Santee City Council
February 22, 2023

15.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Safety Element; California Department of Toxic Substances Control–EnviroStor (EnviroStor) Database; State Water Resources Control Board–Geotracker (Geotracker) Database; Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP; Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC] 2010); Santee Municipal Code (Chapter 15.20.040); Federal Aviation Administration Letter of Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (July 21, 2022; Appendix D). a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that operation of the previously approved project would generate relatively limited quantities of hazardous waste, including fluorescent lighting, paints, cleaning chemicals, pool chemicals, pesticides, and medical waste. However, the previously approved project was conditioned to contract with a waste hauler licensed by the State of California to properly transport and dispose of hazardous waste generated by the previously approved project, which would ensure that impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project, and would be subject to the condition documented in the previously adopted IS/MND to contract with a waste hauler licensed by the State of California to properly transport and dispose of hazardous waste. The revised project would not introduce any new uses would generate any new types of hazardous materials that were not evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the revised project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The revised project has been sited consistent with the design evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND and would not introduce any design features that could result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions that were not evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The revised project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable safety regulations that would prevent the introduction of accident conditions.

Therefore, the revised project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Pepper Drive Elementary School located approximately 0.15 mile southeast of the project site. As described in Section 15.9.a above, the revised project would be subject to the condition documented in the previously adopted IS/MND to contract with a waste hauler licensed by the State of California to properly transport and dispose of hazardous waste. The revised project would not introduce any new uses would generate any new types of hazardous materials that were not evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the revised project would not emit hazardous emissions or Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the previously approved project being located on a hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Review of the Geotracker Database and EnviroStor Database determined that the project site is not identified as hazardous materials sites within either database, nor are there any hazardous materials sites within 0.25-mile of the project site listed within either database (Geotracker 2022; EnviroStor 2022). Therefore, the revised project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. e. No New Impact/No Impact. The Gillespie Field Airport is located approximately 0.3 mile southwest of the project site. Gillespie Field was originally subject to the Gillespie Field ALUCP adopted in July 1989 by SANDAG when it served as the San Diego County ALUC. The 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan was amended in October 2004 and renamed the ALUCP by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, which assumed the responsibilities of the ALUC in January 2003. The previously adopted IS/MND found the project site to be outside the then adopted Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area and not located within the Gillespie Field Land Use Plan boundaries. Since approval of the previous project, the project site has been graded and Phases 1, 2 and 3 have been constructed and occupied.

An updated ALUCP for Gillespie Field Airport was subsequently adopted in January 2010 and amended in December 2010. The updated ALUCP identified the project site within the Airport Influence Area, Review Area 1 of Gillespie Field Airport (ALUCP Exhibit III-5). As shown in Figure 5, the majority of the modified project site is located within Safety Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone), while a smaller portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone) under the updated ALUCP. Although new development applications may be subject to restrictions based on Review Area 1 limitations, as well as density regulations based on Safety Zone, the current application would be considered an “existing land use” as defined in the ALUCP. A project would be considered an “existing land use” when a vested right has been obtained in this case through issuance of a valid building permit for the approved as a 360-unit senior care facility consisting of six buildings. The phased construction would not change the status of the “existing land use.” Therefore, the modified project would be deemed consistent with the plan.

Pursuant to this major modification application, a notice was filed with the FAA focusing on the height of the proposed structure regarding structures or objects which the FAA may consider an “obstruction.” The FAA performed an “Obstruction Evaluation.” In conjunction with this evaluation, the FAA notified the San Diego County Airport Authority for comments and/or objections. The San Diego County Airport Authority provided no comments or objections.

M:\JOBS6\10119\env\graphics\Fig5_Addend.afdesign 09/08/22 bma Map Source: Todd B. Spiegel Architects
FIGURE 5
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Safety Zones
0 Feet 40
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Subsequently, the FAA made a “Determination of No Hazard.” Therefore, the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities, and the revised project would not conflict with the requirements of the Gillespie Field ALUCP. No new impact would occur.
f. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify whether the previously approved project would result any impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The revised project would not introduce any design features that could interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation. The project site is located in an existing developed area with access to major roadways that would allow for emergency evacuation. Therefore, the revised project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
g. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that the previously approved project was located within a High Fire Hazard Zone. Consequently, a Fire Protection Plan (FPP) was prepared requiring that the previously approved project that the previously approved project implement defensible space for all project buildings (George E. Tockstein, Consultants 2008).

The Santee Fire Department approved the FPP, and the previously adopted IS/MND determined that impacts associated with risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant. The revised project has been sited consistent with the design evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The footprint location for Building 4 has not changed under this application, and Building 4 would retain the defensible space requirements documented in the FPP prepared for the previously approved project. The revised project would also comply with applicable fire protection requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code (Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.20), such as the use of non-combustible building materials. Therefore, the revised project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
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 sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Sources: General Plan–Safety Element; Storm Water Management Plan Addendum 12 prepared by REC Consultants, Inc. (July 13, 2022; Appendix E); Drainage Study Addendum prepared by REC Consultants, Inc., (June 1, 2022; Appendix F).
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that the previously approved project would incorporate construction and post-construction BMPs in compliance with the City’s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan to reduce impacts related to water quality to a level less than significant. Design of the previously approved project included a bioretention basin to treat runoff generated within the project footprint. However, the Storm Water Management Plan Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Addendum 12 prepared for the revised project documented that the previously proposed bioretention basin would need to be replaced with a modular wetland system in order to accommodate the parking lots associated with Building 4. The previously proposed bioretention basin and current modular wetland system are equivalent BMPs that both rely on biofiltration through specialized amended filtration soil and vegetation to treat runoff. Consequently, the proposed modular wetland system would provide the same level of water quality treatment as the previously proposed bioretention basin (see Appendix E). Therefore, the revised project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with groundwater supply or groundwater recharge. The revised project would obtain its water supply from the Padre Dam Municipal Water District and would not use groundwater supply for any purpose. Although the revised project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, water would continue to infiltrate through the designated 12.91-acre open space/conservation easement portion of the project site and throughout the groundwater basin. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
c(i). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The previously adopted IS/MND documented that the previously approved project would incorporate construction and post-construction BMPs in compliance with the City’s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan to reduce impacts related to erosion or siltation to a level less than significant. The Drainage Study Addendum, prepared for the revised project, documented that the previously proposed bioretention basin was originally designed for water quality treatment only, and not for detention of peak flows during a 100-year storm event. Consequently, replacement of the previously proposed bioretention basin with the proposed modular wetland system would not change peak flows during a 100-year storm event (see Appendix F). Therefore, the revised project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or the surrounding area in a manner that could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. c(ii). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, replacement of the previously proposed bioretention basin with the proposed modular wetland system would not change peak flows during a 100-year storm event (see Appendix F). Therefore, the revised project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. c(iii). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with generation of runoff that would exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, replacement of the previously proposed bioretention basin with the proposed modular wetland system would not change peak flows during a 100-year storm event (see Appendix F). As described in Section 15.10.a above, the proposed modular wetland system would provide the same level of water quality treatment as the previously proposed bioretention basin (see Appendix E). Therefore, the revised project would not generate runoff that would exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
c(iv). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the impediment or redirection of flood flows. The previous project would reduce flows on the project site through proposed BMPs, including the proposed bioretention basin. Review of Figure 8-1 of the General Plan Safety Element determined that the project site is not located within the 100­year floodplain. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, replacement of the previously proposed bioretention basin with the proposed modular wetland system would not change peak flows during a 100-year storm event (Appendix F). Therefore, the revised project would not impede of redirect flood flows. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiche zones. As discussed in Section 15.10.c(iv) above, the project site is not located within the 100­year floodplain. The project site, along with the rest of the City, is located in the San Diego river valley. Reservoirs upstream of the project site include the San Vicente, El Capitan, and Lake Jennings. Figure 8-2 of the General Plan Safety Element delineates the areas potentially subject to inundation in the event of failure of each dam. As depicted therein, the project site is outside the potential inundation areas. The project site is located approximately 17 miles inland from the coast. The risk of tsunami is negligible due to the distance from the ocean and high elevation. There would be no risk from a seiche, as the site is not located near a large body of water, such as a lake. Therefore, the revised project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation associated with flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. e. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any conflicts or obstructions of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. As described in Section 15.10.c(i) above, replacement of the previously proposed bioretention basin with the proposed modular wetland system would not change peak flows during a 100-year storm event (see Appendix F). Additionally, although the revised project would increase the amount of impervious Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

surfaces, water would continue to infiltrate through the designated 12.91-acre open space/conservation easement portion of the project site. Furthermore, water would continue to infiltrate through undeveloped land east of the project site and throughout the groundwater basin.

Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Land Use Element.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with physically dividing an established community. The revised project has been sited consistent with the design evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND, and Building 4 would be integrated architecturally with the other buildings that have already been constructed under the previously approved project. Similarly, the revised project would improve pedestrian connectivity by constructing internal sidewalks that would connect to sidewalks constructed during completed phases of the previously approved project, which in turn connect to existing sidewalks located on both sides of Graves Avenue and Prospect Avenue. The revised project would not alter the development footprint that was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND, and grading for the footprint of Building 4 has been completed. Furthermore, the revised project would not encroach into the designated 12.91-acre open space/conservation easement. The revised project would not impact any surrounding properties, would be consistent with the overall existing and planned land use pattern, and would connect to utilities that are already serving the other buildings that have already been constructed under the previously approved project. Therefore, the revised project would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant.

The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any significant environmental impacts due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The previously approved project included a General Plan Amendment (GPA 7-03) and zone reclassification (R07-02) that changed both Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

designations to R-22 (High Density Residential). These actions increased the allowable unit density to 22 dwelling units per gross acre throughout the project site. As outlined in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, approval of higher densities is a discretionary action based on several criteria including compliance with specific goals, objectives and policies, adverse impacts to public facilities, consideration of environmental constraints, compatibility with community character, etc. The revised project is not within a Specific Plan Area, is adjacent to public facilities, and as outlined in this MND Addendum, would not result in significant unavoidable impacts. Adjacent occupied properties contain residential uses and are designated either R-14 (Medium High Density Residential), west of the project site, or R-22 (High Density Residential), northwest of the project site. Therefore, the revised project proposes uses that would be compatible with the character of surrounding residential uses and the proposed density would be consistent with the surrounding area. No conflicts with any General Plan policies have been identified, and the revised project would assist with implementation of policies that support provision of housing for seniors, including Housing Element Policy 4.1 “Continue to support and actively market shared housing as an affordable housing option for seniors.”
As described in Section 15.4.a above, the previously approved project successfully mitigated all potential impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and secondary wildlife impacts to a level less than significant. As described in Section 15.8.b above, the project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan. As described in Section 15.17.a below, the previously approved project successfully mitigated all potential impacts related to transportation to a level less than significant. As described throughout this MND Addendum, all other impacts not requiring mitigation would be less than significant or would have no impact. Therefore, the revised project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Source: City of Santee General Plan–Conservation Element.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The Conservation Element of the General Plan Conservation Element identifies sand, gravel, and crushed rock, which are collectively referred to as aggregate, as known mineral resources within the City. These resources have been identified within the floodplain of the San Diego River. The revised project would not alter the footprint of Building 4 that was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The project site is not located in the floodplain of the San Diego River, and therefore has no known mineral resources.

Additionally, the project site is located within a developed area surrounded by residential uses that would preclude the type of extraction operations typically associated with aggregate minerals (i.e., large-scale pits or quarries). As a result, extraction of mineral resources is not a viable use of the site.

Therefore, the revised project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the loss of availability of a delineated as a mineral resource recovery site. The project site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any land use plans. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.13 Noise
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan, or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the area
to excessive noise levels?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Noise Element; Santee Municipal Code; Technical Noise Supplement (Caltrans 2013); Gillespie Field ALUCP (Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC] 2010); and Noise Modeling Results (SoundPLAN Output Files and Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] RD-77-108 Calculations) prepared by RECON (September 8, 2022; Appendix G). a. No New Impact/No Impact. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and, therefore, may cause general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment. Decibels (dB) are the standard unit of measurement of the sound pressure generated by noise sources and are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale for earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the noise energy would result in a 3 dB decrease.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A-weighted scale, which approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds, was devised. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written as dB(A). It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dB(A) (increase or decrease) and that a change of 5 dB(A) is readily perceptible. An increase of 10 dB(A) is perceived as twice as loud, and a decrease of 10 dB(A) is perceived as half as loud (Caltrans 2013).

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.

The noise descriptors used for this study are the equivalent noise level (Leq), the maximum noise level, and the 24-hour day-night average noise level (LDN).

The Leq is the equivalent steady-state noise level in a stated period of time that is calculated by averaging the acoustic energy over a time period; when no period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The maximum noise level is the highest sound level occurring during a specific period.

The LDN is a 24-hour equivalent sound level. The LDN calculation applies an additional 10 dB(A) penalty to noise occurring during the night, between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM The increase for certain times is intended to account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during the evening and night.

Construction Noise
The previously adopted IS/MND determined that compliance with the noise standards contained in Santee Municipal Code would ensure that periodic or temporary noise levels during project construction would be less than significant. Noise level limits for construction activities are established in Section 5.04.090 of the Santee Municipal Code. These limits state that a notice must be provided to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site if the construction equipment has a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dB and operates at a specific location for 10 consecutive workdays.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

In addition, Section 5.04.090 of the Santee Municipal Code states that no construction equipment is permitted before 7:00 AM or after 7:00 PM on Mondays through Saturdays and all times on Sundays and holidays.

Construction noise would be generated by diesel engine-driven construction equipment used for site preparation and grading; removal of existing structures and pavement; loading, unloading, and placing materials and paving. Diesel engine-driven trucks also would bring materials to the site and remove the spoils from excavation.

Construction equipment with a diesel engine typically generates maximum noise levels from 80 to 90 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 50 feet (FHWA 2006). During excavation, grading, and paving operations, equipment moves to different locations and goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for non-equipment tasks, such as measurement. Although maximum noise levels may be 80 to 90 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet during most construction activities, hourly average noise levels from the grading phase of construction would be 82 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously. Construction noise levels were modeled using the SoundPLAN program.

Noise levels were modeled as an area source over the footprint of the project. The results are shown in Table 8. Construction noise contours are shown in Figure 6. SoundPLAN data are contained in Appendix G.

Table 8
Construction Noise Levels
Receiver Construction Noise Level [dB(A) Leq]
1 64
2 62
3 64
4 67
5 68
6 64
7 68
8 61
SOURCE: Appendix G
As shown in Table 8, construction noise levels would range from 61 to 68 dB(A) Leq at the adjacent residential receivers. Although the adjacent residences would be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary. In accordance with Santee Municipal Code Section 5.04.090, construction activities would not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and holidays. Additionally, as required by the Santee Municipal Code, a notice would be provided to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site if the construction equipment has a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dB and operates at a specific location for ten consecutive workdays.

Therefore, construction of the revised project would not generate of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the Santee Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

FIGURE 6
Construction Noise Contours
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( ROXANNE D
R
TETON
DR

CASCADE RD

CASCADE PL

POINCIA
N
A
D
R

LANTERN CREST WAY
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( ROXANNE D
R
TETON
DR

CASCADE RD

CASCADE PL

POINCIA
N
A
D
R

LANTERN CREST WAY
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022)
Project Boundary 0 Feet 200 [
!( Receivers
Construction Noise
60 dB(A) Leq
65 dB(A) Leq
70 dB(A) Leq
75 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS6\10119\common_gis\MXD\Addendum\fig6.mxd 11/09/2022 bma Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

On-Site Traffic Noise
The previously adopted IS/MND determined that on-site traffic noise would be less than 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and impacts would be less than significant. The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan establishes noise compatibility standards for various land uses.

The revised project proposes a senior housing facility. The Noise Element land use category closest to the proposed use is Nursing Homes, which are compatible with noise levels up to 65 LDN (Figure 7-3, Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guide, of the Noise Element).

Noise level predictions and contour mapping were developed using noise modeling software, SoundPlan Essential, version 4.1 (Navcon Engineering 2018). The main sources of vehicle traffic noise in the vicinity of the project site are Graves Avenue, SR-52, SR-67, and the freeway ramps. For the purpose of the future traffic noise compatibility analysis, the noisiest conditions are represented as the maximum LOS C traffic volume. This represents a condition where the maximum number of vehicles are using the roadway at the maximum speed. LOS A and B categories allow full travel speed but do not have as many vehicles, while LOS E and F have a greater number of vehicles, but due to the traffic volume travel at reduced speeds, thus generating less noise.

Traffic noise levels were calculated based on the peak-hour traffic volumes, which is approximately 10 percent of the average daily traffic volume. Typically, the peak-hour noise level is equivalent to the community noise equivalent level. The vehicle classification mixes were obtained from Caltrans truck count data. Caltrans does not include separate counts of buses or motorcycles. Therefore, one percent of the automobiles were modeled as buses, and one percent were modeled as motorcycles.

Table 9 summarizes the vehicle traffic parameters used for modeling on-site noise levels.

Table 9
Traffic Parameters
Roadway
Peak Hour
Volume
Speed
(mph)
Vehicle Mix (percent)
Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Buses
Motorcycles
Graves Avenue 900 35 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
SR-52
Eastbound
Westbound
3,760
3,760
65 95.4 2.0 0.6 1.0 1.0
SR-67 – North of Prospect Avenue
Northbound
Southbound
3,760
3,760
65 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
SR-67 – South of Prospect Avenue
Northbound
Southbound
6,768
5,640
65 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
Ramps
SR-52 Eastbound to SR-67 Southbound
SR-52 Eastbound to SR-67 Northbound
SR-67 Northbound to SR-52 Westbound
SR-67 Southbound to SR-52 Westbound
3,760
3,760
3,760
3,760
50 91.0 4.2 2.8 1.0 1.0
Sources: Caltrans 2016; San Diego Association of Governments 2018; City General Plan Circulation Element.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Noise level contours were modeled at the first-floor level. Noise levels were also modeled at the sports court located southeast of the proposed building (Receiver 1) and at the building façade at the Level 1/Basement through Level 6 floors (Receivers 2 through 11). Modeled noise levels do not account for shielding provided by intervening barriers and structures or topography, and therefore this analysis provides a conservative assessment. Future vehicle traffic noise levels are summarized in Table 10. Traffic contours are shown in Figure 7. SoundPLAN data are contained in Appendix G.

Table 10
Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels
(LDN)
Receiver 1st Floor/ Basement 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor 6th Floor 1 55 -- -- -- -- --
2 39 41 42 43 44 45
3 30 34 36 38 38 37
4 55 58 60 62 62 63
5 56 59 61 63 63 64
6 56 59 61 63 63 64
7 57 60 62 63 64 65
8 56 59 61 63 64 65
9 56 29 61 63 64 65
10 54 57 60 60 62 63
11 51 55 57 58 58 59
SOURCE: Appendix G
As shown, traffic noise levels would be 65 LDN or less across the entire project site. Therefore, exterior noise impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.

The interior noise compatibility level for noise sensitive areas, including residential uses, is 45 LDN.

Standard wood frame construction would achieve an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 25 dB(A) (FHWA 2011). Thus, because exterior noise levels are projected to be less than 65 LDN, interior noise levels would be less than 45 LDN. Therefore, traffic noise would not generate of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels on-site in excess of standards established in the Santee General Plan, and interior noise impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with off-site traffic noise. A substantial noise increase is defined as an increase of 3 dB above existing conditions. Based on SANDAG trip generation rates, the project would generate 2.5 trips per unit for a total of 268 trips (SANDAG 2002). The revised project would generate additional vehicle traffic on Graves Avenue.

However, the revised project would not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways, nor would the revised project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. Thus, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes.

FIGURE 7
Vehicle Traffic Noise Contours
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(

PROSPECT AVE
CASCA
T
DE PL

ETON DR
ROX
ANNE D
R

GRAVES AVE

SUNSET TRL

LANTE RN CREST WAY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(

PROSPECT AVE
CASCA
T
DE PL

ETON DR
ROX
ANNE D
R

GRAVES AVE

SUNSET TRL

LANTE RN CREST WAY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022)
Project Boundary 0 Feet 200 [
!( Receivers
Site Plan
Vehicle Traffic Noise
55 CNEL
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
70 CNEL
M:\JOBS6\10119\common_gis\MXD\Addendum\fig7.mxd 11/09/2022 bma Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Off-site traffic noise was modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model algorithms and reference levels. Year 2025 traffic volumes on Graves Avenue and Prospect Avenue were obtained from the SANDAG Transportation Forecast Information Center (SANDAG 2022).

Traffic noise levels were calculated without and with the project. Traffic noise levels were calculated at 50 feet from the centerline of the affected roadways to determine the noise level increase associated with the revised project. The model uses various input parameters, such as traffic volumes and vehicle mix, distribution, and speed. For modeling purposes, “hard” ground conditions were used for the analysis since the hard site provides the most conservative impact assessment. Year 2025 traffic volumes and noise levels with and without the revised project are shown in Table 11.

Modeled noise levels do not account for shielding provided by intervening barriers and structures.

Note that these calculations conservatively assume that the project would add 268 trips to each roadway segment. In actuality, total project trips would be distributed over these roadway segments.

Noise level calculations are contained in Appendix G.

Table 11
Off-site Traffic Noise Level with and without Project
Roadway Segment
Without Project With Project
Increase
Traffic
Volume
Noise Level
(CNEL)
Traffic
Volume
Noise Level
(CNEL)
Graves Avenue
North of Prospect Avenue 6,800 65.8 7,068 66.0 0.2
South of Prospect Avenue 8,400 66.7 8,668 66.9 0.2
Prospect Avenue
West if Magnolia Avenue 5,100 64.6 5,363 64.8 0.2
Magnolia Avenue to SR-67 18,400 70.1 18,668 70.2 0.1
East of SR-67 12,400 68.4 12,668 68.5 0.1
SOURCE: Appendix G
As shown, the revised project would not result in a measurable increase in ambient noise levels. The increase in noise levels due to the revised project would not be a perceptible increase in the ambient noise environment. Therefore, traffic generated by the revised project would not result in a permanent ambient noise increase at adjacent off-site receptors in excess of standards established in the General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

On-Site Generated Noise
The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with on-site generated noise. On-site generated noise is regulated by the Santee Municipal Code, Title 5 Health and Safety, Chapter 5.04 Noise Abatement and Control. Section 5.04.040 of the Santee Municipal Code states that “it is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, within the limits of the City, any disturbing, excessive or offensive noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area.” Section 5.04.040 also provides the following requirements for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units:

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

4. Heating and Air Conditioning Equipment and Generators. a. It is unlawful for any person to operate or allow the operation of any generator, air conditioning, refrigeration or heating equipment in such manner as to create a noise disturbance on the premises of any other occupied property, or if a condominium, apartment house, duplex, or attached business, within any adjoining unit.
b. All generators, heating, air conditioning, or refrigeration equipment are subject to the setback and screening requirements in this code.

Operational noise sources after construction would include vehicles arriving and leaving and landscape maintenance machinery, and would be similar to noise sources from adjacent land uses.

With the exception of rooftop HVAC units, none of these noise sources would have the potential to produce excessive noise or result in a substantial permanent increase in existing noise level. HVAC units would be on the rooftop within a mechanical well, and would be screened in accordance with the Section 5.04.040 requirements above. It is not known at this time which manufacturer, brand, or model of unit or units would be selected for use in the revised project. For the purposes of this analysis, to determine what general noise levels the HVAC units would generate, it was assumed that each unit would generate noise levels similar to a 5­ton Carrier Model 38 HD50VG-A HVAC unit. The 38 HDR50VG-A units have a sound power level of 75 dB(A) which is equivalent to 68 dB(A) Leq at 3 feet.

Property line noise levels due to rooftop HVAC units were modeled using SoundPLAN. The HVAC units were modeled as an area source distributed over the rooftop. The modeling results are summarized in Table 12. HVAC noise contours are shown in Figure 8. SoundPLAN data is contained in Appendix G. As shown, property line noise levels would range from 33 to 40 dB(A) Leq. Noise at this level would not be considered a noise disturbance. Therefore, the revised project would not generate on­site noise in excess of standards established in the Santee Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Table 12
HVAC Noise Levels
Receiver
HVAC Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
1 39
2 40
3 39
4 38
5 37
6 36
7 34
8 33
SOURCE: Appendix G
FIGURE 8
HVAC Noise Contours
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( ROXANNE D
R
TETON
DR

CASCADE RD

CASCADE PL

POINCIA
N
A
D
R

LANTERN CREST WAY
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!( !( ROXANNE D
R
TETON
DR

CASCADE RD

CASCADE PL

POINCIA
N
A
D
R

LANTERN CREST WAY
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
Image Source: NearMap (flown April 2022)
Project Boundary 0 Feet 200 [
!( Receivers
Site Plan
HVAC Noise
30 dB(A) Leq
35 dB(A) Leq
40 dB(A) Leq
M:\JOBS6\10119\common_gis\MXD\Addendum\fig8.mxd 11/09/2022 bma Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Construction operations have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and damage to nearby structures at the highest levels.

Vibration perception would occur at structures, as people do not perceive vibrations without vibrating structures.

Project construction equipment used during site grading and excavation would have the greatest potential to generate vibrations that would affect nearby residential land uses. Construction equipment would include loaded trucks, an excavator, as well as a dozer or loader. Vibration levels from these pieces of equipment would generate vibration levels with a peak particle velocity (PPV) ranging from 0.035 to 0.089 inches per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet. The closest occupied structure is located approximately 60 feet from the construction area. Vibration levels of 0.035 to 0.089 in/sec PPV would attenuate to 0.013 to 0.034 in/sec PPV at 60 feet. Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in as well as individual sensitivity. For example, vibration outdoors is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying. Typically, humans must be inside a structure for vibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying. Based on several federal studies the threshold of perception is 0.035 in/sec PPV, with 0.24 in/sec PPV being a distinctly perceptible (Caltrans 2013). Neither cosmetic nor structural damage of buildings occurs at levels below 0.1 in/sec PPV. Consequently, construction vibration levels would be below the distinctly perceptible threshold. Therefore, the revised project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, and impacts would be less than significant.

The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. c. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with exposure of people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. The project site is located within the Airport Influence Area, Review Area 1 of the Gillespie Field Airport.

However, the project site is located outside the ALUCP noise contours for the Gillespie Field Airport.

Therefore, the revised project would not expose people to excessive noise levels from airport noise, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

15.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Land Use Element.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the inducement of substantial unplanned population growth. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval. Therefore, the revised project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the displacement substantial numbers of existing people or housing. The revised project would not alter the development footprint that was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND, and grading for the footprint of Building 4 has been completed. Therefore, the revised project would not displace any existing people or housing. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

15.15 Public Services
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
(i) Fire protection?
(ii) Police protection?
(iii) Schools?
(iv) Parks?
(v) Other public facilities?
Sources: City of Santee Community Services Department,
http://www.ci.santee.ca.us/Index.aspx?page=28
a(i). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that adequate fire protection facilities and services were available to serve the previously approved project, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for fire protection services beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered fire protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
a(ii). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that adequate police protection facilities and services were available to serve the previously approved project, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for police protection services beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered police protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
a(iii). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that adequate school facilities and services were available to serve the previously approved project, and payment of school fees consistent with Government Code Section 65996 would ensure impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project.

Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for school services beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the proponent of the revised project would be required to pay applicable school fees before a construction permit is issued. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered school facilities. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
a(iv). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that while the previously approved project may incrementally increase the demand for park space and could increase usage at existing City Parks, payment of park-in-lieu fees would ensure impacts related to park facilities would be less than significant. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for park facilities beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND.

The revised project would be required to pay park-in-lieu fees that would fund City public park facilities based on forecasted City-wide park demand. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for new or altered park facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. a(v). No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify impacts to any other public services beyond those described in sections 15.15.a(i). through a(iv) above. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for other public services beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for any other public facilities. The revised project would not result in new significant Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.16 Recreation
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Source: City of Santee Community Services Department,
http://www.ci.santee.ca.us/Index.aspx?page=28.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that while the previously approved project may incrementally increase the demand for park space and could increase usage at existing City Parks, payment of park-in-lieu fees would ensure impacts related to park facilities would be less than significant. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for park facilities beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the revised project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the provision of recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The revised project does not include the provision of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

15.17 Transportation
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to
a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Sources: City of Santee General Plan–Mobility Element, and Santee Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND documented that the previously approved project would result in a degradation of operations at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Graves Avenue to an unacceptable level, which was considered a significant impact. The applicant subsequently fulfilled the mitigation requirement for this impact by making a fair share contribution to the City for improvements to the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Graves Avenue.

These improvements included signalization and construction of the westbound travel lanes, and associated coordination with traffic signals at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and SR-67 and Prospect Avenue and Magnolia Avenue to achieve acceptable levels of service.

The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase vehicle trips beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, traffic volumes generated by the revised project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, and impacts would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.

The nearest bus stops are located approximately 0.1 mile west of the project site along Graves Avenue south of the intersection with Prospect Avenue. The nearest transit stop is the Gillespie Field Trolley Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Station located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the project site. Implementation of the revised project would not include any off-site improvements that would impact any of these facilities. The revised project is not located adjacent to any roadways, and therefore would not impact any existing or proposed bike lanes. All internal sidewalk ramps would be ADA compliant. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the performance of active transportation, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND was adopted by the City Council on August 27, 2008, prior to the adoption of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) as the metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase vehicle trips beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Consistent with SB 743, the City adopted its VMT Analysis Guidelines on April 27, 2022. The guidelines contain thresholds of significance for purposes of analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA. The intent of the VMT Analysis Guidelines is to provide consistency in significance determinations to integrate environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulation. The screening criteria of the VMT Analysis Guidelines states that small projects that generate fewer than 500 ADT are not required to prepare a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, and impacts are presumed to be less than significant. Based on SANDAG trip generation rates, the project would generate 2.5 trips per unit for a total of 268 ADT (SANDAG 2002). Consequently, the revised project is not required to prepare a VMT Analysis, and impacts are presumed to be less than significant. Therefore, the revised project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with a substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The revised project would construct internal access roads that would connect to roads already constructed under completed phases of the previously approved project. These internal access roads would be constructed consistent with all applicable City roadway requirements. The project would not make any changes to the existing circulation network. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with inadequate emergency access. The revised project has been sited consistent with the design evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND and would not introduce any design features that could interfere with emergency access. The project site is located in an existing developed area with access to major roadways that would allow for emergency access. Therefore, the revised project Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Source(s): City of Santee General Plan–Conservation Element.

Tribal cultural resources was not specifically analyzed within the previously adopted IS/MND. Tribal cultural resources was not listed as a specific environmental category requiring impact analysis in 2008 when the previously adopted IS/MND was prepared, and was subsequently added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The previously adopted IS/MND was adopted by the City Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Council on August 27, 2008, prior to the passage of AB 52. Therefore, the previously approved project was not required to conduct consultation under AB 52. The analysis below specifically analyzes potential impacts associated with potential tribal cultural resources under the revised project.
a. No New Impact/No Impact. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1. As discussed in Sections 15.5.a above, the project site does not support any historic resources. As described in Section 15.5.b above, the previously adopted IS/MND determined that the previously approved project was not located within an area identified in the Conservation Element of the General Plan as an area potentially possessing significant archaeological resources.

Although no known archaeological resources were located on the project site, the previously approved project was conditioned to cease grading operations if archaeological resources were discovered until the resources are evaluated by an archaeologist and mitigation recommended by the archaeologist could be completed. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that this condition would ensure that the previously approved project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5, and impacts would be less than significant.

The revised project would not alter the development footprint that was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Grading for the footprint of Building 4 has been completed, and the revised project would not require any additional earthwork within undisturbed soil that could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the revised project would not have the potential to impact any tribal cultural resources, and consultation under AB 52 is not required. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
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 provided which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess
of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid
waste?
Sources: Santee Municipal Code; County of San Diego Countywide Five-Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (August 2017). a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. Similarly, the previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with any other utilities. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for water or wastewater treatment beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Existing water and wastewater facilities were introduced during grading on the footprint for Building 4, and improvements would be limited to connections to these facilities during construction of Building 4. Therefore, the revised project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities that would cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

As discussed in Section 15.10.a and 15.10.c(i), replacement of the previously proposed bioretention basin with the proposed modular wetland system would not change peak flows during a 100-year Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

storm event (see Appendix F). Additionally, the proposed modular wetland system would be located within the project footprint. Consequently, potential impacts associated with construction of the modular wetland system has been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the revised project would not require construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Existing energy and telecommunication facilities were introduced to the revised project site during grading on the footprint for Building 4, and improvements would be limited to connections to these facilities during construction of Building 4. Consequently, potential impacts associated with these energy and telecommunication connections have been considered within this environmental document. Therefore, the revised project would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication services facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND determined that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for water supply beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND.

Therefore, adequate water supply would be available to serve the revised project, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not increase demand for wastewater treatment beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. Therefore, adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available to serve the revised project, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with the generation of solid waste. The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not generate additional solid waste beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND.

Santee Municipal Code Section 13.38.060 requires that a minimum of 65 percent by weight of construction and demolition debris be diverted from landfills through recycling, reuse, and diversion programs. The revised project would develop a construction and demolition debris management plan demonstrating how it would comply with the Santee Municipal Code diversion requirements prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit.

Solid waste generated by the revised project that cannot be recycled would be sent to area landfills.

Based on the Five-Year Review Report of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan for the County of San Diego, remaining capacity at area landfills would be adequate to handle the revised project’s solid waste disposal needs. Most of the solid waste collected in the City is disposed of at the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill, which has remaining capacity through the year 2054. Other landfills that handle waste from San Diego and Santee include the Miramar Landfill and the Otay Landfill, which have remaining capacity. Therefore, the revised project would be served by landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur. e. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any conflicts with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

The revised project would develop Building 4 of the previously approved project. Completed phases of the previously approved project have developed 227 senior units, and an additional 133 senior units may be developed per the original project approval. The 107 senior care units proposed under the revised project would be less than the remaining 133 units that are allowed under the original project approval, and thereby would not generate additional solid waste beyond what was evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The revised project would comply with the City’s construction and demolition recycling ordinance (Santee Municipal Code Section 13.38.060) and Solid Waste Ordinance #3239-A, which are consistent with state solid waste and recycling regulations requiring a minimum of 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition be diverted from the landfills.

Therefore, the revised project would comply with applicable management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

15.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of
a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

Wildfire, as defined in this threshold, was not specifically analyzed within the previously adopted IS/MND. Wildfire was not listed as a specific environmental category requiring impact analysis in 2008 when the previously adopted IS/MND was prepared, and was subsequently added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. However, impacts associated with wildfire were evaluated under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials threshold in the 2008 previously adopted IS/MND. The analysis below specifically analyzes potential impacts associated with wildfire under the revised project. a. No New Impact/No Impact. The previously adopted IS/MND did not identify any impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The revised project has been sited consistent with the design evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND and would not introduce any design features that could interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation. As described in Section 15.9.f, the project site is located in an existing developed area with access to major roadways that would allow for emergency evacuation. Therefore, the revised project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
b. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.9.g above, the previously adopted IS/MND determined that the previously approved project was located within a High Fire Hazard Zone.

Consequently, an FPP was prepared requiring that the previously approved project implement defensible space for all project buildings. The Santee Fire Department approved the FPP, and the Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

previously adopted IS/MND determined that impacts associated with risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant. The revised project has been sited consistent with the design evaluated in the previously adopted IS/MND. The footprint location for Building 4 has not changed under this application, and Building 4 would retain the defensible space requirements documented in the FPP prepared for the previously approved project. The revised project would also comply with applicable fire protection requirements set forth in the Santee’s Municipal Code (Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.20), such as the use of non-combustible building materials. Therefore, the revised project would not expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.19.a, above, the revised project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the revised project would not require construction or maintenance of any other infrastructure facilities. Therefore, the revised project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, and impacts would be less than significant. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.
d. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.9.g, the project site is not within the 100-year or 500-year flood hazard area, and is located outside the potential inundation areas delineated on Figure 8-2 of the General Plan Safety Element. As described in Section 15.7.a(iv) above, the revised project would be constructed consistent with the requirements of the Geotechnical Investigation completed for the previously approved project and the seismic requirements of the California Building Code. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that the revised project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. Therefore, the revised project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The revised project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new impact would occur.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

15.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:

Issue
New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation is
Required
No New
Impact/
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
futures projects)?
c. Have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

a. No New Impact/No Impact. As described in Section 15.4.a above, the previously approved project successfully mitigated all potential impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland to a level less than significant. As described in Section 15.5.a above, the revised project would not impact any historical resources. As described in Section 15.5.b above, the revised project would not impact any archaeological resources. No new impact would occur. b. No New Impact/No Impact. In addition to evaluation of potential project-specific effects, this evaluation considered the revised project’s potential for incremental effects that may be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, or probable future projects in the area. Cumulative projects in the project area are shown in Table 13.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

Table 13
Cumulative Project List
Project Location Description Status
Fanita Ranch Northern edge of City Master Plan Residential Community (approx. 2,949 residences) Approved
RiverView RiverView Parkway 128-detached condominium units Under Construction Walker Trails
Magnolia Ave., north of
State Route 52 and west of
State Route 67
Specific Plan Amendment for 83
residences at the RCP Block & Brick
site.

Under Construction
Slope Street Estates South side of Slope Street 11 single-family units Application Under Review
Gas Station/
Car Wash
Mission Gorge Road and
West Hills Parkway
New gas station with renovated
convenience market Approved
Parkside Eastern Terminus of Mast
Boulevard 128 condominium units Application under review Caribbean project East side of Caribbean Way 42 condominium units Under Construction Tyler Street
Subdivision
Southern terminus of Tyler
Street 14 single-family units Application under review
Gas Station Cuyamaca Street and
Prospect Avenue
New gas station, convenience
market and car wash Approved
Coffee shop and
mini- market
Graves Avenue and
Prospect Avenue New coffee shop and mini market Approved Palm Tree Homes Prospect Avenue and Our
Way 4 single-family detached homes Application Under Review Pinnacle Peak Mission Gorge Road 113 condominium units Under Construction Lantern Crest III Graves Avenue 113 congregate care units Under Construction Carlton Oaks
Country Club Inwood Drive
232 condominium units, 53 singlefamily residences, assisted living, hotel, and restaurant expansion
Application Under
Review
Palazzo Villas West side of Olive Lane 8 condominium units Approved Atlas View Atlas View and Prospect
Avenue 11 condominium units Application Under Review
Prospect Estates II North of Prospect Avenue,
east of Marrokal Lane
38 attached condominiums and 15
single-family residences Approved
D’Lazio Fanita Drive 20 condominium units Under Construction Woodside Terrace Woodside Terrace 4 single-family units Under Construction E Heaney Circle Carlton Oaks 10 townhomes Approved
Mission Greens Buena Vista Drive and
Mission Greens 40 condominium units Under Construction
Robinson Lane Robinson Lane near
Caribbean Drive 10 condominium units Under Construction SOURCE: City of Santee, Department of Development Services As discussed in this environmental document, all impacts would be mitigated to a level less than significant. Air quality is a regional issue and the cumulative study area for air quality impacts encompasses the SDAB as a whole. Therefore, the cumulative analysis addresses regional air quality plans and policies, such as the RAQS, as well as the revised project’s contribution to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SDAB is listed as a non-attainment area. As described in Section

15.3.a, the revised project would not be significantly different from the growth projections of the General Plan, and would not result in an increase in emissions than are already accounted for in the RAQS. As described in Section 15.4.a, the previously approved project successfully mitigated all Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

potential impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and secondary wildlife impacts to a level less than significant. Cumulative projects listed in Table 13 would also be required to comply with the natural community conservation plan and mitigate for impacts to biological resources as necessary. Climate change is, by its nature, a cumulative issue. As described in Section 15.8.b, the revised project would not conflict with the applicable plans developed to reduce GHG emissions at the regional level. As described in Section 15.13.a, potential impacts associated with noise would be less than significant. Due to the varied schedules and for construction of cumulative projects listed in Table 13, it is unlikely construction activities would overlap, thereby avoiding significant cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors. As described in Section 15.17.a above, the previously approved project successfully mitigated all potential impacts related to transportation to a level less than significant. Cumulative projects listed in Table 13 would also be required to conduct cumulative traffic impact analyses and implement mitigation as necessary to reduce cumulative impacts to a level less than significant. All other project impacts were determined to be less than significant, and due to the limited scope of the revised project, would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. No new impact would occur.
c. No New Impact/No Impact. As discussed throughout this document, no hazardous conditions on the project site or in the surrounding area were identified that could adversely affect human beings.

It is not anticipated that construction activities would create conditions that would significantly directly or indirectly impact human beings. Development of the project site would comply with all State and City regulations that would ensure the building is safe and designed to protect future occupants. The revised project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly, and impact would be less than significant. No new impact would occur.

16.0 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program be adopted upon certification of an EIR or adoption of an MND to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented. The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program specifies the mitigation developed for the previously approved project that would be applicable for the revised project, when in the process the mitigation measure should be accomplished, and the entity responsible for implementing and/or monitoring the mitigation. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant.

The previously approved project successfully implemented all mitigation requirements documented in the previously adopted IS/MND, and no mitigation is required for implementation of the revised project.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

17.0 Checklist References

1. Project documents–including all plans, documents, departmental comments and information contained in the files for the Lantern Crest Senior Congregate Care Facility Project; GPA07-03, R07-02, P07-12.

2. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, January 2010.

3. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), CEQA and Climate Change:

Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008.

4. CAPCOA, California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.1, October 2017.

5. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005.

6. CARB, 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf, December 2008.

7. CARB, 2017 Emission Factors Web Database model, Accessed at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/. 2017

8. CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2017.

9. California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, 2016. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

10. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database, 2022, Available at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

11. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, November 2013.

12. Caltrans 2016 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Compiled by Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems, 2016.

13. Caltrans, Peak Hour Volume Data, Year 2020.

14. California Energy Code (2016), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6.

15. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 2020, 2021 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report, November 2021.

16. City of Santee Community Services Department.

17. City of Santee General Plan, 2003.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

18. City of Santee Zoning Ordinance.

19. City of Santee Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan Update, April 2017.

20. City of Santee Draft Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan, 2006.

21. City of Santee Fire Department.

22. City of Santee Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines. April 27, 2022.

23. County of San Diego, Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Operations, September 2014.

24. County of San Diego, Countywide Five-Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, August 2017.

25. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

FHWA-HEP-05-054, SOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. Final Report. January 2006.

26. FHWA, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025. December 2011.

27. George E. Tockstein, Consultants, Fire Protection Plan, Lantern Crest Congregate Care Facility.

June 9, 2008.

28. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook 8th Edition, 2009.

29. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, May 2019.

30. City of Santee, Sustainable Santee Plan, December 2019.

31. Navcon Engineering, Inc., SoundPLAN Essential version 4.1, 2018.

32. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (Guidance Manual), February 2015.

33. San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Resolution Adopting Amended Rule 20.1 – New Source Review – General Provisions; Rule 20.2 – New Source Review – Non-Major Stationary Sources; Rule 20.3 – New Source Review – Major Stationary Sources And Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Stationary Sources; Rule 20.4 – New Source Review – Portable Emission Units; and Rule 20.6 – Standards for Permit to Operate Air Quality Analysis, of Regulation II of the Rules and Regulations of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Resolution Number 16-041, April 2016.

34. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. April 2002.

Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Legacy at Lantern Crest Project

35. SANDAG, Transportation Forecast Information Center. Series 13 Traffic Volume Forecast.

Accessed at http://tfic.sandag.org/ on September 8, 2022.

36. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan.

37. San Diego Metropolitan Transit System website, Available at https://www.sdmts.com/.

38. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Database (Geotracker), Available at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, 2022.

39. University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, 1997 Transportation ProjectLevel Carbon Monoxide Protocol, December 1997.

40. Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc., Update Geotechnical Investigation, Lantern Crest Project (All Current Phases), April 17, 2008.

Attachment 1

STAFF REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 OPERATING BUDGET UPDATE

AND RESOLUTION AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2023
Overview
With a history of sound fiscal responsibility, the City of Santee has weathered the past few years well. Through a combination of stronger than anticipated revenues and budgeted expenditure savings, the City ended last fiscal year with an available General Fund reserve balance of $13.6 million which is $112,575 better than expected when the current fiscal year budget was developed. General Fund revenues were $127,172 better than expected.

Property Tax and Sales Tax had a combined increase over estimated revenues of $638,488, but large unrealized losses on investments of $797,211 reduced total revenue. These losses are temporary and will be reversed once the investments mature. Expenditure savings for the year were in line with the estimated amount of $550,000.

The following discussion and schedules present updated revenue projections for FY 2022-23 and proposed expenditure appropriation adjustments. The Amended Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23, as presented, is a balanced budget which provides for a projected reserve balance at June 30, 2023 of $12.8 million or 23.8% of annual General Fund operating expenditures. Supplemental reserves in excess of the City’s 20% minimum reserve policy will provide resources necessary to navigate through the current high inflationary environment that will impact City contracts, address uncertainty created by national and global events, meet continued increases in CalPERS retirement costs and address CalPERS unfunded liabilities.

In addition, the supplemental reserves can also provide an opportunity to allocate additional resources towards meeting current and future infrastructure and public facility needs.

General Fund
Proposed Budget Summary
FY 2022-23 Mid-Year Amended Budget
Revenues $ 54,786,710
Expenditures (53,635,133)
Revenues Over Expenditures 1,151,577
Other Financing Sources 454,957
Other Financing Uses:

Transfers to Other Funds (845,257)
Transfers to Capital Improvement Program (1,019,670)
Unfunded Liability Payments (CalPERS) (600,000)
Available Fund Balance, July 1, 2022 13,635,495
Available Fund Balance, June 30, 2023 $ 12,777,102
Staff Report – Operating Budget Update and Amendments
Fiscal Year 2022-23
2 General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenues for FY 2022-23 are projected to total $54.7 million, a $497,670 increase from the original budget estimate. The following is a discussion of key revenue updates.

Property Taxes: Property Taxes represent nearly 42.8% of General Fund revenues and are received based on net taxable assessed valuation. Citywide net taxable assessed valuation increased by 8.0% in FY 2022-23. This growth is fueled by the increase in house purchases as well as an increase in housing costs. Property tax revenues are projected to total $23.5 million in FY 2022-23, an increase of $1.3 million from the previous fiscal year and $301,500 more than the FY 2022-23 original budget estimate. Real Property Transfer Tax is expected to decrease based on a decline in the number of house sales. To date property tax payment delinquencies continue to have just a very minimal impact on the City’s property tax revenues, though this is something that we are continuing to monitor.

Sales Tax: Sales Tax represents 33.0% of General Fund revenues and is projected to total $18.2 million in FY 2022-23. This represents a $257,265 increase over the prior fiscal year and a $249,700 increase from this year’s original budget estimate. The key Building and Construction and General Consumer Goods categories are softening slightly especially when compared to the fast growth of the prior year. In addition, Santee’s share of the countywide use tax pool is sluggish due to fewer on-line, out of state purchases resulting in a smaller portion of the pool.

Franchise Fees: Franchise Fees represent the third largest discretionary source of revenue and are received from Waste Management, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Cox Communications and AT&T. Franchise Fees are projected to total $3.7 million in FY 2022-23, an increase of $198,890 from the prior fiscal year and a $63,100 increase from the original budget estimate. As continues to be the case, expected increases from Waste Management and SDG&E are partially offset by expected decreases from Cox Communications and AT&T.

Transient Occupancy Tax: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue continues to experience solid growth. TOT revenue is projected to total $730,000 in FY 2022-23. This represents 11% growth from the prior fiscal year and a $35,700 increase from the original budget estimate.

Fire Reimbursements: Due to fewer wildfires this year, Santee Fire Department personnel and resources have deployed to fewer wildfires throughout the State. As a result, federal and state reimbursements are expected to total $233,900 in FY 2022-23. This is significantly less, $593,920, than the amount received in the prior fiscal year, and reflects a $216,100 decrease from the original budget estimate. This reduction in revenue is paired with a reduction in reimbursable overtime costs and other related expenditures.

Emergency Medical Service Revenue: On January 1, 2023, the County CSA 69, which oversaw the funding of the City of Santee and Lakeside Fire Protection District’s Emergency Medical Services (EMS) programs, dissolved and the two agencies formed a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) known as the Santee-Lakeside Emergency Medical Services Authority (SLEMSA). This Authority will now collect and manage the funding for the EMS programs. As a result of this change, Santee’s General Fund will now be reimbursed by these EMS revenues.

For the time period of January 2023 – June 2023, the reimbursement is expected to be $2.2 Staff Report – Operating Budget Update and Amendments
Fiscal Year 2022-23
3 million. This amount is very similar to what would have been reimbursed by the County and only slightly higher due to updates in EMS operations.

Building Permit Revenue: Building Permit Revenue is projected to decrease by $227,600 due to less demand for permits. This is primarily due to fewer expected large projects in the near future.

General Fund Expenditures
The amended budget reflects General Fund operating expenditures totaling $53.6 million in FY 2022-23, a $112,710 increase over the current budget. The following is a discussion of the proposed appropriation adjustments.

Personnel Costs: Proposed personnel cost adjustments include the following:
• A $100,000 increase in Fire Department overtime due to several vacancies and fire personnel out on worker’s compensation.
• A $100,000 increase in worker’s compensation costs in the Fire Department. • A $150,000 decrease in reimbursable overtime in the Fire Department due to the decrease in fire personnel deployments to State wildfires. • A $4,200 increase due to the new Emergency Medical Services Intern. • A $41,430 increase in overtime in the Emergency Medical Services department for transition activities related to the new Santee-Lakeside Emergency Medical Services Authority. These costs will be reimbursed by the Authority. • Reclassification of the vacant Director of Development Services to Director of Planning and Building/City Planner. The budget for the vacant director position is currently split 50/50 between the Engineering and the Planning Divisions. The proposed reclassification would move 50 percent of the position from the Engineering Division to the Building Division. There is no net budgetary increase due to this reclassification. • Reclassification of the City Engineer to the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. This reclassification will result in a small increase of $3,500 in personnel costs for the Engineering department, however, this increase is offset by salary savings. No budget adjustment is necessary for this staffing adjustment.

Other proposed operating expenditure adjustments include the following.

City Council: The addition of $3,900 for the Santee Hometown Heroes Banner Program.

These costs represent the cost of printing and installing the banners along with online payment fees. And these fees will be offset by Hometown Banner revenue.

City Manager (Economic Development): An increase of $24,300 to hire a consultant for the purpose of assisting the City in the preparation of the Cannabis Business Application.

City Attorney: An increase of $130,000 to fund costs associated with Labor and Employment matters and to assist the City with a Proposition 218 study.

Information Technology: A decrease of $150,000 to correct an error in the original 2022-23 budget. The annual fees for the new Land Management System were budgeted in two places.

Staff Report – Operating Budget Update and Amendments
Fiscal Year 2022-23
4 Human Resources & Risk Management: An increase of $15,000 for the Wellness Program.

This program is reimbursed by the City’s health carriers.

Finance: An increase of $9,000 to cover credit card processing fees, and an increase of $3,000 for updated Auditing services.

Development Services: A decrease of $170,000 in contract building plan check and inspection services, which is offset by a projected decrease in building permit revenue.

Community Services: An increase of $1,200 for electricity and gas. And an additional increase of $10,000 for water costs.

Fire: Proposed adjustments include the following:
• Increase of $2,100 for electricity
• Increase of $3,300 for the testing of breathing cylinders • Increase of $108,500 for the reimbursement to Lakeside Fire Protection District for Santee’s share of a Nurse Coordinator and the operation of an EMT program. • Increase of $9,200 for increased fuel costs (entire City fleet) • Increase of $3,090 to establish a telephone budget for the EOC • Increase of $25,190 for the repair and maintenance of City vehicles General Fund Reserve Considerations
While the City has been fortunate in the past few years with stronger than anticipated revenues, the City has not seen the degree of revenue growth this year as it has in the past, particularly in Sales Tax. Notwithstanding, the City’s projected ending balance remains a positive amount.

The amended budget reflects a projected available General Fund balance of $12.8 million at June 30, 2023, a $513,825 improvement from the current budget which exceeds the $10.7 million minimum balance required by the City’s General Fund Reserve Policy by more than $2.0 million.

The City Council may want to consider providing direction to staff to appropriate or commit portions of the projected available reserve balance in excess of the 20% policy level for purposes such as the following:
• To maintain a supplemental budget stabilization reserve which would provide additional resources to cushion against current inflationary or changes in general economic conditions, City revenues or expenditure requirements.
• Additional payments to reduce CalPERS unfunded liabilities. • Additional transfers to the Capital Improvement Program in support of key current and planned City projects and initiatives such as:
o Pavement repair and maintenance
o Fire facilities and services
o Community Center
o Arts & Entertainment District
o Information Technology investments such as web site improvements and the upgrade/replacement of the City’s financial management system Staff Report – Operating Budget Update and Amendments
Fiscal Year 2022-23
5 Other Funds
Proposed adjustments to Other Funds include the following:

Recreation Revolving Fund: An increase of $21,000 to fund increases in day and contract camp costs due to an increased demand for recreation activities.

Town Center LMD Zone C – San Remo: An increase of $700 for water costs due to irrigation breaks.

Emergency Medical Services Fund: Reimbursement to the General Fund of $2,171,500 to reimburse the General Fund for costs associated with the Fire Department’s EMS program.

This reimbursement covers the period of January 2023 through June 2023.

Attachment 2

CITY OF SANTEE

GENERAL FUND SUMMARY
FY 2022-23 PROPOSED MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS
FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23
Current Amended Increase
Budget Budget (Decrease)
Revenues 54,289,040 $ 54,786,710 $ 497,670 $
Expenditures by Dept:

City Council 497,020 3,900 500,920
City Attorney 693,360 823,360 130,000
City Manager 1,475,890 1, 24,300 500,190
City Manager 758,770 24,300 783,070
Economic Development 717,120 717,120 -
Information Technology 853,990 703,990 (150,000)
Animal Control 441,530 441,530 -
City Clerk 539,010 539,010 -
Human Resources & Risk Mgmt 1,411,860 1,426,860 15,000
Human Resources 655,260 670,260 15,000
Risk Management 756,600 756,600 -
Finance 1,583,160 1,595,160 12,000
Development Services (total): 5,805,335 5,664,635 (140,700) Engineering 2,880,410 2,844,490 (35,920)
Stormwater 140,370 140,370 -
Planning 1,346,545 1,359,435 12,890
Building 1,270,040 1,152,370 (117,670)
Code Compliance 167,970 167,970 -
Community Services (total): 6,100,458 6,111,658 11,200
Administration 433,040 433,040 -
Public Svcs - Maintenance 4,309,308 4,319,308 10,000
Stormwater 173,400 173,400 -
Solid Waste 32,070 32,070 -
Facility Operations 137,360 137,360 -
Recreation 695,400 695,400 -
Special Events 319,880 321,080 1,200
Law Enforcement 16,983,950 16,983,950 -
Fire and Life Safety (total): 17,136,860 17,343,870 207,010 Administration 1,242,930 1,245,030 2,100
Emergency Operations 11,307,570 11,330,870 23,300
Emergency Medical 4,044,990 4,198,320 153,330
Emergency Preparedness 30,170 33,260 3,090
Grants - - -
Fleet Operations and Maintenance 511,200 536,390 25,190 - Total Operating Expenditures 53,522,423 53,635,133 112,710 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 766,617 1,151,577 384,960 Other Financing Sources 312,947 454,957 142,010
Other Financing Uses:

Transfers to Other Funds (719,537) (845,257) (125,720)
Transfers to Capital Improvement Program (1,019,670) (1,019,670) - Unfunded Liabilities (600,000) (600,000) -
Change in Available Fund Balance (1,259,643) (858,393) 401,250 Available Fund Balance, Beg. of Year 13,522,920 13,635,495 112,575 Available Fund Balance, End of Year $ 12,263,277 $ 12,777,102 $ 513,825

CITY OF SANTEE

GENERAL FUND

REVENUE DETAIL
FY 2022-23 MID-YEAR UPDATE
Attachment 3
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 Increase
Account No. Account Name Actual Current Revised (Decrease) TAXES
Property Taxes 22,206,076 23,180,700 23,482,200 301,500 1001.00.4001 Property Tax Secured and Unsecured 12,192,474 12,616,100 12,902,800 286,700 1001.00.4002 Property Tax - Redev Pass-through 540,259 533,000 533,000 - 1001.00.4003 Property Tax - Redev Residual Distrib 1,863,130 1,969,300 1,969,300 - 1001.00.4005 Real Property Transfer 474,502 452,100 371,700 (80,400) 1001.00.4006 Property Tax In Lieu (of VLF) 7,135,712 7,610,200 7,705,400 95,200 Sales and Use Taxes 16,175,312 16,114,800 16,308,800 194,000 1001.00.4011 Sales and Use Taxes 17,902,035 17,909,600 18,159,300 249,700 1001.00.4015 Location Agreement Payment (1,726,724) (1,794,800) (1,850,500) (55,700) Transient Occupancy Tax 693,796 694,300 730,000 35,700
1001.00.4020 Transient Occupancy Tax 693,796 694,300 730,000 35,700 Franchise Fees 3,499,810 3,635,600 3,698,700 63,100
1001.00.4030 Franchise Fees 3,499,810 3,635,600 3,698,700 63,100 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1,115,412 1,114,600 1,114,600 -
1001.03.4102 Assessments - Fire Benefit Fee 1,115,412 1,114,600 1,114,600 - INTERGOVERNMENTAL 953,419 586,500 339,600 (246,900)
1001.00.4202 Motor Vehicle License Fees 65,618 65,700 65,700 - 1001.00.4206 SB90 Claims 39,515 65,000 40,000 (25,000)
1001.03.4250 Fire Reimbursements - Federal 193,068 150,000 150,000 - 1001.03.4251 Fire Reimbursements - State 634,752 300,000 83,900 (216,100) 1001.03.4252 Fire Reimbursements - Local/Other 20,465 5,800 - (5,800) LICENSES AND PERMITS 1,816,787 1,561,600 1,334,000 (227,600) 1001.00.4301 Business Licenses - New 40,974 45,000 45,000 - 1001.00.4302 Business Licenses - Renewals 57,262 64,900 64,900 - 1001.00.4303 Regulatory Permits 2,511 2,700 2,700 -
1001.00.4304 Business Licenses - Other 1,219 800 800 -
1001.00.4306 Home Occupation Permit - New 6,797 7,100 7,100 - 1001.00.4307 Home Occupation Permit - Renewal 14,443 15,100 15,100 - 1001.00.4310 Alarm Permits 784 1,300 1,300 -
1001.03.4330 Fire Department - Permits/Services 111,552 102,100 102,100 - 1001.04.4340 Building Fees - Eng Direct City Costs 38,589 40,800 40,800 - 1001.04.4341 Building Fees - Subject to Split 1,513,968 1,250,400 1,022,800 (227,600) 1001.04.4343 Building Fees - Plng Direct City Costs 28,689 31,400 31,400 - FINES AND FORFEITURES 171,428 178,000 171,600 (6,400)
1001.00.4401 Vehicle Code Fines 107,480 116,200 116,200 - 1001.00.4402 Other Fines and Forfeitures 9,759 1,000 1,000 - 1001.00.4410 Parking Citations 53,582 53,400 53,400 -
1001.04.4403 Code Compliance Administrative Citations 607 1,000 1,000 - 1001.04.4404 Storm Water Administrative Citations - 6,400 - (6,400) CHARGES FOR SERVICES 5,956,467 6,059,262 6,454,230 394,968 1001.00.4635 Finance - Full Cost Recovery - 2,000 2,000 - 1001.00.4640 Admin Tow Fees 12,424 12,000 12,000 -
1001.00.4641 Cost Recovery - Restitution 904 400 400 -
1001.00.4691 Candidate Statements - 3,500 3,500 -
1001.00.4694 City Clerk - Misc Fees 75 250 250 -
1001.00.4695 City Clerk - Passport Services 103,290 75,000 75,000 - 1001.00.4699 Charges to Other Funds 140,457 144,390 144,390 - 1001.02.4632 CSD - Full Cost Recovery 1,725 2,000 2,000 - 1001.02.4645 Cost Recovery - Subrogation 3,592 200 34,370 34,170 1001.02.4650 Sports Field Lighting 59,112 53,000 53,000 - 1001.02.4665 Disc Golf Fees 58,565 75,000 35,000 (40,000)

CITY OF SANTEE

GENERAL FUND

REVENUE DETAIL
FY 2022-23 MID-YEAR UPDATE
Attachment 3
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2022-23 Increase
Account No. Account Name Actual Current Revised (Decrease) 1001.02.4668 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 2,658 3,000 3,000 - 1001.02.4676 Teen Programs 3,365 5,100 5,100 -
1001.02.4680 Special Events 97,738 100,000 100,000 -
1001.02.4699 Charges to Other Funds 194,243 49,650 49,650 - 1001.03.4633 Fire - Full Cost Recovery 1,205 1,000 1,000 - 1001.03.4646 Instructional Services - FTES 14,750 22,000 15,000 (7,000) 1001.03.4692 CSA 69 3,799,435 4,039,160 2,079,680 (1,959,480) 1001.03.4693 Emergency Medical Services - 27,200 2,198,750 2,171,550 1001.03.4697 SLEMSA JPA - - 142,960 142,960
1001.04.4601 Engineering - Fee Based 50,229 52,300 52,300 - 1001.04.4603 Engineering - Full Cost Recovery 519,055 500,300 425,300 (75,000) 1001.04.4611 Street Light Energizing Fee 1,015 1,000 1,000 - 1001.04.4612 Storm Water Inspection 9,299 8,000 8,000 - 1001.04.4621 Planning - Fee Based 29,673 23,200 23,200 - 1001.04.4623 Planning - Full Cost Recovery 170,692 135,240 210,240 75,000 1001.04.4699 Charges to Other Funds 682,966 724,372 777,140 52,768 USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY (66,766) 664,200 690,300 26,100 1001.00.4701 Interest Income 195,131 180,000 180,000 -
1001.00.4702 Unrealized Gain (Loss) (797,211) - - -
1001.00.4705 Rent/Lease/Use Income 1,074 - - -
1001.02.4711 City Facilities - Sportsplex 276,883 227,400 254,000 26,600 1001.02.4716 Concessions 10,692 10,000 19,500 9,500
1001.02.4722 Rental - Bldgs 7 & 8 26,619 30,000 20,000 (10,000) 1001.02.4723 Rental - Picnic Shelters 87,397 86,000 86,000 - 1001.02.4724 Rental - Ball Fields 122,777 120,000 120,000 - 1001.04.4701 Interest Income 8 - - -
1001.04.4705 Rent/Lease/Use Income 9,864 10,800 10,800 - OTHER REVENUE 518,379 499,478 462,680 (36,798)
1001.00.4031 Sycamore Landfill Fees 399,282 427,800 375,000 (52,800) 1001.00.4801 Miscellaneous Income 5,748 3,500 3,500 -
1001.00.4808 Taxable Sales 32 500 500 -
1001.00.4831 Cash Over/Short (22) - - -
1001.01.4801 Miscellaneous Income 77,577 45,000 45,000 - 1001.00.4804 Hometown Heroes Program - - 7,200 7,200
1001.01.4811 Loss Control Program 2,000 2,000 2,000 -
1001.01.4810 Wellness Program 11,087 5,000 15,000 10,000 1001.01.4832 Recovery of Prior Year Expense (Claims) - - - - 1001.02.4801 Miscellaneous Income 365 - - -
1001.02.4802 Donations 8,015 9,478 9,480 2
1001.02.4803 Donations - Memorial Program 1,400 1,000 1,000 - 1001.02.4808 Taxable Sales 75 100 100 -
1001.03.4801 Miscellaneous Income 648 2,100 900 (1,200) 1001.03.4821 Sale of Real & Personal Property 5,480 - - - 1001.04.4801 Miscellaneous Income 1,937 2,000 2,000 -
1001.04.4805 Abandoned Property Registration 1,127 1,000 1,000 - 1001.04.4831 Cash Over/Short 58 - - -
1001.00.4832 Recovery of Prior Year Expense (Claims) 3,572 - - - OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 45,740 - - -
1001.00.8001 Operating Transfer In - - - -
1001.00.8013 Other Financing Sources - Leases 45,740 - - TOTAL GENERAL FUND 53,085,861 54,289,040 54,786,710 497,670 Attachment 4
Increase
(Decrease)
City Council
Hometown Heroes Banner Program 3,900 $
City Attorney
Labor and Employment 50,000
Fee Analysis                            80,000
130,000
City Manager
Cannabis Application Assistance 24,300
Information Technology
Energov (Paid Out of CIP) (150,000)
Finance
Accounting/Auditing Services 3,000
Bank Fees                              9,000
12,000
Human Resources
Wellness Program                            15,000
Development Services
Engineering ‐ Personnel Adjustments (35,920)
Planning ‐ Personnel Adjustments (17,110)
Planning ‐ Contract Planner 30,000
Building ‐ Personnel Adjustments 53,030
Building ‐ Contract Building Services (170,700)
(140,700)
Community Services/Public Services
Electricity                              1,200
Water                            10,000
11,200
Fire and Life Safety
EMS Intern                              4,200
Overtime                         100,000
Overtime Transition Acting Captain 41,430
Reimbursable Overtime (150,000)
Worker's Compensation 100,000
Legal Services ‐ CSA Reorganization (40,000)
Nurse Coordinator and Lakeside EMT Program 108,500
Testing of Breathing Cylinders 3,300
Fuel                              9,200
Electricity                              2,100
EOC Telephone Correction 3,090
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance 25,190
207,010
Total Operating Expenditures Appropriation Adjustments $                      112,710 CITY OF SANTEE
GENERAL FUND
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT BY DEPARTMENT
FY 2022‐23 MID‐YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
Attachment 5
Increase
(Decrease)
Recreation Revolving Fund
Day Camp Part Time Salaries Increase $ 12,000
Day Camp Materials & Supplies 4,000
Contract Camps 5,000
21,000
Town Center Landscape Maintenance District Zone C - San Remo Water and Sewer 700
Emergency Medical Services
EMS Program 2,171,550
Total Other Funds Appropriation Adjustments $ 2,193,250

CITY OF SANTEE

OTHER FUNDS

SUMMARY OF ADJUSTMENTS BY FUND
FY 2022-23 MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. ______-2023

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE,

CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND FINDING THE ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santee adopted the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 by Resolution No. 087-2022 on June 22, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted to the City Council for its review and approval certain budget and personnel amendments for fiscal year 2022-23; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santee, California, does hereby find, determine and declare as follows:

Section 1: The fiscal year 2022-23 budget amendments as submitted by the City Manager, including all changes directed by the City Council, are approved and adopted.

Section 2: The monies necessary to offset the expenditures for the fiscal year 2022- 23 budget amendments, as adopted by the City Council pursuant to Section 1 hereof, are authorized by this section to be appropriated out of the funds available to the City during said fiscal year.

Section 3: The following personnel changes are hereby approved.

A. Reclassification of the vacant Director of Development Services to Director of Planning and Building/City Planner.

B. Reclassification of the City Engineer to the Director of Engineering/City Engineer.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a regular meeting thereof held this 22nd day of February 2023, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. -2023
Attachment 7

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

APPROVING AN AMENDED SALARY SCHEDULE FOR HOURLY, GENERAL AND

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES AND FINDING THE ACTION IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) WHEREAS, at the City Council meeting on February 22, 2023, the City Council approved a Mid-Year Budget Update for FY 2022-23 which includes certain staffing changes in the Development Services Department; and
WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5 requires that, for purposes of determining a retiring employee’s pension allowance, the pay rate be limited to the amount listed on a pay schedule that meets certain requirements and is approved by the governing body in accordance with the requirements of the applicable public meeting laws; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Hourly, General and Management Salary Schedule, effective February 23, 2023, to include the Director of Engineering/City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building/City Planner positions as reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santee, California, does hereby find, determine and declare that the Hourly, General and Management Salary Schedule as provided in Exhibit “A” is approved and effective on February 23, 2023.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 22nd day of February 2023, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
Attachment: Exhibit A (Salary Schedule)
Exhibit A
Classification A B C D E
Fire Captain / PM Hourly 34.35 36.07 37.87 39.76 41.75
Base salary Annual 100,027.62 105,030.12 110,281.30 115,794.56 121,584.96 Educational Incentive
Fire Captain / PM Hourly 34.87 36.61 38.44 40.36 42.38
31-45 units = 1.5% over base Annual 101,527.82 106,605.59 111,935.62 117,531.64 123,408.77 Fire Captain / PM Hourly 35.38 37.15 39.01 40.96 43.01
46 units and over = 3.0% over base Annual 103,028.34 108,181.03 113,589.93 119,268.09 125,232.24 Fire Captain / PM Hourly 35.90 37.69 39.58 41.55 43.63
A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base Annual 104,528.86 109,756.17 115,243.89 121,005.17 127,056.01 Fire Captain / PM Hourly 36.41 38.23 40.14 42.15 44.26
Bachelor Degree = 6% over base Annual 106,029.05 111,331.61 116,898.21 122,742.28 128,880.16

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 07, 2022

Exhibit A

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 07, 2022
Classification A B C D E
Fire Captain Hourly 32.87 34.51 36.24 38.05 39.95
Base salary Annual 95,720.07 100,506.97 105,532.05 110,808.09 116,348.51 Educational Incentive
Fire Captain Hourly 33.36 35.03 36.78 38.62 40.55
31-45 units = 1.5% over base Annual 97,155.82 102,014.36 107,115.36 112,470.25 118,093.78 Fire Captain Hourly 33.86 35.55 37.33 39.19 41.15
46 units and over = 3.0% over base Annual 98,591.89 103,522.07 108,698.01 114,132.09 119,839.05 Fire Captain Hourly 34.35 36.07 37.87 39.76 41.75
A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base Annual 100,027.62 105,029.80 110,280.99 115,794.56 121,584.32 Fire Captain Hourly 34.84 36.59 38.41 40.34 42.35
Bachelor Degree = 6% over base Annual 101,463.37 106,537.21 111,864.28 117,456.42 123,329.57

Exhibit A

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 07, 2022
Classification A B C D E
Fire Engineer/PM Hourly 29.47 30.91 32.43 34.09 35.70
Base salary Annual 85,809.85 90,021.24 94,442.37 99,260.43 103,961.77 Educational Incentive
Fire Engineer / PM Hourly 29.91 31.38 32.92 34.60 36.24 31-45 units = 1.5% over base Annual 87,097.23 91,371.40 95,858.68 100,749.41 105,521.06 Fire Engineer / PM Hourly 30.35 31.84 33.41 35.11 36.77 46 units and over = 3.0% over base Annual 88,384.30 92,721.93 97,275.61 102,238.00 107,080.42 Fire Engineer / PM Hourly 30.79 32.30 33.89 35.62 37.31 A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base Annual 89,671.34 94,072.11 98,692.21 103,726.96 108,640.06 Fire Engineer / PM Hourly 31.24 32.77 34.38 36.13 37.84 Bachelor Degree = 6% over base Annual 90,958.72 95,422.63 100,108.81 105,215.93 110,199.40

Exhibit A

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 07, 2022
Classification A B C D E
Fire Engineer Hourly 28.06 29.44 30.88 32.46 33.99
Base salary Annual 81,706.23 85,715.38 89,925.73 94,513.40 98,990.40 Educational Incentive
Fire Engineer Hourly 28.48 29.88 31.34 32.94 34.50
31-45 units = 1.5% over base Annual 82,931.93 87,001.25 91,274.77 95,931.12 100,475.20 Fire Engineer Hourly 28.90 30.32 31.81 33.43 35.01
46 units and over = 3.0% over base Annual 84,157.60 88,286.83 92,623.49 97,348.86 101,960.38 Fire Engineer Hourly 29.32 30.76 32.27 33.92 35.52
A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base Annual 85,382.96 89,572.70 93,972.50 98,766.60 103,445.19 Fire Engineer Hourly 29.74 31.20 32.73 34.40 36.03
Bachelor Degree = 6% over base Annual 86,608.95 90,858.25 95,321.21 100,184.35 104,930.00

Exhibit A

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 07, 2022
Classification A B C D E F G H
Firefighter Paramedic Hourly 25.25 26.29 27.37 28.50 30.18 31.40 32.67 33.99 Base salary Annual 73,538.44 76,559.44 79,706.09 82,981.65 87,892.90 91,443.60 95,138.00 98,990.40 Educational Incentive (after completing 3 1/2 years of employment) G H Firefighter Paramedic 33.16 34.50
31-45 units = 1.5% over base 96,564.89 100,475.20
Firefighter Paramedic 33.65 35.01
46 units and over = 3.0% over base 97,991.81 101,960.38 Firefighter Paramedic 34.14 35.52
A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base 99,419.37 103,445.19
Firefighter Paramedic 34.63 36.03
Bachelor Degree = 6% over base 100,846.27 104,930.00

Exhibit A

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JULY 07, 2022
Classification A B C D E F G H
Firefighter Hourly 21.43 22.50 23.52 24.81 26.05 27.35 28.72 30.15 Base salary Annual 62,398.04 65,516.54 68,501.89 72,232.91 75,844.83 79,637.40 83,618.38 87,800.28 Educational Incentive (after completing 3 1/2 years of employment) G H Firefighter 29.15 30.60
31-45 units = 1.5% over base 84,872.84 89,117.25
Firefighter 29.58 31.06
46 units and over = 3.0% over base 86,127.01 90,434.21
Firefighter 30.01 31.51
A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base 87,381.45 91,751.51
Firefighter 30.44 31.96
Bachelor Degree = 6% over base 88,635.60 93,068.14

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E
29 Account Clerk Hourly 23.53 24.70 25.94 27.23 28.60
Annual 48,932.36 51,379.05 53,948.06 56,645.69 59,477.76 35 Administrative Secretary Hourly 27.28 28.65 30.08 31.58 33.16 Annual 56,746.77 59,584.06 62,563.32 65,691.78 68,976.26 Assistant City Clerk Hourly 32.80 to 46.86
Annual 68,223.18 to 97,461.70
Assistant to the City Manager Hourly 62.78 to 84.75
Annual 130,574.02 to 176,275.11
50 Assistant Engineer Hourly 39.51 41.49 43.56 45.74 48.03 Annual 82,186.17 86,295.73 90,610.73 95,140.97 99,898.24 58 Associate Civil Engineer / Hourly 48.14 50.55 53.08 55.73 58.52 Associate Traffic Engineer Annual 100,135.74 105,142.97 110,400.42 115,920.27 121,716.54 49 Associate Planner Hourly 38.55 40.48 42.50 44.63 46.86 Annual 80,181.79 84,190.92 88,400.54 92,820.87 97,461.70 28 Building Development Technician I Hourly 22.95 24.10 25.30 26.57 27.90 Annual 47,738.95 50,126.10 52,632.33 55,263.86 58,027.20 32 Building Development Technician II Hourly 25.33 26.60 27.93 29.33 30.79 Annual 52,694.82 55,329.28 58,095.90 61,000.57 64,050.84 Building Official Hourly 57.67 to 75.25
Annual 119,959.00 to 156,519.00
City Clerk Hourly 48.03 to 67.26
Annual 99,907.68 to 139,895.38
City Engineer Hourly 64.14 to 86.87
Annual 133,406.84 to 180,690.27
City Manager Hourly 116.63 to 116.63
(Single Rate) Annual 242,562.81 to 242,562.81

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023
26 Code Compliance Assistant Hourly 21.85 22.94 24.08 25.29 26.55 Annual 45,438.51 47,710.51 50,096.01 52,600.93 55,230.80 44 Code Compliance Officer Hourly 34.07 35.78 37.56 39.44 41.41 Annual 70,869.10 74,412.35 78,133.26 82,039.64 86,141.65 46 Confidential Accountant Hourly 35.80 37.59 39.47 41.44 43.51 Annual 74,456.86 78,179.70 82,088.71 86,193.00 90,502.77 46 Confidential Payroll Specialist Hourly 35.80 37.59 39.47 41.44 43.51 Annual 74,456.86 78,179.70 82,088.71 86,193.00 90,502.77 46 Confidential Secretary Hourly 35.80 37.59 39.47 41.44 43.51 to City Manager/Council Annual 74,456.86 78,179.70 82,088.71 86,193.00 90,502.77 Crossing Guards ^ Hourly 15.53
(Single Rate)
Deputy Fire Chief Hourly 63.19 to 86.47
Annual 131,445.32 to 179,849.01
35 Development Services Technician Hourly 27.28 28.65 30.08 31.58 33.16 Annual 56,746.77 59,584.06 62,563.32 65,691.78 68,976.26 Director of Hourly 68.79 to 91.72
Community Services Annual 143,085.00 to 190,787.63
Director of Hourly 68.07 to 91.76
Development Services Annual 141,578.79 to 190,867.16
Director of Hourly 68.07 to 91.76
Engineering/City Engineer Annual 141,578.79 to 190,867.16 Director of Finance / Hourly 71.92 to 96.76
City Treasurer Annual 149,585.02 to 201,268.81
Director of Fire & Life Safety Hourly 81.67 to 106.61
(Fire Chief) Annual 169,882.83 to 221,746.68

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023
Director of Human Resources Hourly 67.16 to 90.67
Annual 139,699.80 to 188,594.96
Director of Hourly 68.07 to 91.76
Planning & Building/City Planner Annual 141,578.79 to 190,867.16 Economic Development Manager Hourly 42.29 to 57.10
Annual 87,972.65 to 118,763.86
48 Engineering Inspector Hourly 37.61 39.49 41.46 43.54 45.71 Annual 78,226.16 82,137.46 86,244.06 90,556.41 95,084.36 39 Equipment Mechanic Hourly 30.11 31.62 33.20 34.86 36.60 Annual 62,637.92 65,769.94 69,058.38 72,511.36 76,136.71 35 Equipment Operator Hourly 27.28 28.65 30.08 31.58 33.16 Annual 56,746.77 59,584.06 62,563.32 65,691.78 68,976.26 38 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Hourly 29.38 30.85 32.39 34.01 35.71 Annual 61,110.18 64,165.66 67,373.91 70,742.83 74,279.87 25 Facilities Maintenance Technician Hourly 21.31 22.38 23.50 24.67 25.91 Annual 44,330.15 46,546.53 48,874.13 51,317.56 53,883.31 35 Field Inspector Hourly 27.28 28.65 30.08 31.58 33.16 Annual 56,746.77 59,584.06 62,563.32 65,691.78 68,976.26 Finance Manager Hourly 53.10 to 71.69
Annual 110,449.87 to 149,107.40
Fire Battalion Chief Hourly 40.27 to 54.59
(2920 hours) Annual 117,590.66 to 159,411.02

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023
44 Fire Inspector Hourly 34.07 35.78 37.56 39.44 41.41
Annual 70,869.10 74,412.35 78,133.26 82,039.64 86,141.65 Fire Marshal Hourly 53.10 to 71.69
Annual 110,449.87 to 149,107.40
Graduate Intern ^ Hourly 15.53 to 21.32
38 Human Resources Technician Hourly 29.38 30.85 32.39 34.01 35.71 Annual 61,110.18 64,165.66 67,373.91 70,742.83 74,279.87 53 Information Technology Analyst Hourly 42.55 44.68 46.91 49.26 51.72 Annual 88,505.56 92,930.80 97,577.82 102,456.47 107,579.48 Information Technology Manager Hourly 48.27 to 65.17
Annual 100,408.97 to 135,552.25
29 Landscape and Hourly 23.53 24.70 25.94 27.23 28.60
Irrigation Maintenance Worker Annual 48,932.36 51,379.05 53,948.06 56,645.69 59,477.76 48 Lead Equipment Mechanic Hourly 37.61 39.49 41.46 43.54 45.71 Annual 78,226.16 82,137.46 86,244.06 90,556.41 95,084.36 29 Maintenance Worker Hourly 23.53 24.70 25.94 27.23 28.60 Annual 48,932.36 51,379.05 53,948.06 56,645.69 59,477.76 46 Management Analyst Hourly 35.80 37.59 39.47 41.44 43.51 Annual 74,456.86 78,179.70 82,088.71 86,193.00 90,502.77

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023
Marketing Aide^ Hourly 15.53 to 21.32
Marketing Coordinator Hourly 32.80 to 46.86
Annual 68,223.18 to 97,461.70
Marketing Manager Hourly 45.91 to 62.00
Annual 95,497.09 to 128,951.27
28 Marketing Specialist Hourly 22.95 24.10 25.30 26.57 27.90 Annual 47,738.95 50,126.10 52,632.33 55,263.86 58,027.20 Office Assistant ^ Hourly 15.53 to 21.32
48 Parks & Landscape Supervisor Hourly 37.61 39.49 41.46 43.54 45.71 Annual 78,226.16 82,137.46 86,244.06 90,556.41 95,084.36 Principal Civil Engineer Hourly 59.66 to 80.81
Annual 124,099.39 to 168,083.97
Principal Planner Hourly 47.28 to 63.83
Annual 98,345.52 to 132,768.55
Principal Traffic Engineer Hourly 59.66 to 80.81
Annual 124,099.39 to 168,083.97
38 Procurement Specialist Hourly 29.38 30.85 32.39 34.01 35.71 Annual 61,110.18 64,165.66 67,373.91 70,742.83 74,279.87 Public Services Manager Hourly 45.91 to 62.00
Annual 95,497.09 to 128,951.27
43 Public Works Supervisor Hourly 33.24 34.90 36.65 38.48 40.40 Annual 69,140.49 72,597.39 76,227.35 80,038.85 84,040.43 Recreation Aide ^ Hourly 15.53 to 18.21

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023
28 Recreation Coordinator Hourly 22.95 24.10 25.30 26.57 27.90 Annual 47,738.95 50,126.10 52,632.33 55,263.86 58,027.20 Recreation Leader ^ Hourly 16.56 to 19.67
Recreation Services Manager Hourly 45.91 to 62.00
Annual 95,497.09 to 128,951.27
Recreation Supervisor Hourly 32.80 to 46.86
Annual 68,223.18 to 97,461.70
36 Senior Account Clerk Hourly 27.96 29.36 30.83 32.37 33.99 Annual 58,165.56 61,073.86 64,127.71 67,334.03 70,700.96 53 Senior Accountant Hourly 42.55 44.68 46.91 49.26 51.72 Annual 88,505.56 92,930.80 97,577.82 102,456.47 107,579.48 50 Senior Building Inspector Hourly 39.51 41.49 43.56 45.74 48.03 Annual 82,186.17 86,295.73 90,610.73 95,140.97 99,898.24 Senior Civil Engineer / Hourly 52.30 to 71.12
Senior Traffic Engineer Annual 108,783.30 to 147,924.36 Senior Human Resources Analyst Hourly 43.33 to 58.49
Annual 90,118.33 to 121,660.54
Senior Management Analyst Hourly 41.26 to 55.71
Annual 85,826.99 to 115,867.17
Senior Planner Hourly 41.11 to 55.51
Annual 85,517.21 to 115,451.06
Special Events Supervisor Hourly 32.80 to 46.86
Annual 68,223.18 to 97,461.70

Exhibit A
Range Classification A B C D E

CITY OF SANTEE

HOURLY, GENERAL AND MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 23, 2023
Storm Water Program Assistant^ Hourly 28.73 to 34.92
50 Storm Water Program Coordinator Hourly 39.51 41.49 43.56 45.74 48.03 Annual 82,186.17 86,295.73 90,610.73 95,140.97 99,898.24 Student Intern ^ Hourly 15.53 to 19.67
Technical Professional Expert ^ Hourly 50.00 to 160.00
^Part-time, temporary status

Exhibit A
Range Classification
City Council Member Monthly 1,754.33
Annual 21,051.96
Mayor Monthly 2,956.58
Annual 35,478.96

CITY OF SANTEE

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JUNE 24, 2021

California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) Encampment Resolution Funding Program, Round 2, Second
Disbursement (ERF-2-R)
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
I. GRANT OVERVIEW
A. ERF-2-R Objective
The Encampment Resolution Funding (ERF) Program will fund actionable, personcentered local proposals that resolve the experience of unsheltered homelessness for people residing in encampments. Resolving these experiences of homelessness will necessarily address the safety and wellness of people within encampments, resolve critical encampment concerns, and transition individuals into interim shelter with clear pathways to permanent housing or directly into permanent housing, using datainformed, non-punitive, low-barrier, person-centered, Housing First, and coordinated approaches.

Proposals may bolster existing, successful models and/or support new approaches that provide safe stable, and ultimately permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness in encampments.

B. Authority
Under the authority of Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 31 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) (sections 50250 et seq.), the Encampment Resolution Funding Program (Program) was established to increase collaboration between the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH), Local Jurisdictions, and Continuums of Care for the following purposes:
• Assist Local Jurisdictions in ensuring the safety and wellness of people experiencing homelessness in encampments.
• Provide grants to Local Jurisdictions and continuums of care to resolve critical encampment concerns and transition individuals into safe and stable housing. • Encourage a data-informed, coordinated approach to address encampment concerns.

The ERF Program was initially authorized in 2021 through Assembly Bill (AB) 140 (Chapter 111, Statutes of 2021), which allocated $50 million for what would become the first round of funding. SB 197 (Chapter 70, Statutes of 2022) amended the program and AB 178 (Chapter 45, Statutes of 2022) allocated an additional $300 million for Round 2 of ERF funding.
2 C. Background
Cal ICH was created in 2017 to oversee the implementation of Housing First policies, guidelines, and regulations to reduce the prevalence and duration of homelessness in California. Cal ICH’s mission is to develop policies and to identify and coordinate resources, benefits, and services to prevent and work toward ending homelessness in California.

The ERF Program is a 4-year grant program that includes two rounds of funding: $50 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 (ERF-1) and $300 million in FY 2022-23 (ERF-2) to provide grants to Local Jurisdictions and continuums of care to resolve critical encampment concerns and transition individuals into safe and stable housing.

The first disbursement from the $300 million of ERF-2 funds was provided to applicants from ERF-1 that satisfactorily met all program requirements but had not been awarded grants due to lack of available funds.

This NOFA is for the remaining $237,301,738 of ERF-2 funds. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until June 30, 2023, or until all funds are exhausted, whichever comes first. Up to $150 million will be prioritized for proposals that serve people living in encampments on state right-of-ways.

D. Eligible Applicants
• Local Jurisdiction – means a city, including a charter city, a county, including a charter county, or a city and county, including a charter city and county. • Continuum of Care (CoC) – as defined in Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
o Per statute (AB 178, Budget Act of 2022), Local Jurisdictions have priority to apply for ERF programs on state right-of-ways, over CoC applicants, until a date specified by Cal ICH. If a CoC applies for an ERF proposal located on a state right-of-way before May 1, 2023, the CoC must provide a Letter of Local Acknowledgment from each overlapping Local Jurisdiction that identifies the prioritized encampment and confirms that the CoC has communicated with each Local Jurisdiction and that no Local Jurisdiction intends to apply for ERF2-R funds for the prioritized encampment.

E. Eligible Population to Serve
ERF-2-R funds may only be used for proposals that connect people experiencing homelessness in encampments to interim shelter with clear pathways to permanent housing or place people directly into permanent housing.

F. Rounds of Funding
• ERF-1 is Round 1 of the Encampment Resolution Funding Program. It featured one disbursement totaling $48 million to 19 jurisdictions. • ERF-2 is Round 2 of the Program. It features at least two disbursements. 3 o ERF-2’s first disbursement (ERF-2-L) was made available to jurisdictions that applied for ERF-1, satisfactorily met all applicable program requirements, but did not receive awards due to lack of available funds. $47.7 M was awarded to eight jurisdictions (ERF-2-L indicates a lookback to unfunded ERF-1 applicants).
o ERF-2’s second disbursement (ERF-2-R) is made available through this NOFA (ERF-2-R indicates a rolling application process).

G. Available Funds
• Up to $237,301,738 are available for award through ERF-2-R. o Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until June 30, 2023, or until funds are exhausted, whichever is sooner.
o Pursuant to the Budget Act of 2022 (Section 20 of AB 178), up to 50 percent of the $300 million authorized for ERF-2 shall be prioritized for Local Jurisdictions with proposals that address encampments on state right-of-ways and that meet priority criteria established by Cal ICH in consultation with the Department of Transportation.

H. Key Dates
The rolling Application Window will open upon the release of this NOFA and the accompanying ERF-2-R application on December 1, 2022, and will remain open until June 30, 2023, or until all program funds have been exhausted, whichever comes first.

Applications will be reviewed in batches as illustrated in the table and diagram below.

Applications for projects on state right-of-ways will be prioritized in this review process.

If a CoC applies for an ERF proposal located on a state right-of-way (SROW) before May 1, 2023 (during Application Window #1 or #2), the CoC must provide a Letter of Local Acknowledgment from each overlapping Local Jurisdiction that identifies the prioritized encampment and confirms that no Local Jurisdiction intends to apply for funding for the prioritized encampment.

Table, ERF-2-R Events Responsible
Party
Date(s)
NOFA Release Date Cal ICH 12/01/2022
Application Release Date Cal ICH 12/01/2022
Application Window #1 Applicant 12/1/2022 - 2/28/2023
Application Window #2
Review and Award Window #1 Applications
Applicant
Cal ICH
3/1/2023 - 4/30/2023
Letter of Local Acknowledgement No Longer
Required for CoC Applications on SROW Applicant 5/1/2023 Application Window #3
Review and Award Window #2 Applications
Applicant
Cal ICH
5/1/2023 - 6/30/2023
Review and Award Window #3 Applications Cal ICH 7/1/23 - 8/31/23 Deadline to Expend 50 Percent of Allocation Applicant 6/30/2024 Deadline to Obligate 100 Percent of Allocation Applicant 6/30/2024 Deadline to Expend 100 Percent of Allocation Applicant 6/30/2026 4 Diagram, Application Window and Review
2022
DEC
2023

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
Application Window 1
Review of Window 1
Applications
Application Window 2
Review of Window 2
Applications
Application Window 3
Review of Window 3
Applications
I. Applicant Conference:

General questions may be submitted by email to [email protected], with a heading “ERF-2-R” for the duration of the rolling application period. Please know that Cal ICH will likely respond to any inquiries through official channels that are directed to the entire eligible applicant pool (i.e., Applicant Conference, FAQ, or if necessary, an addendum to this NOFA). A non-mandatory Applicant Conference is a space for Cal ICH to walk through the application and submitted questions and answer live questions, as time permits. This conference will last an hour and is for informational purposes only.

Attendance is voluntary and the conference will be recorded and posted on Cal ICH’s website for viewing as your schedule permits.

To have your question answered in the Applicant Conference, please email questions to [email protected] with subject line: ERF-2-R by 5pm 12/21/2022.

Conference date and time: 1/05/2023 @ 10:00 – 11:00 AM Pacific Time Register in advance for this webinar:
(https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vHuyirIjTgKzNwIC170QzQ).

Applicant Conference Agenda:
• Welcome and Introduction
• NOFA Overview
• Answer Questions Submitted to Cal ICH
• Live Questions (as time permits)
II. REQUIRED APPLICATION ELEMENTS, EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND PRIORITIZED

FACTORS
A. Required Application Elements
Eligible applicants must submit an Application in a form and manner specified by Cal ICH; the Application must include minimum elements as described in HSC Section 50252.1(c)(4). The Application made available through the Cognito Submission Portal includes all the minimum elements.
5 B. Evaluation Criteria
In determining which Applications to fund, Cal ICH shall evaluate and score proposals based on specific criteria as described in HSC Section 50251(c)(2). These specific criteria are operationalized through and located in the ERF-2-R Scoring Matrix at Section VI.A and B of this NOFA.

C. Prioritized Factors
In accordance with HSC Section 50252.1(c)(5), in awarding grants, funding shall be prioritized for both of the following:
• Applications that demonstrate cross-systems collaboration, including collaborations with state and federal entities, and innovative efforts to resolve encampment issues, while focusing on protecting the health and well-being of the individuals living in those encampments.
• Applications that represent the diversity of communities across the state, including, but not limited to, rural, urban, and suburban communities.

III. ELIGIBLE USES
A. Eligible Uses
Applicant’s program design and objective and their proposed eligible uses must advance ERF-2-R’s objective, which is set forth at Section I.A of this NOFA.

Proposal design may include any combination of the following ten Eligible Use categories:

Eligible Non-Exhaustive List of Eligible Activities Applied to the Eligible Use Population Category Rapid rehousing, including housing identification services, rental Rapid subsidies, security deposits, incentives to landlords, and holding fees Rehousing for eligible persons, housing search assistance, case management and facilitate access to other community-based services.

Operating subsidies in new and existing affordable or supportive Operating housing units, emergency shelters, and navigation centers. Operating Subsidies subsidies may include operating reserves.

Street Street outreach to assist eligible persons to access crisis services, Outreach interim housing options, and permanent housing and services.

Services coordination, which may include access to workforce, Services education, and training programs, or other services needed to Coordination improve and promote housing stability for eligible persons, as well as direct case management services being provided to persons. 6 Systems
Support
Systems support for activities that improve, strengthen, augment, complement, and/or are necessary to create regional partnerships and a homeless services and housing delivery system that resolves persons’ experiences of unsheltered homelessness.

Delivery of
Permanent
Housing
Delivery of permanent housing and innovative housing solutions, such as unit conversions that are well suited for eligible persons.

Prevention
and Shelter
Diversion
Prevention and shelter diversion to permanent housing, including flexible forms of financial assistance, problem solving assistance, and other services to prevent people that have been placed into permanent housing from losing their housing and falling back into unsheltered homelessness. This category is only available to serve people who were formerly residing in the prioritized ERF encampment site.

Interim
Sheltering
Interim sheltering, limited to newly developed clinically enhanced congregate shelters, new or existing noncongregate shelters, and operations of existing navigation centers and shelters based on demonstrated need that are well suited for eligible persons.

Improvements
to Existing
Emergency
Shelters
Improvements to existing emergency shelters to lower barriers, increase privacy, better address the needs of eligible persons, and improve outcomes and exits to permanent housing.

Administrative
Costs
Administrative costs incurred by the city, county, continuum of care, to administer its program allocation. Up to 5% of grant funds may be applied to administrative costs.

Site restoration is not a permitted Eligible Use for ERF-2-R funds.

B. Budgets
Applicants must use the standardized budget template available at Box.com:
(https://dca.box.com/s/3hil5rn8zp4g4q91r619fjlt2lrc6qvl). Where necessary, applicants may modify the budget template.

These budgets will be submitted through the Cognito submission portal:
(https://www.cognitoforms.com/CaliforniaInteragencyCouncilOnHomelessness/ERF2 RApplication).

Applicants must demonstrate a reasonable effort to correctly categorize their budgets into the appropriate Eligible Uses. Additionally, if one larger proposal may fall within two or more Eligible Use categories, applicants should split up the line item so that Cal ICH staff can track and better understand proposal components. 7 IV. APPLICATION
A. ERF-2-R Application
The ERF-2-R Application is a questionnaire style survey and has three required parts. A submitted Application that deviates from the following requirements may be considered nonresponsive and may be disqualified from the evaluation.

1. Part 1: Administrative Information
Requires the applicant to provide information pertaining to jurisdiction type, implementing organization, and contacts.

2. Part 2: Proposal Overview
Requires the applicant to provide information on three main areas:
a) People Served: including metrics on how many people are living in the prioritized encampment and how many people are proposed to be served. b) Encampment Information: including a description of the people living in the prioritized encampment, the physical characteristics of the encampment, why the site and the people residing there are being prioritized, and whether the encampment is located entirely or partially on a state right-of-way. This includes:
• Attachment, Map: Applicants must submit a map of the encampment site proposed to be served with ERF-2-R funds.
• If applicable, Attachment, Caltrans Letter of Support: Projects entirely or partially on a state right-of-way must include a Letter of Support from Caltrans.
 This letter must include confirmation from Caltrans that they are aware of and in support of the ERF project, including the projected timeline, and that they will only take action on that encampment site in collaboration with and with at least two weeks-notice to the ERF grantee, unless critical circumstances exist when an encampment poses an imminent threat to life, health, safety, or infrastructure and must be immediately addressed.
 This letter should be signed by the local Caltrans Deputy District Director of Maintenance (DDDM) or their designee.
 This letter may also include Caltrans role in the proposal and what Caltrans resources are being leveraged.
c) Proposal’s Outcomes: including a description of the proposal’s planned outcomes, activities to support meeting these outcomes, and how the applicant will measure their progress.
8 3. Part 3: Implementation
Requires the applicant to provide details around proposal implementation around five key areas:
a) Centering People: includes data, evidence, etc. that informed the proposal’s design, how input from people with lived expertise was meaningfully incorporated into the proposal, the proposal’s adherence to Housing First, the proposal’s delivery of trauma informed housing services and supports, as well as how the proposal will prioritize the dignity, health and safety of people experiencing homelessness in the encampment.
b) Core Service Delivery and Housing Strategies: including the proposed outreach strategies and/or service coordination for the persons experiencing homelessness while they continue to reside in the encampment, the proposed living situations immediately following the encampment, displacement mitigation strategies, commitment and ability to deliver permanent housing, service pathways to permanent housing, and strategies to mitigate returns to unsheltered homelessness.
c) Budget and Resource Plan: including the total amount of ERF-2-R funds requested, the amount and description of non-ERF resources that will support the proposal, and an explanation for how the requested amount was determined based on the number of people served and the housing options provided. This includes:
• Attachment, Standardized Budget: Applicants must use the standardized budget template available at Box.com:
(https://dca.box.com/s/3hil5rn8zp4g4q91r619fjlt2lrc6qvl). Where necessary, applicants may modify the budget template. For guidance on Eligible Uses and categorization, see Eligible Uses in Section III.A. d) Key Entities and Staff: including the experience and qualifications for the implementing organization and key partners, evidence of collaboration between Local Jurisdiction(s) and the CoC, as well as identification of the primary parties with rights to and/or control of the property upon which the encampment resides (Caltrans, Union Pacific, private landowner, etc.) and their shared understanding of and commitment to the implementation of the proposal. For proposals on state right-of-ways, applicants must describe how they collaborated with Caltrans on their program design, implementation plans, and projected timeline.
• If applicable, Attachment, Letter of Local Acknowledgement: Local Jurisdictions have priority to apply for ERF programs on state right-ofways. If a CoC is applying for an ERF project for an encampment that is entirely or partially on a state right-of-way before May 1, 2023, the CoC must include a Letter of Local Acknowledgment from each overlapping jurisdiction. This letter must confirm that the applicant has communicated with each overlapping Local Jurisdiction and that no overlapping jurisdiction intends to apply for ERF-2-R funds for this particular encampment.
9 e) Accelerated Timeline: including how your community will act urgently and efficiently while prioritizing the dignity, safety and wellness of people experiencing homelessness within the encampment site and proposal milestones. This includes:
• Attachment, Timeline: Applicants must use the standardized timeline template for the appropriate application window available at Box.com:
 Timeline for Application Window 1 (through February 28, 2023) (https://dca.box.com/s/44esrb8roe0pc3lmm3y7h1v4qkja8qbk)  Timeline for Application Window 2 (through April 30, 2023) (https://dca.box.com/s/mn0oepvjshisp6asdg32g0duxfhy0phy)  Timeline for Application Window 3 (through June 30, 2023) (https://dca.box.com/s/kl1r5ndssno0uygi66sz7b4zooweolts) V. APPLICATION SUBMISSION
A. Submission Portal Requirements
Applicants will utilize the Cognito submission portal:
(https://www.cognitoforms.com/CaliforniaInteragencyCouncilOnHomelessness/ERF2RA pplication).

Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis beginning on December 1, 2022, until June 30, 2023, or until all funds have been exhausted, whichever occurs first. As detailed above in the Key Dates table, this rolling application period will span three possible application submission windows. Complete applications submitted and received by 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the corresponding application window, will be reviewed and evaluated as a batch for that window. Applications received after 5:00 p.m. on the last day of the application window will be reviewed and evaluated during the following application window. Because Cal ICH does not have control over the platform’s timing apparatus and uploading speed, and to mitigate for unforeseen occurrences, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit by noon on the last day of the corresponding application window. For example, applications submitted during application window #1 for the period of December 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023, must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 28, 2023, and applicants are encouraged to submit by noon on that day to mitigate any unforeseen occurrences in the Cognito application portal. Applicants are permitted to submit a “test” submission at a time of their choosing to familiarize themselves with the Application and the Cognito platform. The Cognito platform will instruct applicants how to navigate this process.

VI. REVIEW, SCORING, AND AWARD
A. Review
Phase 1 – Administrative Review: Applications will be reviewed and evaluated for completeness of NOFA specifications, including checking that the application was submitted on behalf of an eligible applicant. In this review stage, reviewers will compare the contents of each application to ensure that all required items are populated and / or received. Applications that are not complete or do not contain all the required items and attachments will be considered non-responsive and may be disqualified from the evaluation.
10 Phase 2 – Scoring Review: Cal ICH and/or its designee will convene an evaluation panel of three qualified individuals who have knowledge and experience of the state grantmaking process and subject matter of the Program (Evaluation Panel). The Evaluation Panel will review and score applications in accordance with the ERF Scoring Matrix below. This panel will produce an application’s average score. Applications eligible for funding must score an average of at least 70 of the possible 100 points. In addition to receiving an average total score of at least 70, all applicant scores must average no less than the minimum scoring threshold for each of the following sections:
1) People Served and Encampment Information (must receive 3 out of the 5 possible points)
2) Proposal’s Outcomes (must receive 10 out of the 15 possible points) 3) Centering People (must receive 16 out of the 20 possible points) 4) Core Service Delivery and Housing Strategies (must receive 11 out of the 15 possible points)
5) Budget and Resource Plan (must receive 10 out of the 15 possible points) 6) Key Entities and Staff (must receive 10 out of the 15 possible points) 7) Accelerated Timeline (must receive 10 out of the 15 possible points) B. Scoring
The Evaluation Panel will review and consider the totality of the information in the Application when determining whether the Application satisfies the minimum scoring threshold. However, applicants should respond to each Application criteria in the proper Application section to ensure all requirements are met.

ERF-2-R Scoring Matrix
Proposal Overview Factors that satisfy minimum scoring threshold:

People Served and
Encampment
Information
(Must receive 3 out
of the 5 possible
points)
• Clearly describes the characteristics and demographics of the people living in the prioritized encampment and the physical aspects of the encampment including location, size of area, types of structures onsite, and vehicles present.
• Makes a logical and compelling case for why the identified encampment site is being prioritized.

Proposal’s
Outcomes
(Must receive 10 out
of the 15 possible
points)
• Proposal’s outcomes meaningfully align with ERF-2-R's objective (set forth at Section I.A of this NOFA).
• Outcomes are specific, measurable, realistic, and time-based. • Logically describes how progress will be measured and outcomes achieved.
• Applicant demonstrates an above average likelihood of achieving the Proposal’s Outcomes.
11 Implementation Factors that satisfy minimum scoring threshold:

Centering People
(Must receive 16 out
of the possible 20
points)
• Uses well-informed analyses or the perspectives of people with lived experience of homelessness to inform the proposal’s decisions, processes, and actions which should advance the wellbeing of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the identified encampment.
• Aligns with and exemplifies Housing First approaches. • Provides trauma informed services and supports,
operationalizes harm reduction, and centers an individual’s choice and preferences.
• Prioritizes the dignity, health, and safety of people experiencing homelessness in the encampment.
• Details the controls in place to not “penalize homelessness.” Core Service
Delivery and
Housing Strategies
• Includes a comprehensive outreach and engagement strategy including case management and service coordination for
people currently residing in the encampment.
(Must receive 11 out • Details identified interim shelter and permanent housing of the possible 15 options and includes a description of how many individuals are points) projected to be served with each interim and permanent housing solution.
• Includes compelling evidence of an applicant’s demonstrated ability and commitment to deliver permanent housing for people residing in the prioritized encampment. Compelling evidence may include identification, availability, and
prioritization of permanent housing resources.
• Describes how the proposed service delivery model is tailored to meet the needs and preferences of the people residing in the encampment site.
• Uses data and input from people with lived experience of homelessness to inform housing and service needs,
preferences, and the availability of resources to meet those needs and preferences.
• Details strategies likely to prevent displacement from the prioritized encampment to another unsheltered location and prevent returns to unsheltered homelessness.
• Details operable plans to support individuals with the storage of their property and care of their pets.

Budget and
Resource Plan
• Demonstrates a sustainable, prudent, and effective use of requested funding.
(Must receive 10 out • Budget aligns with achieving the proposal's outcomes, services of the possible 15 and housing options, and number of people served. points) • Identifies non-ERF-2-R resources that will be leveraged to 12 support proposal implementation including coordination of resources from other systems that would increase services and housing options.

Key Entities and
Staff
(Must receive 10 out
of the possible 15
points)
• Includes a detailed description of the lead entity that will oversee the implementation of activities in the proposal. Describe lead entity’s mission, goals, values, geographic service area and existing efforts related to serving persons living in
encampments.
• Demonstrates the ability to recruit and deploy personnel with experience and expertise needed to support the success of the proposal.
• Demonstrates commitment to cross-systems collaboration with descriptions of key contributions of each organization and local community partners including their experience and expertise in serving persons experiencing unsheltered homelessness with a range of service needs.
• Demonstrates collaboration between Local Jurisdiction(s) and the CoC for this proposal.
• Demonstrates capacity to carry out the proposal.
• Identifies the primary parties with rights to and / or control of the property upon which the encampment resides and their shared understanding of and commitment to the implementation of the proposal.
• If the encampment is on a state right-of-way, the proposal describes how the applicant collaborated with Caltrans on their program design, implementation plan, and projected timeline.

Accelerated
Timeline
(Must receive 10 out
of the possible 15
points)
• Demonstrates how the community will act urgently and
efficiently while prioritizing the dignity, safety and wellness of people experiencing homelessness within the encampment site. • Demonstrates likelihood of meeting proposal milestones and objectives.

C. Award
After each application window has closed and all applications received during the window have been reviewed and scored, a Notice of Intent to Award shall be posted on the Cal ICH website and shall be sent by email to the proposed awardees.

Once awards have been determined by Cal ICH, a contract packet including the Standard Agreement and Request for Funds Form (RFF) form will be prepared and sent to the grantee. The grantee will return the signed Standard Agreement and RFF. Funds will be disbursed to the grantee upon receipt, review and approval of the completed Standard Agreement and RFF by Cal ICH, the Department of General Services (DGS) and the State Controller’s Office (SCO). The RFF must include the total amount of funds 13 proposed for expenditure. Grant funds will be disbursed via mailed check once the RFF has been received by the SCO. Checks will be mailed to the address and contact name listed on the RFF.

Applications that are denied funding will be provided Evaluation Panel feedback.

Applicants are encouraged to incorporate this feedback and reapply in the next Application Window. Projects on state right-of-ways will be prioritized in this feedback process.

D. Appeals
Pursuant to HSC Section 50251(c)(1), Cal ICH’s decision to approve or deny an application and the determination of the amount of funding to be provided shall be final and is not subject to appeal.

VII. PERFORMANCE AND REPORTING
A. Performance
Performance shall start no later than 30 days, or on the express date set by Cal ICH and the grantees, after all approvals have been obtained and the Standard Agreement is fully executed. Should the grantee fail to commence work at the agreed upon time, Cal ICH, upon five (5) days written notice to the grantee, reserves the right to terminate the Agreement. All performance under the Agreement shall be completed on or before the termination date of the Agreement.

ERF-2-R funds not expended by the 6/30/26 deadline shall be returned to Cal ICH and will revert to the fund of origin.

B. Reporting
The grantee shall submit quarterly reports to Cal ICH with fiscal and programmatic data reflecting the progress of their ERF program in a format provided by Cal ICH. These quarterly reports will include an anonymized person served list illustrating the housing outcomes of each person served by the grantee’s ERF program. Grantees may also receive ad hoc requests for information from Cal ICH or its contractors in support of program monitoring, research, and evaluation. Grantees with projects on state right-ofways may also be required to provide programmatic data to Caltrans.

At the end of the grant period, or upon request by Cal ICH, all grantees shall provide information and products developed with grant funds on service delivery models including any materials that may be necessary to study the program or replicate it for implementation across the state.
14 CITY OF SANTEE – LOCAL APPOINTMENT LIST

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
(December 2022)
Council Committees

CITY COUNCIL & SANTEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE Qualifications: Member of the City Council or School Board; terms are annual Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Rob McNelis 12/14/22 01/22/25 Representative – Council Member Dustin Trotter 12/14/22 01/22/25

EAST COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
Qualifications: Member of the City Council; terms are annual Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Dustin Trotter 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Council Member Ronn Hall 12/14/22 01/22/25

GOODAN RANCH POLICY COMMITTEE
Qualifications: Three elected representatives from the County of San Diego, City of Poway and City of Santee; terms are annual
Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Dustin Trotter 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Council Member Rob McNelis 12/14/22 01/22/25 HEARTLAND COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY COMMISSION*
Each public agency which is a party to this agreement has one seat on the Commission. The cities of El Cajon, Lemon Grove, Santee, and La Mesa, and the Alpine, Bostonia, Lakeside and San Miguel Fire Protection Districts jointly equip, maintain, operate and staff a facility, thereby providing emergency services of receiving and dispatching calls to said public agencies; term is per appointing agency
Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Vice Mayor Laura Koval 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Council Member Rob McNelis 12/14/22 01/22/25 *Stipend Received
HEARTLAND FIRE TRAINING FACILITY AUTHORITY COMMISSION*
Qualifications: Agency member Heartland Fire Training Facility Authority; term is per appointing agency Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Rob McNelis 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Council Member Ronn Hall 12/14/22 01/22/25
*Stipend Received
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST, REVISED DECEMBER 2022
2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES*
Qualifications: Member of the City Council; terms are annual.

Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Mayor John W. Minto 12/14/22 01/22/25
Alternate – Council Member Ronn Hall 12/14/22 01/22/25
*Any Council Member may choose to attend any individual event

MISSION TRAILS REGIONAL PARK TASK FORCE
Qualifications: Member of City Council; terms are annual Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Dustin Trotter 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Council Member Rob McNelis 12/14/22 01/22/25 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) Board of Directors* Qualifications: Member of the City Council; terms are annual Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Mayor John W. Minto 12/14/22 01/22/25
Alternate – Vice Mayor Laura Koval 12/14/22 01/22/25
2nd Alternate – Council Member Ronn Hall 12/14/22 01/22/25 *Stipend Received
SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (MTS)*
Qualifications: Member of the City Council; terms are annual.

Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Ronn Hall 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Vice Mayor Laura Koval 12/14/22 01/22/25
*Stipend Received

SAN DIEGO RIVER CONSERVANCY BOARD
Qualifications: Member of the City Council; terms are annual.

Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Council Member Dustin Trotter 12/14/22 01/22/25

SANTEE-LAKESIDE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (SLEMSA) Qualifications: Member of the City Council; term is per appointing agency.

Appointed Current Term Expiration
Representative – Vice Mayor Laura Koval 12/14/22 01/22/25 Representative – Council Member Dustin Trotter 12/14/22 01/22/25 Alternate – Mayor John W. Minto 12/14/22 01/22/25