRs would be less than significant.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
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?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or localstandards, 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 solidwaste?    
   
   
   
   
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewatertreatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmentaleffects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project’s generation of wastewater would be accommodated by the existing capacity of the Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) collection system. Sewage transmission and collection facilities would be installed as part of the project to accommodate the project’s wastewater and would connect to the existing sewer system within Mission Gorge Road. Storm water drainage would be accommodated by the provision of on‐site drainage and catch basins that would connect to the existing municipal storm drain system. PDMWD would also provide potable water service to the project site via connections in Mission Gorge Road. Project Facility Availability forms for both sewer and water have been submitted to and signed by the PDMWD for the project confirming that sewer and water facilities to serve the project are reasonably expected to be available within the next five years based on the capital facility plans of the PDMWD.

Electrical, gas, and telecommunication facilities would be constructed on‐site as necessary and would connect to existing lines in Mission Gorge Road. The project proposes a land use consistent with the surrounding development and would not result in additional impacts to local utilities or service systems.

All new utility services would be grounded per SMC 11.24 prior to occupancy. However, the project would not require new or expanded utility infrastructure systems other than the noted utility Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 connections to existing facilities, the environmental effects of which are evaluated in this Initial Study.

As identified in this Initial Study, no significant environmental effects would occur due to project implementation. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts from construction or expansion of water, wastewater, stormwater, or related treatmentfacilities. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. Water service is provided by PDMWD. Construction of the project would not substantially increase the demand for water services particularly since a car wash was previously operational at the site. The PDMWD has signed a Project Facility Availability Form for water supply for the project and the new car wash, food mart, and gas station would not trigger the need for new water facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Adequate services are available to serve the project.

Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater service is provided by PDMWD. As discussed above, PDMWD would provide wastewater service via connections in Mission Gorge Road. Project Facility Availability forms for both sewer and water have been submitted to and signed by the PDMWD for the project confirming that sewer and water facilities to serve the project are reasonably expected to be available within the next five years based on the capital facility plans of the PDMWD. The project would not substantially increase the demand for wastewater services and thus, the new car wash, food mart, and gas station would not trigger the need for new wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Adequate services are available to serve the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 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 ofsolid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations relatedto solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Waste Management provides solid waste collection services in the City.

The majority of solid waste collected in the City is disposed of at Sycamore Landfill. Construction of the project would incorporate required source reduction techniques and recycling measures to divert waste away from area landfills to help meet County and State requirements, including AB 939, which requires cities to divert 50 percent of solid waste to recycling programs and away from landfills. Operation of the proposed project would generate solid waste associated with the proposed uses. The project would be required to comply with AB 939, which requires cities to divert 50 percent of solid waste to recycling programs and away from landfills. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be hauled to the nearby Sycamore Landfill in San Diego, which has a permitted capacity of 2,500 tons per day (tpd) and an average daily intake of 900 tpd, The Sycamore Canyon Landfill is capable of accommodating the solid waste generated by the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all regulations related to solid waste such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and City recycling programs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant for d) and e) above.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 XX. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency responseplan 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 awildfire?
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) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan? Less Than Significant Impact. Emergency management services are overseen by the City Fire Department. The proposed project would provide emergency response access in compliance with the City standards and is located in an existing developed area already served by the City Fire Department with access to major roadways that would allow for emergency evacuations. Additionally, as part of the City’s Development Review process, the project would be reviewed by the City’s Fire Marshal to ensure it does not impair any emergency response or evacuation plans. All conditions set forth by the Fire Department through the Fire Marshal would be incorporated into project design. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City is subject to both wildland and urban fires due to its climate, topography, and native vegetation. The extended droughts characteristic of the region’s Mediterranean climate and increasingly severe dry periods associated with global warming result in large areas of dry native vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. State law requires that all local jurisdictions identify Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs)within their areas of responsibility (California Government Code Sections 51175–51189). Inclusion within these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity, and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 The project site is not located within or near an area designated as a state responsibility area, nor is it classified as or located near a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2020). The project site is mapped as Non‐VHFHSZ per the CAL FIRE maps prepared under the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). According to the VHFHSZ maps, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 0.3 miles west of the project near the Carlton Oaks Country Club. In addition, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the City’s population which could potentially result in the expose of additional people. As a result, project implementation would not exacerbate wildlife risk, and impacts would be less than significant. 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 theenvironment? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above in Item XX.a, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ, so it is not considered to be at a great risk for wildfires. The project would involve the redevelopment of an existing site occupied by a similar use. The project site is served by all necessary utilities and is surrounded by public streets and urban development. Therefore, the project would not 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. All utilities are currently within underground easements and would remain so with the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 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 drainagechanges? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Item XX.a, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ, so it is not considered to be at a great risk for wildfires (CAL FIRE 2020). The project site and surrounding area is characterized by relatively flat terrain. The site is currently and would continue to be almost entirely paved. As a result, post‐fire‐related effects would not occur to adjacent properties. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potentialto substantially
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause afish 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?
   
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 term environmental goals?
a) Does the project 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 orprehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would have no impacts on biological resources, and historical resources. As discussed in Items V, Cultural Resources, and XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, although unlikely, there is the potential for unknown archaeological resources or TCRs to be disturbed. Implementation of mitigation measure CUL‐1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Additionally, as discussed in item VII, Geology and Soils, in the event of an inadvertent discovery, the project would implement a paleontological monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measure GEO‐1. The mitigation would require the preparation of a PRMMP to be prepared for the project. Therefore, with the implementation of CUL‐1 and GEO‐1, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present, and probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in individually limited, but cumulatively considerable significant impacts. All resource topics associated with the project have been analyzed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines and found to result in no impact or less less‐than‐significant impacts. The project is located in a developed area that is largely built out; no other construction projects are anticipated in the immediate area of the project. Cumulative projects in the surrounding area include the Carlton Oaks Country Club expansion, Woodspring Suites development, and Costco and Food Court expansion.

Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with  the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present, and probable future projects)?
  
c) Does the project have environmental effects whichwill cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either  directly or indirectly?
  
d) Would the project have the potential to achieve short‐ term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long‐     Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 As discussed under Item III.c, criteria pollutant and precursor pollutant emissions generated during project construction and operation activities would not exceed the SDAPCD screening thresholds and emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors related to implementation of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. Similarly, the project would have a less than significant impact in relation to GHG, which is inherently discussed in terms of cumulative impacts.

In addition, there is the potential for unknown cultural, paleontological, or TCRs to be encountered during ground disturbing activities. These impacts would be localized to the site and with the implementation of mitigation measures CUL‐1 and GEO‐1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant and no cumulative impacts would occur.

Lastly, cumulative projects within the general vicinity would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations to reduce potential impacts to less than significant, or to the extent possible. As such, the project is not anticipated to contribute to potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts. Project cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly orindirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would cause an increase in ambient noise levels during construction and occasional operational noise. However, impacts would be temporary and in compliance with local ordinances, and noise levels would be reduced through implementation of project design features. The temporarily increased noise levels would not cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Risks to humans from encountering hazardous materials associated with existing hydrocarbon contamination in the soil and groundwater during construction, and from project operation through leaking from the project’s underground fuel storage tanks or from general spillage of gasoline above ground would be avoided through compliance with applicable regulations. As discussed in Item IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project applicant would prepare a soils management plan that would be reviewed and approved by the DEH (see mitigation measure HAZ‐1). Post‐construction, the operation and maintenance of the gasoline and diesel underground storage tanks is regulated by the California Water Resources Control Board Underground Storage Tank Program. Installation and maintenance of the proposed USTs will be subject toCCR Title 23, Chapter 16 (Underground Tank Regulations). Thus, with the implementation of HAZ‐1, impacts resulting in substantial adverse effects on human beings are less than significant. d) Would the project have the potential to achieve short‐term environmental goals tothe disadvantage of long‐term environmental goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the achievement of short‐term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long‐term environmental goals.

This document includes analysis of the potential short‐term (construction phase) and long‐term (operation phase) impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation. As discussed above, the project would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. All resource topics associated with the project have been analyzed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines and found to result in no impact or less than significant impacts.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 3.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2017 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update.Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

California Department of Conservation
2016 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.
2015 Mineral Lands Classification Map. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2020 Fire Hazards Severity Zones Maps. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire‐prevention‐planning‐engineering/wildland‐ hazards‐building‐codes/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones‐maps/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2020 Envirostor Database. Available from: https://dtsc.ca.gov/your‐envirostor/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2019 California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available from:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap‐landscape‐architecture‐and‐community‐ livability/lap‐liv‐i‐scenic‐highways.

California Geological Survey (CGS)
2015 Alquist Priolo Zone Mapping. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ Cumper, Lisa, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Resources Manager, The Jamul Indian Village of California Secretary, Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee KCRC, Kumeyaay Nation, personal communication. August 24, 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
2020 FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=bonsall#searchresultsanchor.

GeoCon Incorporated
2021 Geotechnical Third Party Review Arco Station (TM 2020‐01 APN383‐121‐64) 9015 Mission Gorge Road Santee, California
Geo Environ
2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Report for Foundation Design Proposed ServiceStation 9015 Mission Gorge Road Santee, CA
Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 HELIX Environmental Inc. (HELIX)
2021 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ModelOutputs.

Jamul Indian Village Tribe. Response Letter. August 24, 2021.

Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers(LLG)
2021 Traffic Impact Study. April.

Royal Share
2020 Santee Sustainable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist.

San Diego, County of
2019 County of San Diego Hazardous Materials Business Plan. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/deh/hmd/pdf/hmbp/HM‐ 952%20(04‐2019).pdf.
2008 County Guidelines for Determining Significance: Minerals.Available at:
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/Mineral_Resources_Guidelines.pdf. 2007 County Guidelines for Determining Significance: Geologic Hazards.Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/Geologic_Hazards_Guidelines.pdf.

Santee, City of
2019 Sustainable Santee Action Plan.December.
2003 City of Santee General Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7199.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
2020 Geotracker Database. Available from:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0605900372.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
2015 Revisions Underground Storage Tank Regulations. Available at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2015‐07‐15/pdf/2015‐15914.pdf.

Waber Consultants, Inc.
2020a Preliminary Hydrology Report. October.
2020b Storm Water Quality Management Plan for Arco Santee. September 16.

Santee Arco Station Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 4.0 PREPARERS
Kara Palm, Project Manager
Brendan Sullivan, Environmental Planner, Primary Document Author Rebecca Kress, GIS Specialist/Figures
Tim Belzman, QA/QC
Ana Topete, Document Processing
Arco gas station project Mitigated Negative Declaration Technical Appendices are available
i) on the City Website at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/services/projectenvironmental-review ii) at the Department of Development Services located in Building 4 of the Santee Civic Center, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071
For questions regarding the Technical Appendices please contact Project Planner Chris Jacobs at 619-258-4100, ext. 182.

City of Santee Page 1 of 6 Santee Arco Station MMRP

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
Project Name: Santee Arco Station
Project Location: 9015 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, CA 9207 The City of Santee (City) adopts this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the Santee Arco Station Project (project), which is the subject of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), complies with applicable environmental mitigation requirements. The mitigation described in the IS/MND and summarized below provides a broad purpose and overview of actions that will occur in order to reduce identified environmental impacts.

For each project that is subject to CEQA, PRC Section 21081.6 requires the Lead Agency to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in environmental documents to ensure that the specified mitigation is implemented. The City is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed project. The City is responsible for review of monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition related to implementation of the MMRP.

After review and approval by the Lead Agency, minor changes to the MMRP are permitted but can only be made by the City. No deviations from this MMRP shall be permitted unless it continues to satisfy the requirements of PRC Section 21081.6, as determined by the City.

The organization of the MMRP follows the subsection formatting style presented within the IS/MND. Only those subsections of the environmental issues presented in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist that have mitigation measures are provided below in the MMRP table. All other subsections do not contain mitigation measures. For each mitigation measure, the MMRP table identifies the following: (1) mitigation measure; (2) responsible party for mitigation; (3) responsible party for verifying mitigation; (4) method of verification; (5) timing of verification (6) verification date; and (7) comments.

Project Description: The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a former full-service car wash into a self-service car wash with a food mart building and gas station canopy. The project would involve the demolition of about 1,200 square feet (sf) of the office and waiting room portions of the existing car wash structure and the construction of a 2,488-sf convenience store, a 3,576-sf gas station canopy area with 12 fuel pumps, and the conversion of an existing full-service car wash building into a self-service car wash comprising about 1,531 sf. The proposed food mart building would be a single-story structure with a building height of 24.5 feet. Other proposed site improvements include installation of utility connections, landscaping along the site perimeter, underground fuel storage tanks for fuel storage, a trash enclosure, 20 parking spaces, including 12 fuel island parking spaces, City of Santee Page 2 of 6 Santee Arco Station MMRP
and two bicycle parking spaces. The project would be accessed via the two existing drives along Mission Gorge Road that would be modified to be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.

City Contact: Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner, City of Santee, Department of Development Services; Phone Number: 619-258-4100 Ext. 182 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Archaeological Resources: The following
procedures shall be undertaken during grounddisturbing activities:
- A Qualified Archaeologist who meets or exceeds
the Secretary of Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and a
Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall be
present during ground-disturbing activity for
project construction, including but not limited to
site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation,
for the duration of the proposed project or until
the Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native
American monitor determines monitoring is no
longer necessary.

Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
Department of
Development
Services/Qualified
Archaeologist and Native
American Monitor
Field
Monitoring
During
construction
- Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the
Applicant and/or Contractor shall provide a written
and signed letter to the Project Planner, stating
that a Qualified Archaeologist and a Kumeyaay
Native American Monitor have been retained at
the Applicant or Owner and/or Contractor's
expense to implement the monitoring program. A
City of Santee Page 3 of 6 Santee Arco Station MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
copy of the letter shall be included in the Grading
Plan Submittals for the Grading Permit.
- The requirement for cultural resource mitigation
monitoring shall be noted on all applicable
construction documents, including demolition
plans, grading plans, etc.
- The Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native
American Monitor shall attend all applicable preconstruction meetings with the Contractor and/or associated Subcontractors.
- The Qualified Archaeologist shall maintain ongoing
collaborative consultation with the Kumeyaay
Native American monitor during all ground
disturbing or altering activities, as identifiedabove.
- The Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native
American monitor shall prepare daily logs and
submit weekly updates to the Project Planner at
the City of Santee regarding the activities
observed.
- The Qualified Archaeologist and/or Kumeyaay
Native American monitor may halt ground
disturbing activities if previously unidentified
prehistoric or historic archaeological materials or
potential human remains are discovered, ground
disturbing activities shall be directed away from
these deposits for a short time to allow a
determination of potential significance.Ground
City of Santee Page 4 of 6 Santee Arco Station MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
disturbing activities shall not resume until the
Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the
Kumeyaay Native American monitor, deems the
cultural resource or feature has been appropriately
treated and/or protected.
- The avoidance and protection of discovered
unknown and significant cultural resources and/or
unique archaeological resources is the preferable
mitigation for the proposed project. If avoidance is
not feasible a Data Recovery Plan may be
authorized by the City as the Lead Agency under
CEQA. If data recovery is required, then the
Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall be
notified and consulted in drafting and finalizingany
such recovery plan.
- At the completion of monitoring, the Qualified
Archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resources
Monitoring Report to document the findings
during the monitoring effort for the proposed
project. The report shall include the monitoring
logs completed for the proposed project and shall
document any discoveries made during
monitoring. The Cultural Resources Monitoring
Report shall be submitted to the City of Santee and
the South Coastal Information Center.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources: Prior to construction, a paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP) shall be prepared. It shall provide a description of Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
Department of
Development Services
Field
Monitoring
Prior to and
during
construction
City of Santee Page 5 of 6 Santee Arco Station MMRP
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
a paleontological resources to inform construction
personnel of the potential for fossil discoveries and of the types of fossils that may be encountered; detailed
procedures for monitoring, fossil recovery, laboratory
analysis, and museum curation; and notification procedures in the event of a fossil discovery by a paleontological monitor or other project personnel. In the event that
paleontological resources are discovered during the
construction phase of the project, a curation agreement from an accredited museum repository shall be obtained.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan: Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Soils Management Plan that shall be reviewed and
approved by the County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health (DEH). Appropriate engineering
controls shall be incorporated into the improvement
plans, as may be required by DEH and RWQCB.

Evacuation, management and disposal of impacted
soils shall be managed as approved/required by DEH,
RWQCB, and local, state and federal requirements.

Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
Department of
Development Services
Field Survey and
Mitigation Report
Prior to and during
construction
City of Santee Page 6 of 6 Santee Arco Station MMRP
RESOLUTION NO. ______
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P2020-3 AND VARIANCE V2020-2 FOR

A GASOLINE DISPENSING STATION WITH MINI-MART AND ACCESSORY CAR WASH, LOCATED AT 9015 MISSION GORGE ROAD, IN THE GENERAL

COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONE
APPLICANT: ROYAL SHARE LLC
APN: 383-121-64
(RELATED CASE FILE: AEIS2020-2)
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020, Royal Share LLC applied for Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 to allow a gasoline dispensing station with mini-mart and accessory car wash located at 9015 Mission Gorge Road in the General Commercial (GC) zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is developed with a full-service car wash and accessory structures; and
WHEREAS, the full-service car wash building is proposed to be partially demolished and made into an automated self-service car wash, accessory to the gasoline dispensing station and mini-mart; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021, the project was deemed complete for processing, including Variance V2020-2 to reduce setbacks, distance between buildings and the minimum amount of required parking; and
WHEREAS, Santee Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 entitled “Commercial / Office Districts” allows automotive services such as gasoline dispensing stations including minimarts and accessory car washes in accordance with the use regulations shown on Table

13.12.030A, section B.10.e, subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for property located in the General Commercial zone; and WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Santee General Plan “General Commercial” land use designation intended for service-oriented uses primarily along major transportation routes;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), an initial Study (AEIS 2020-2) was conducted for the project that determined all environmental impacts of the project would be less than significant with mitigation; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120425) (“MND”) was prepared and advertised for public review for the requisite 30-day public review period, during which time the City received one comment letter; and
RESOLUTION NO. ______
2 WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) prepared for the Project is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and made a condition of Project approval; and
WHEREAS, all proposed structures are located outside of Review Area 1 of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Plan, and accordingly, no determination of consistency from the Airport Land Use Commission is required for the project; and WHEREAS, on December 21, 2020, and January 15, 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that the project, as designed, presented no hazard to air navigation, and
WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services scheduled Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 Variance V2020-2 and AEIS 2020-2 for a public hearing on February 23, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Staff Report, 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: The findings in accordance with Section 13.06.030(E) of the Santee Municipal Code for a Conditional Use Permit are made as follows:

A. 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 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 because the site is designated for General Commercial use in the Santee General Plan which is applied to areas in the City with direct access to prime arterials such as Mission Gorge Road. The proposed gas station land use is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Santee Municipal Code Chapter 13.12 which regulates commercial districts, subject to Variance V2020-2. The site will be comprehensively redeveloped to provide services to meet the needs of the community consistent with the intent of General Commercial general plan land use designation and corresponding zoning district.

B. 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.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
3 The use, as designed and conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, because:
i) The proposed project is located within a commercially zoned area appropriate for a gasoline dispensing station and related services. ii) The location of the gasoline dispensing station would not interfere with the functions of adjacent land uses in the surrounding vicinity because the site is accessed directly from Mission Gorge Road. Property to the south takes access through common access driveways that front on Mission Gorge Road; continued access to the public right-of-way is assured through recorded access easements. The property to the west of the site is owned by Caltrans as part of the SR-125 right-of-way; Caltrans has reviewed the project plans and does not object to the development proposal. iii) Project buildings are separated from existing buildings on other parcels.

Properties to the south and east are developed with buildings setback from the subject property and used for various purposes such as the former Stiang Heating and Air Conditioning building, the former Mary’s Donuts building, the Qwik Korner gas station / mini-mart and Santee Car Wash located on the southwest corner of Mission Gorge Road and Fanita Drive. iv) The proposed gasoline dispensing station and related uses are compatible with surrounding land uses in that the project replaces an automotive service in the form of an existing full- service car wash with another automotive service land use in the form of a gasoline dispensing station, mini-mart and automatic car wash.
v) There will be no significant adverse traffic impact because Mission Gorge Road has the capacity to absorb the estimated average daily trips generated from the proposed land uses. In terms of parking, customers typically stage for limited times while fueling at a gas pump, queue in front of an automated car wash, or park in short durations to use a mini-mart.

Therefore, no significant adverse parking impacts are anticipated. vi) The subject property is fully developed and contains no endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal or vegetation species.

C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance.

The project is subject to Variance V2020-2 to reduce setbacks, distance between buildings and the minimum amount of required parking as shown on the project plans submitted to the City dated October 4, 2021. The use, as designed and RESOLUTION NO. ______
4 conditioned, complies with all other applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, including development standards of the GC zone pertaining to building height.

D. Regarding all properties designated as general commercial, neighborhood commercial or office professional: Development and redevelopment shall be comprehensively designed, entitled and developed whenever it is determined by the City that the permitting of incremental construction and uses may significantly inhibit or otherwise be detrimental to fulfilling the economic and development potential of the site. Any development review permit, conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit which is not consistent with this policy shall be denied.

The proposed redevelopment project involves a comprehensively designed site which will demolish certain existing improvements in place of new structures to fully maximize the development potential of the site. Accessory structures are designed to complement primary buildings in terms of materials, colors and scale.

The overall intent is to refresh site amenities including landscaping, lighting and signage with new materials.

SECTION 2: The findings in accordance with Section 13.06.040(E) of the Santee Municipal Code for a Variance are made as follows:

A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the General Plan and intent of this code.

The request for a variance to reduce setbacks, distance between buildings and the minimum amount of required parking is needed given the size and shape of the subject property, which is approximately 171 feet wide on west east side of the property, tampering to zero feet on the east side. The irregular shape of the property results in difficulty and hardship in siting proposed buildings while adhering to development standards because without the variance the full utilization of the site is not feasible.

B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district.

Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist due to the size and shape of the subject property, as well as the location of existing easements and improvements proposed to remain such as the common driveway access easements and location of the existing car wash tunnel.

C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zoning district.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
5 The adjacent property to the east is developed with a gasoline dispensing station with mini-mart and accessory self-service car wash. Strict or literal interpretation of development and parking standards would deprive the applicant of the ability to develop the subject property with similar uses enjoyed by the owner of the other property to east, located in the same zoning district.

D. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

The granting of Variance V2020-2 would not constitute a grant of special privilege because the adjacent property to the east is developed with a similar land use as explained in answer “C” above. The subject property is constrained in terms of shape, unlike the property to the east which has more land area. The proposal to develop a gasoline dispensing station with mini-mart and accessory car wash would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare due to project conditions imposed to ensure that the project is constructed and operated in a safe manner. The proposed land use would not be injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity because the site has direct access to the public rightof-way, allowing patrons to enter and exit the site from Mission Gorge Road.

SECTION 3: Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 and Variance V2020-2 to allow a gasoline dispensing station and related uses at 9015 Mission Gorge Road in the General Commercial (GC) Zone, on property further identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number 383- 121-64, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:

A. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Sections of the Municipal Code, Land Development Manual and Public Works Standards of the City of Santee.

B. 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 AEIS2020-2.

C. Revisions to the Conditional Use 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 Major Revision should be reviewed by the City Council.

D. All conditions shall remain in effect for the previous car wash project, Development Review DR05-22, unless as modified by this Resolution.

E. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services:

1. All construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved project plans dated February 23, 2022, as amended by this Resolution.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
6 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 Municipal Code (SMC) Titles 11 and 13.

3. A Debris Management Plan Application shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services Planning Division for compliance with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance in accordance with SMC Chapter 9.04.

4. Trash dumpsters shall be enclosed by a solid six-foot high decorative block or stucco wall with view obstructing metal gates painted to match the proposed building. A solid cover roof shall also be provided for the trash enclosure in accordance with the City’s Trash Enclosure Standards and SMC 13.30.020.J, subject to approval of the Director of Development Services.

5. Lighting shall be down shielded and installed in accordance with the lighting standards in SMC Sections 13.24.030 and 13.30.030.

6. Any fence or wall improvements shall conform to SMC Section 13.30.020.F

7. Landscaping shall comply with the Santee Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and SMC 13.36.

8. All new commercial signage shall be reviewed and approved separately through a Sign Permit subject to the requirements of SMC Chapter 13.32.

9. Directional signage shall be provided and maintained directing vehicles onsite to i) turn left from the south drive aisle exit (toward Mission Gorge Road), and to ii) turn right-only on to Mission Gorge Road upon exiting the site. The signage shall be subject to review and approval of the Department of Development Services Engineering – Traffic Division.

10. All mechanical equipment, whether on the roof, on the side of a building, or on the ground, shall be screened from view pursuant to SMC 13.30.020.I.

The method of screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design in terms of material, color, shape and size. All elevations submitted for building plan check shall show the method of screening for any proposed rooftop mechanical equipment.

11. Minimum required parking, setbacks and distance between buildings subject to Variance V2020-2 shall be as shown on the approved plans.

12. The maximum height of the fuel dispensing canopy shall be 17 feet.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
7 13. Site plans shall clearly identify the one-way drive aisles and one-way pump island parking, as follows:
a. The north one-way drive aisle shall have one-way demarcations pointing west. The south one-way drive aisle shall have one-way demarcations pointing east. Both drive aisles shall be a minimum of sixteen feet in width.
b. The six northern fuel pump stalls serving the northern three pump islands shall have one-way demarcations pointing west. The six southern fuel pump stalls serving the southern three pump islands shall have one-way demarcations pointing east.

14. Following project approval, the applicant shall schedule with the City Project Planner a post approval meeting to discuss the project conditions of approval, timing of design and construction, and implementation of the project conditions. The meeting shall be scheduled within thirty days of project approval and prior to any plan submittals. The applicant should include their project design team including the project architect, their design engineer and their landscape architect.

15. The applicant shall include provisions in their design contract with their design consultants that following approval by the City, all construction drawings or technical reports accepted by the City, exclusive of architectural building plans, shall become the property of the City. Once accepted, these plans may be freely used, copied or distributed by the City to the public or other agencies, as the City may deem appropriate. A letter of acknowledgement of this requirement from each design consultant is required at the time of plan submittal. This letter shall be in a format acceptable to the City Engineer.

16. To coordinate with the City Geographic Information System, horizontal and vertical control for all construction drawings, grading plans, landscape plans, street improvement plans, plot plans, etc., shall be obtained from ROS 11252. All plans, exclusive of building plans, shall be prepared at an engineering scale of 1” = 20’ unless otherwise approved by the project engineer.

17. Applicant shall ensure that all property corners are properly monumented.

If corners have been lost or do not exist, corners shall be set and a Record of Survey filed prior to issuance of a building permit.

18. Starting with the first plan check submittal, all plan sets including the Parcel Map shall be submitted concurrently to Padre Dam Municipal Water District, Caltrans, and all other outside agencies for review and approval. The City does not coordinate the review process with outside agencies; this is the RESOLUTION NO. ______
8 responsibility of the design engineer and the landscape architect. Failure to properly coordinate this review may result in delay of issuance of permits required for construction. It is incumbent upon the applicant to oversee the plan submittals of their design consultants.

19. The applicant shall submit all plans and reports of the proposed project to Caltrans for their review, comment, and approval as required. In addition, Caltrans shall provide confirmation regarding the need for an encroachment permit from them. This written confirmation shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. The applicant is responsible for the coordination and efforts necessary to obtain the written approval and / or encroachment permit from Caltrans.

20. The applicant shall show the location of all existing utilities and / or note any relocations required. There appear to be water backflows at the east end of the site, a hydrant in the ramp of the westerly driveway, and two new streetlights adjacent to the driveways. The applicant shall relocate these on the final design plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

21. The applicant shall show on the final design plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the location of property lines, adjacent properties, and how new curbs align with and transition with existing conditions on those sites, such as at the easterly driveway and the area where landscaping is proposed, the existing adjacent gas station has asphalt, and there is an existing propane tank.

22. Near the westerly driveway, a corner radius of 15 feet to 20 feet shall be provided at the southeast corner of the landscape strip fronting Mission Gorge Road.

23. Street Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for review and acceptance.

Prior to the start of construction of any improvements, public or private, within the limits of the public right-of-way, the applicant shall have plans accepted, agreements executed, securities posted and an encroachment permit issued. All improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards and at the applicant's cost unless otherwise indicated. The following improvements are conditioned as part of this development:
a. Construct two commercial driveways on Mission Gorge Road a minimum width of 36 feet each and per City of Santee Standards.

The driveway design shall be per the City of Santee Public Works Standard Drawing PW-21 and to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Place striping for a 20-foot entry lane and a 16-foot exit lane.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
9 b. Street Improvement plans shall be one hundred percent (100%) complete at the time of plan check submittal, be prepared in accordance with City guidelines and the requirements set forth herein, and be ready for acceptance by the City. Partial or incomplete submittals will not be accepted for plan check. At the time of plan check submittal, the applicant shall schedule an appointment with their designated City project engineer and the applicant’s design engineer to review the plan submittal for completeness. The following shall be included as part of the improvement plan submittal package:
1) Six sets of plans bound and stapled (improvements).
2) Plan check fees.
3) Preliminary cost estimate for the improvements.
4) One copy of the Resolution of Approval approving the project.

Plan check and inspection fees shall be paid in accordance with the City Fee Schedule prior to issuance of the permit.

24. Precise Grading Plans shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for review and acceptance. a. Horizontal and vertical control for all plans shall be obtained from ROS 11252 and shall be prepared at an engineering scale of 1” = 20’ unless otherwise approved by the City project engineer. b. Project landscape and irrigation plans shall be separate from the grading plan set but must be submitted by the second grading plan check.
c. All recommended measures identified in the approved geotechnical study shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. d. Grading plans shall include preliminary recommendations for all pavement design sections within the project limits. The pavement structural section shall be designed based on the "R" value method using a minimum traffic index of 5.0. Structural sections shall consist of asphalt concrete over approved aggregate base material.

Minimum concrete section shall be 5 1/2 inches PCC over compacted, non-expansive soil. Mix design shall be a minimum class 520-C-2500. R-value test data and design calculations shall be submitted for approval to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division a minimum of seven days prior to placement of paving. The pavement design report shall conform to City of Santee Form 435 – PAVEMENT DESIGN AND R-VALUE TEST
SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
10 e. Clearly indicate on the plans the required area and provided area of water quality facilities. Basins and trash enclosures shall be sized and designed in accordance with the City of Santee BMP design manual. The basin design shall include an emergency overflow and clearly show on the plans the path in the event of an overflow. f. Clearly show on the plans the drainage path of all roof drains. Roof drains shall drain to landscape areas.
g. Design the gas canopy in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) standard SD-30. The proposed inlet located under the canopy shall be designed as a drywell, catch basin, water/oil separator or other facility which is not connected to the existing or proposed drainage system and or sewer system. h. Provide letters of permission from the adjoining property owners to install the proposed off-site drainage inlets located south of the project site. In the event this permission cannot be obtained, the project shall be re-designed with on-site facilities to accept and convey the drainage to a suitable outfall via a bypass pipe, or the run-on shall be treated on-site.
i. The site shall be designed such that the proposed drainage design does not result in runoff rates that exceed the existing condition at existing outlets. The final drainage design is subject to the approval of Caltrans as the existing headwall is located within their jurisdiction.

The City of Santee will not allow the run-off to be discharged via a pump onto Mission Gorge Road. Proposed diversion of run-off shall be clearly documented within the required drainage report. j. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the contractor shall provide a detailed phasing plan demonstrating the various stages of work while maintaining the access to the adjoining properties.

Unobstructed access to adjacent business to the south and east of the subject property shall be maintained at all times during and after construction.
k. Grading plans shall be one hundred percent (100%) complete at the time of plan check submittal, be prepared in accordance with City guidelines and be ready for acceptance by the City. Partial or incomplete submittals will not be accepted for plan check. At the time of plan submittal, the applicant shall schedule an appointment with their designated City project engineer and the applicant’s design engineer to review the plan submittal for completeness. The following shall be included as part of the grading, landscape and RESOLUTION NO. ______
11 irrigation plan submittal package:
1) Six sets of grading, landscape and irrigation plans bound and stapled.
2) Plan check fees.
3) A completed grading permit application.
4) A cost estimate for the cost of construction.
5) Two copies of the Drainage Study specified here within. 6) Two copies of the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) specified here within.
7) Two copies of an Operation & Maintenance (O&M) plan
specified her within.
8) Two copies of the Geotechnical Study specified here within. 9) Two copies of the Traffic Study specified here within. 10) A copy of any letters of permission from any adjoining property owners if grading is proposed off-site. Letters shall be in a form acceptable to the City.
11) A letter of acknowledgement, signed and sealed, from each design consultant acknowledging City ownership of all
construction drawings following City approval as specified here within.
12) One copy of the Resolution of Approval approving the project.

Plan check and inspection fees shall be paid in accordance with the City Fee Schedule prior to issuance of the permit.

25. Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services Engineering Division for review and acceptance. a. Horizontal and vertical control for all plans shall be obtained from ROS 11252 and shall be prepared at an engineering scale of 1” = 20’ unless otherwise approved by the City project engineer. b. Landscape plans shall include proposed irrigation and landscaping for the entire area that fronts Mission Gorge Road. This shall include, but not be limited to, the relocation of existing signage, landscaping, hardscape and improvements to accommodate the replanting of this area. This shall begin at the east end of the property at Fanita Parkway and extend to the west to the Caltrans / City of Santee boundary.
c. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be one hundred percent (100%) complete at the time of plan check submittal, be prepared in accordance with City guidelines and be ready for acceptance by the City. Partial or incomplete submittals will not be accepted for plan check. At the time of plan submittal, the applicant shall schedule an RESOLUTION NO. ______
12 appointment with their designated City project engineer and the applicant’s design engineer to review the plan submittal for completeness. The following shall be included as part of the grading, landscape and irrigation plan submittal package:
1) Six sets of landscape and irrigation plans bound and stapled. 2) Plan check fees.
3) A cost estimate for the cost of construction.
4) A letter of acknowledgement, signed and sealed, from each design consultant acknowledging City ownership of all
construction drawings following City approval as specified here within.

Plan check and inspection fees shall be paid in accordance with the City Fee Schedule.

26. Provide two copies of a geotechnical study prepared in accordance with the Santee General Plan. The investigation will be subject to independent thirdparty review to be paid for by the applicant. The applicant shall place a deposit with the Department of Development Services in an amount satisfactory to the Director of Development Services to cover the cost of the review. All recommended measures identified in the approved study shall be incorporated into the project design. Copies of the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study for the Safety Element of the Santee General Plan which details, in Table A-1, study criteria necessary to conform to the General Plan requirements, can be purchased from the Department of Development Services Engineering Division.
a. The geotechnical report shall analyze any proposed infiltration techniques (trenches, basins, dry wells, permeable pavements with underground reservoir for infiltration) for any potential adverse geotechnical concerns. Geotechnical conditions such as: slope stability, expansive soils, compressible soils, seepage, groundwater depth, and loss of foundation or pavement subgrade strength should be addressed, and mitigation measures provided.
b. The following comments from the preliminary geotechnical investigation and infiltration investigation shall be incorporated within the revised final report which is subject to third-party review and subject to approval prior to City acceptance:

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
1) The geotechnical report should be reviewed and signed by a Certified Engineering Geologist.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
13 2) The logs should be revised to include geologic units and their estimated contacts.
3) Based on the boring logs, the samples were collected with an SPT split-spoon sampler. Please describe how the samples were prepared for the consolidation tests? Were they
remolded into ring samples from the SPT samples?
4) Page 6 states the liquefaction potential is minimal. However, the borings did not extend to 50 feet and they do not appear to encounter underlying formational materials. A liquefaction analysis should be performed for the property. This may require performing additional borings or cone penetrometer tests (CPTs), as necessary.
5) The grading recommendations state “The competency of the exposed over-excavation bottoms must be determined by the soil engineer or his representative at the time they are exposed and prior to scarification or placement of fill.” What parameters or observations define a competent bottom?
6) The “Canopy Footings” section states the footings should be penetrated into the competent native soil. Please describe the characteristics of the competent native soil and what
observations you will perform to evaluate the competency. We assume the footings will consist of drilled piers or cast-indrilled-hole (CIDH) piles. Please provide recommendations for these types of foundations.
7) The “Cement Type” section provides recommendations
regarding potential exposure to sulfate. However, it does not appear that laboratory water-soluble sulfate tests were performed for the project. Provide the results of the tests, if performed, or provide background on how this evaluation was performed.
8) The pavement recommendations included an R-Value of 50 in the design; however, it does not appear that R-Value tests were performed. Please confirm if R-Value tests were
performed on the on-site materials and if 50 is applicable to the on-site materials. Also, the table does not include a traffic index of 7.0 as described in the paragraph above the table.

Please provide the pavement section for 7.0, if planned. In addition, the City of Santee normally assumes an R Value of 30 for estimating purposes.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
14 9) The pavement recommendations state the subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However, it is common to compact the subgrade soil to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content. Please revise the
recommendations to include the higher compaction
requirement.
10) The project geotechnical consultant should review the civil and structural plans and check to see if their
recommendations have been incorporated into the design of the project.

Infiltration Investigation
1) The infiltration report provides percolation rates of 0.45 inches per hour. However, percolation rates are normally reported in hours per inch. Infiltration rates are reported in inches per hour. Verify if the results of the tests are percolation rates or infiltration rates.
2) The report only provides the results of 1 test within Boring B1. Normally, a minimum of 2 tests are required that are within 50 feet of the proposed basin. Additional testing may be required in the area of the proposed basin.
3) The geotechnical consultant recommends a minimum setback distance of 10 feet from the foundation zone to the infiltration area and outside a 1:1 plane outside of the foundations.

Based on the grading plans submitted, it appears the
infiltration area is within the 10-foot zone. The plan may need to be adjusted to provide the proper setback distance.
4) An evaluation of liquefaction will be required to help evaluate if infiltration will be feasible on the site.

27. Replace failed or inadequate pavement to the centerline and / or sidewalk adjacent to the site on Mission Gorge Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

28. The existing median left turn pocket in Mission Gorge Road was installed on a temporary basis at the time Mission Gorge Road was relocated to its current location. This pocket will be closed at some time in the future as traffic on Mission Gorge Road increases. The applicant is hereby given notice of the City’s intent to close the existing median left turn pocket at a RESOLUTION NO. ______
15 future date.

29. 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. Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . $ 51,343.89
calculated based on a fee rate of $ 8,467 / 1000 square feet of area.
b. Traffic Signal . . . . . . $ 8,283.42
calculated based on a fee rate of $ 1,366 / 1000 square feet of area.

Impact fee amounts shall be calculated in accordance with the City Fee Schedule and based on current fee ordinances in effect at issuance of building permit. The drainage fee shall be calculated based on the actual impermeable area created by the project including off-site street improvements or other improvements beyond the project boundary. The applicant shall provide certification of final site and building areas by their engineer of work to be approved by the City Engineer for use in calculating the final fee amounts. Fees shall be adjusted on an annual basis in accordance with the Municipal Code.

30. 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.

31. Provide two copies of a 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 RESOLUTION NO. ______
16 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 compute rainfall runoff characteristics from the project area including, at a minimum, peak flow rate, flow velocity, runoff volume, time of concentration, and retention volume. These characteristics shall be developed for the 10-year, 50-year and 100- year frequency six-hour storm during critical hydrologic conditions for soil and vegetative cover. Storm events shall be developed using isopluvial maps and in accordance with the San Diego County Hydrology Manual.
c. Identify on Table 3-1 the runoff coefficients; where they were selected, mark up Figure 3-3 to indicate how the time of concentration was determined, and fill in Figure 3-1 to demonstrate the determination of rainfall intensity.
d. The final drainage study acceptance is contingent upon approval by Caltrans.

32. Provide two copies of a 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. Develop and implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that the project does not increase pollutant loads from the site. A combination of respective storm water BMPs, including Site Design, Source Control, and Structural Treatment Control shall be implemented in accordance with the approved SWQMP.
b. The project design shall incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) and site design BMPs to minimize directly connected impervious areas and to promote infiltration using LID techniques as outlined in the County of San Diego’s LID handbook. Parking areas shall be designed to drain to landscape areas. Private roads shall be designed to drain to vegetated swales or landscaped areas.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
17 c. The site shall comply with full trash capture requirements by providing completely enclosed trash and recycling enclosures, and fitting all storm drain inlets with a State certified grate/screen or trash rack. Said devices must be designed to capture debris of 5 mm or greater, while preventing flooding potential. In addition, any adjacent public storm drain inlet structure to which the site discharges must also be retrofitted with trash capture devices. The device which shall be used for public inlets is the ADS FlexStorm Connector Pipe Screen system or approved equal. d. All inlets must be labeled with concrete stamp or equivalent - stating, "No Dumping - Drains to River". If work is performed on a public inlet, the public inlet must be labeled with the following standard specification: Public storm drain inlet markers shall be 4” diameter, stainless steel, natural embossed, inlet marker as manufactured by Almetek Industries or approved equal. Marker shall contain/state “No Dumping” with “Fish w/ Wave” symbol and “Drains to Waterways” legend. Marker shall contain 2” long x 1/4” diameter threaded rod and shall be installed flush and wet-set in top of inlet, centered on width of inlet opening.
e. Down spouts and HVAC systems are not permitted to be connected to any storm drain conveyance system. All non-storm water discharges must either drain to landscaped areas, or be plumbed to the sewer.
f. Fire suppression systems must be designed to be able to discharge to a sewer clean out for all maintenance and testing activities, or otherwise captured and contained on-site.
g. California native/drought-tolerant plants shall be used to the maximum extent feasible to minimize the need for irrigation. Where irrigation is necessary, then the system shall be designed and installed to prevent overspray or irrigation runoff during normal operations and during a break in the line.
h. Provide a narrative in the source control section regarding the types of material to be stored outdoors and how materials shall be covered and/or protected from the outside elements and be stored above the finished grade to prevent contact with the storm water runoff.
i. The final project submittal shall include a standalone Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan in accordance with the City of Santee BMP Design Manual.
j. The final report, starting with the first submittal and all subsequent submittal, shall be wet signed and sealed by the engineer of record and include the owner’s signature. The report shall accurately describe the existing site drainage patterns on Form I-3B, page 3 of 10. The narrative found on page RESOLUTION NO. ______
18 7 of 10 should be revised to indicate the discharge from the site into the Caltrans channel rather than the municipal storm drain. The drainage system identified on page 8 of 10 does not reflect the system the drainage that will convey runoff from the site. Revise this page as necessary to demonstrate hydromodification exception. Revise Form I-8 as necessary based on the third-party geotechnical comments and revised infiltration finding from an updated study.

33. Emergency Access / Fire Lanes:
a. Fire apparatus access drive aisles shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet. A fire apparatus access drive aisle may be reduced to an unobstructed width of not less than 16 feet when, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the number of vehicles using the drive aisle will not limit or impair adequate emergency fire department access.
b. The gas station canopy shall not encroach into driveways unless the unobstructed height of the canopy structure is a minimum of 15’ – 6”.

34. Address numbers shall be placed near the roofline of all structures visible from the street or access driveways. Numbers shall be block style, 12” in height, black in color (or other approved color), in contrast to their background. Address numbers shall be illuminated for nighttime visibility.

35. The mini-mart building is required to be constructed with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed by a licensed fire sprinkler contractor. Separate plans are required to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. The sprinkler system is required to be monitored by an approved central station monitoring company. A Potter, “SASH-120” Horn/Strobe (or equivalent) shall be located below each address placement for indication of fire sprinkler activation.

While the car wash building / tunnel does not need fire sprinklers, equipment / mechanical rooms are required to be equipped with fire sprinklers.

36. The building shall have a fire sprinkler riser enclosure accessible from the outside. The exact size and location of the enclosure shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to construction. This enclosure shall contain the fire sprinkler riser for the building, pressure gauges for the system, applicable valves, sprinkler head box, “test and drain” inspectors test valve and any diagrams or documentation for the fire protection systems. The enclosure door shall have labeling or signage approved by the fire code official indicating "FIRE RISER INSIDE".

RESOLUTION NO. ______
19 37. The applicant shall provide a Double Detector Check Valve Assembly / Fire Department Connection (RPDA/FDC). This device that supplies water to the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be placed in an approved location within 50’ of a fire hydrant. The device shall be installed per San Diego County Regional Standard WF-05. The finished height of the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be no higher than 48" from grade. The entire device may be painted dark green or brown to blend in with adjacent landscaping. The Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be painted red.

The Fire Department Connection (FDC), once installed, shall be "pinned" in place for theft protection. The (RPDA) device shall be stenciled with 2” white numbers indicating the address served. The assembly shall be equipped with a chain and breakaway locks for security. The location of these devices shall be approved prior to installation. If the building is equipped with central station monitoring of the sprinkler system, the control valves on the device shall be monitored for tamper of the valves.

38. A Knox Box key safe for emergency access of Fire Department personnel is required for the building. Knox Boxes shall be installed at the front entrance, riser room and other required location(s). Knox Box applications may be obtained from the Fire Department. Approval of the number and exact mounting location shall be determined by the fire code official prior to installation.

39. The applicant shall provide Knox Fire Department Connection (FDC) Plugs.

Santee has adopted the use of Knox Fire Department Connection (FDC) Plugs for FDC hose connections to the automatic fire sprinkler systems.

These plugs ensure that the FDC’s will be clear of obstructions and allow for the proper Fire Department use of automatic fire sprinkler systems. Knox Plugs can be ordered online directly from the Knox Company at Knoxbox.com. Order FDC Plugs for use in the City of Santee. Order model #3043 (two per building if using Siamese connection). Contact Santee Fire Department if assistance is needed in ordering.

40. A minimum of one, 2A10BC fire extinguisher shall be located every 75 feet of travel distance throughout the building. The exact extinguisher location shall be determined by the fire code official prior to installation.

Fire extinguishers shall also be located at approved locations near the gas pumps. The exact number and placement of these extinguishers shall be determined by the fire code official prior to installation.

41. The design of the motor fuel dispensing component of the project shall comply with Chapter 23 of the 2019 California Fire Code and all other applicable codes and standards. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Fire Department for the underground tank installation and RESOLUTION NO. ______
20 the fuel dispensing operations. Plans and specifications shall also be submitted to the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division for review and approval of the underground tank installation and the motor fuel dispensing operations.

42. All trash, recycle and storage enclosures, including associated roof structures, must be constructed of non-combustible materials.

43. The applicant shall prepare and provide a notice to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site no later than ten (10) days before the start of construction activities. The notice must be approved by the Director of Development Services and describe the project, the expected duration of construction activities, and provide a point of contact.

F. During construction, the applicant shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services:

1. The applicant shall comply at all times with the following work hour requirements:
a. No site work, building construction, or related activities, including equipment mobilization will be permitted to start on the project prior to 7:00 am and all work for the day shall be completed by 7:00 pm, no exceptions.
b. No work is permitted on Sundays or City Holidays.
c. No deliveries, including equipment drop off and pick-up, shall be made to the project except between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, excluding Sundays and City Holidays. Deliveries of emergency supplies or equipment necessary to secure the site or protect the public are permitted. d. If the applicant fails or is unable to enforce compliance with their contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers regarding the specified work hours, additional reduction of work hours may be imposed by the Department of Development Services.

In addition to the above, the applicant shall erect one or more signs stating the work hour restrictions. Signs shall be installed as may be required in the vicinity of the project construction trailer, if a job site trailer is used, or at such other locations as may be deemed appropriate by the Department of Development Services. The sign shall be a minimum of 24” x 36” and shall be weather proofed. The sign content shall be provided by the Department of Development Services.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
21 2. Trench work when required within City streets shall be completed within two weeks of the initial start date, including placement of the final trench patch.

Trench plates or temporary pavement placement shall be installed at the end of each work day. Advance warning signs on lighted barricades notifying the public of trench plates and / or uneven pavement shall be placed and maintained until permanent pavement repairs are made. The maximum length of time including weekends and holidays that trench plates may remain on the street is 72 hours after which temporary or permanent asphalt paving shall be placed.

3. Vehicle access on Mission Gorge Road, Cuyamaca Street, Olive Lane, Town Center Parkway, Carlton Hills Boulevard, Woodside Avenue, and Riverview Parkway shall be maintained at all times and all work within the public right-of-way shall be done at night unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. When day work is permitted, work hours shall be from 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, including set up and break down of traffic control. No day work will be permitted during the holiday season, defined as beginning the Saturday before Thanksgiving Day and shall extend through New Year’s Day, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Development Services.

4. Comply with all applicable sections of the Municipal Code, Land Development Manual and Public Works Standards of the City of Santee.

G. Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services:

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. Provide an executed contract must be in place with a qualified storm water service provider and a copy of the SWQMP provided to the consultant and the property owner / manager.

4. Provide a Storm Water Facilities Maintenance Agreement accepting responsibility for all structural BMP maintenance, repair and replacement as outlined in said O&M plan binding on the land throughout the life of the project will be required prior to issuance of building permits.

5. Submit two copies of a current preliminary title report (dated within six months of plan submittal) and two copies of all documents listed in the title RESOLUTION NO. ______
22 report. Copies of recorded documents must be clear and legible copies of the original recorded document.

6. Place all new utilities required to serve the project underground. No overhead facilities or extension of overhead facilities is permitted.

7. Plant all new trees in and within 10 feet of the public right-of-way with root control barriers.

8. 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.

9. Record a Notice of Restrictions which discloses the conditions of Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 and existing zoning regulations to the future property owners. The form and content of said document shall be approved by the Director of Development Services.

H. Upon establishment of the use pursuant to this Conditional Use Permit P2020-3, the following conditions shall apply:

1. A minimum of twenty off-street parking spaces shall be maintained on the site as shown on the approved plans. Twelve of these are located under the fueling canopy, five are in front of the food mart, and three are located on the east portion of the site. Parking areas and driveways shall be well maintained.

2. All required landscaping shall be adequately watered and maintained in a healthy thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. All groundcover installed pursuant to an approved landscape plan shall provide 100 percent coverage within nine months of planting or additional landscaping, to be approved by the City Engineer, shall be required in order to meet this standard.

3. All light fixtures shall be designed and adjusted to reflect light downward, away from any road or street, and shall otherwise conform to the requirements of Title 13 of the SMC.

4. If the service station use becomes vacant or ceases operation beyond 180 days, the applicant shall remove all underground storage tanks, gasoline pumps and pump islands, and freestanding canopies in accordance with SMC 13.12.030.H.

5. The uses established on the subject property shall be operated in compliance with the City noise ordinance, commencing with Section

5.04.010 of the SMC, or as may be hereafter amended.

RESOLUTION NO. ______
23 SECTION 4: The terms and conditions of Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 and Variance V2020-2 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: Conditional Use Permit P2020-3 and Variance V2020-2 shall expire on February 23, 2025 except where substantial use has commenced prior to its expiration.

If use of the 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 at least 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:

RESOLUTION NO. ______
24 APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) RESOLUTION NO. ______
25 EXHIBIT A

Project Description: The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a former full-service car wash into a self-service car wash with a food mart building and gas station canopy. The project would involve the demolition of about 1,200 square feet (sf) of the office and waiting room portions of the existing car wash structure and the construction of a 2,488-sf convenience store, a 3,576-sf gas station canopy area with 12 fuel pumps, and the conversion of an existing full-service car wash building into a self-service car wash comprising about 1,531 sf. The proposed food mart building would be a single-story structure with a building height of 24.5 feet. Other proposed site improvements include installation of utility connections, landscaping along the site perimeter, underground fuel storage tanks for fuel storage, a trash enclosure, 20 parking spaces, including 12 fuel island parking spaces, and two bicycle parking spaces. The project would be accessed via the two existing drives along Mission Gorge Road that would be modified to be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.

City Contact: Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner, City of Santee, Department of Development Services; Phone Number: 619-258-4100 Ext. 182
RESOLUTION NO. ______
26 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Archaeological Resources: The following
procedures shall be undertaken during
ground-disturbing activities:
- A Qualified Archaeologist who meets or
exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archaeology and a
Kumeyaay Native American monitor shall be
present during ground-disturbing activity for
project construction, including but not limited
to site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and
excavation, for the duration of the proposed
project or until the Qualified Archaeologist
and Kumeyaay Native American monitor
determines monitoring is no longer necessary.
- Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the
Applicant and/or Contractor shall provide a
written and signed letter to the Project
Planner, stating that a Qualified Archaeologist
and a Kumeyaay Native American Monitor
have been retained at the Applicant or Owner
and/or Contractor's expense to implement the
monitoring program. A copy of the letter shall
be included in the Grading Plan Submittals for
the Grading Permit.
- The requirement for cultural resource
mitigation monitoring shall be noted on all
Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
Department of
Development
Services/Qualified
Archaeologist and Native
American Monitor
Field
Monitoring
During
construction
RESOLUTION NO. ______
27 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
applicable construction documents, including
demolition plans, grading plans, etc.
- The Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay
Native American Monitor shall attend all
applicable pre-construction meetings with the
Contractor and/or associated Subcontractors.
- The Qualified Archaeologist shall maintain
ongoing collaborative consultation with the
Kumeyaay Native American monitor during all
ground disturbing or altering activities, as
identified above.
- The Qualified Archaeologist and Kumeyaay
Native American monitor shall prepare daily
logs and submit weekly updates to the Project
Planner at the City of Santee regarding the
activities observed.
- The Qualified Archaeologist and/or Kumeyaay
Native American monitor may halt ground
disturbing activities if previously unidentified
prehistoric or historic archaeological materials
or potential human remains are discovered,
ground disturbing activities shall be directed
away from these deposits for a short time to
allow a determination of potential
significance. Ground disturbing activities shall
not resume until the Qualified Archaeologist,
in consultation with the Kumeyaay Native
American monitor, deems the cultural
RESOLUTION NO. ______
28 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
resource or feature has been appropriately
treated and/or protected.
- The avoidance and protection of discovered
unknown and significant cultural resources
and/or unique archaeological resources is the
preferable mitigation for the proposed project.

If avoidance is not feasible a Data Recovery
Plan may be authorized by the City as the Lead
Agency under CEQA. If data recovery is
required, then the Kumeyaay Native American
monitor shall be notified and consulted in
drafting and finalizing any such recovery plan.
- At the completion of monitoring, the Qualified
Archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural
Resources Monitoring Report to document the
findings during the monitoring effort for the
proposed project. The report shall include the
monitoring logs completed for the proposed
project and shall document any discoveries
made during monitoring. The Cultural
Resources Monitoring Report shall be
submitted to the City of Santee and the South
Coastal Information Center.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Paleontological Resources: Prior to
construction, a paleontological resource monitoring
and mitigation plan (PRMMP) shall be prepared. It shall provide a description of a paleontological resources to inform construction personnel of the potential for fossil Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
Department of
Development Services
Field
Monitoring
Prior to and
during
construction
RESOLUTION NO. ______
29 Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Party
for Mitigation
Responsible
Party
for Verification
Method of
Verification
Timing of
Verification
Verification
Date Comments
discoveries and of the types of fossils that may be
encountered; detailed procedures for monitoring, fossil recovery, laboratory analysis, and museum curation;
and notification procedures in the event of a fossil
discovery by a paleontological monitor or other project personnel. In the event that paleontological resources
are discovered during the construction phase of the
project, a curation agreement from an accredited
museum repository shall be obtained.

Evacuation, management and disposal of impacted
soils shall be managed as approved/required by DEH,
RWQCB, and local, state and federal requirements.

Applicant’s
Construction
Contractor
Department of Development
Services
Field Survey
and Mitigation
Report
Prior to and during
construction
Aerial Vicinity Map
Conditional Use Permit P2020-3

Subject
Property at
9015 Mission
Gorge Road
SR-125
Mission Gorge Road
Fanita
Drive
Aerial Vicinity Map

ARCO GAS STATION PROJECT PLANS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P2020-3/VARIANCE V2020-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022
Project Plans

ARCO GAS STATION PROJECT PLANS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P2020-3/VARIANCE V2020-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022

ARCO GAS STATION PROJECT PLANS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT P2020-3/VARIANCE V2020-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022
Continuance Request

STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE “LANTERN CREST RIDGE II” MAJOR REVISION (MJR2021-1) TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P2017-4) AND 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 (APN: 384-142-04)
APPLICANT: M. GRANT REAL ESTATE, INC. (MICHAEL GRANT)
CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 23, 2022
A Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the East County Californian on February 11, 2022. A total of 75 adjacent owners or residents of property within 300 feet of the project site and other interested parties were notified by U.S. Mail on February 11, 2022.

LOCATION MAP
SITE
Staff Report, February 23, 2022
Title: MJR2021-1

Page 2 ends

Santee City CouncilFebruary 23, 2022

Santee City Council
February 23, 2022