requirements regarding the Landfill operations that help mitigate impacts to Santee.
Second, there have been many attempts by San Diego to locate new residential development in areas of San Diego that San Diego cannot serve and which would entirely impact Santee.
The major example of this approach is the Castlerock (now Weston) project. This project was located immediately adjacent to Santee but within the jurisdiction of San Diego. Admittedly, it would have been cost prohibitive for San Diego to serve this project. Nevertheless, San Diego approved the project, and triggered provisions in an Annexation Agreement between Santee, San Diego and Pardee Homes (the developer) that culminated in the annexation of the project to Santee. This defensive annexation was necessary to mitigate the impacts of this San Diego approved project on Santee, and was not an expression of a Council policy to promote new development in this area. In fact, Council provided policy direction to oppose development in San Diego which San Diego could not itself support with the provision of basic services such as police, fire and other services. One of the main purposes of this policy request is to seek Council confirmation that opposition to such development in San Diego remains the City’s policy, so that Staff may continue to implement this prior direction.
Third, and most recently, David Dilday has proposed the Palmer Trails project, located north of Castle Rock/Weston on land under the jurisdiction of San Diego. As noted above, previous direction from Council, consistent with the policy expressed in connection with the Castlerock Project, was that San Diego should only consider the Palmer Trails project if it could be served by San Diego. Santee staff has expressed this position in writing to the applicant and to San Diego. However, this project recently moved to San Diego’s Planning Commission and was approved to move forward as a Community Plan Amendment Initiation. San Diego did not provide a recommendation on the project itself and asked that additional information be provided for staff, Planning Commission and City Council review including a cost estimate for services. The San Diego staff report for this item indicates that annexation to Santee would be a required element of this project, a position inconsistent with previous Santee direction.
Fourth, the portion of West Hills Parkway located in San Diego was not developed and has not been maintained in a manner that is consistent with Santee standard. It is estimated that the required maintenance and improvements to the Parkway, not including the San Diego River section, would cost between $12 to $14 million. There is also a major gas pipeline located in West Hills Parkway.
C. POLICY QUESTIONS
Policy Question #1: Does Council wish to continue to maintain a priority to annex West Hills Parkway and surrounding parcels? If so, what are the “surrounding parcels” involved?
Policy Question #2: Does Council wish to modify its position regarding future residential development in the East Elliott area that cannot be fully served by the City of San Diego?
Staff Report – Annexation Policy
January 22, 2025
D. NEXT STEPS
Based on City Council direction, Staff will take appropriate steps to implement the direction through discussions with San Diego, the Local Agency Formation Commission and with potential applicants.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Provide direction to staff on specified policy questions.
ATTACHMENTS
City of San Diego Planning Commission Staff Report on the Community Plan Amendment Initiation
Maps
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5296-PC
INITIATING A GENERAL/COMMUNITY AMENDMENT TO THE EAST
ELLIOTT COMMUNITY PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 7.25 ACRES OF A 29-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF TRAILMARK WAY
FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL – VERY LOW (0-5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE).
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of San Diego held a public hearing to consider the initiation of a Community Plan Amendment to the East Elliott Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the initiation will also include an amendment to the General Plan due to the East Elliott Community Plan being part of the Land Use Element of the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested a Community Plan Amendment Initiation to redesignate approximately 7.25 acres of a 29-acre site located at Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 366-050-25 and 366-050-23 from Open Space to Residential – Very Low (0-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre) and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Report No. PC-24-019 as well as all maps, exhibits, evidence, and testimony; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Diego that it hereby initiates the requested General Plan and Community Plan Amendment based on its compliance with the initiation criteria found in Policy LU-D.10 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and specifically addressed in Report No. PC-24-019 contingent on the proposed amendment, including the following:
• Limit development on 25 percent or less of the 29-acre subject site; • Include a proposal to detach the residential portion from the City of San Diego and annex by the City of Santee; and
• Include additional conservation benefits to offset the loss of open space.
Staff will work with the applicant to determine the appropriate land use designation and zoning on the 25 percent or less of the subject site (7.25 acres) and retain the open space designation and rezone to an open space zone on the remaining 75 percent of the subject site (21.75 acres), and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in anticipation of a future development project that would allow residential development on the approximately 7.25 acres of a 29-acre site, the Planning Commission directs staff to consider the following issues identified in Report No. PC-24-019:
Public Facilities, Services and Safety
• Conduct an analysis to include, but not limited to, the following:
o Identify operation costs and impacts to public facilities and services. o Evaluate the provision of public services and facilities, including but not limited to police, fire service, and sewer and water facilities.
• Evaluation of the applicable wildfire safety planning strategies and emergency access and egress. 2 • Evaluation of the LAFCO process for reorganization (detachment/annexation) and the most efficient method of providing public services and facilities. • Coordinate community plan amendment review, including the issues identified in this report and analysis of the potential LAFCO reorganization process with the City of Santee. • Coordinate with all relevant public service providers for public facilities, services, and safety, including school districts.
Open Space
• Evaluation of the impacts of the proposed development on surrounding City of San Diego owned, 100 percent conserved open space (MHPA) property.
• Evaluate potential biological and wetland impacts.
• Evaluate options in consultation with staff from the wildlife agencies for clustering potential development to less habitat-sensitive areas of the site and a smaller development area. • Evaluation of the ability of the proposed development to strictly adhere to the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan, Environmentally Sensitive Lands Regulations, and Land Development Manual Biology Guidelines (2018).
• Ensure that the proposed development does not exceed a 25 percent maximum development area (e.g., grading, access, brush management zone 1 area), which would necessitate a MHPA boundary line adjustment.
• Identification of how the project would retain the open space land use designation on at least 75 percent of the subject site to ensure no development would occur in the conserved area. • Identification of the trail access and improved connectivity to Mission Trails Regional Park. • Incorporate brush management zones into landscaping plans, given the proximity to native/naturalized vegetation.
• Discussion of the proposed development with the Mission Trails Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee
Land Use Designation
• Evaluation of the appropriate land use designation and zoning for the subject site, including an open space land use designation and zone on portions of the subject site, to ensure 75 percent or more of the subject site remains 100 percent conserved within City of San Diego jurisdiction. • Revision of community plan maps and figures to reflect the new city and community boundaries for a potential LAFCO reorganization process with the City of Santee. • Consideration of onsite or offsite affordable homes within the City of San Diego. • Evaluation for consistency with the goals and policies of the Mission Trails Regional Park Master Plan.
Site Design
• Evaluation of the proposed amendment with the General Plan Urban Design Element goals and policies addressing development adjacent to natural features. • Address the minimization of lighting onto adjacent open space areas. • Evaluation of site design and grading for consistency with the Mission Trails Design District Subarea 2 design guidelines.
• Identification of additional vehicle access locations from a public street to the subject site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this initiation does not constitute an endorsement of a project proposal.
This action allows the future development project to become a complete submittal and will allow staff 3 analysis to proceed.
__________________________
Corey Funk
Senior Planner
City Planning Department
Initiated June 27, 2024
By a vote of 6-0-0
PRJ # 1109904
cc: Legislative Recorder, Development Services Department Mast Blvd
Carlton Oaks Dr
W Hills Pkwy
Mission Gorge Rd
City of
Santee
City of
San Diego
San Diego River
West Hills Park
West Hills High
52 52
Jurisdictional Boundaries
0 500 1,000 ¯ Feet
City of Santee City of San Diego
Mast Blvd
Carlton Oaks Dr
W Hills Pkwy
Mission Gorge Rd
City of
Santee
City of
San Diego
San Diego River
West Hills Park
West Hills High
52 52
Zoning
City of Santee
City of San Diego
Parcels
City of Santee Zones
GC
P/OS
PD
R14
R2
R22
R7
City of San Diego Zones
CC-1-3
IH-2-1
RS-1-8
¯
0 500 1,000
Feet
Text
Mast Blvd
Text
West Hills Park
Text
West Hills High
Pebble Beach Dr
City of
Santee
City of
San Diego
Dilday
Dilday
Weston
Jurisdictional Boundaries
0 1,000 2,000 ¯ Feet
City of Santee
City of San Diego
Dilday
Weston
Text
Mast Blvd
Text
West Hills Park
Text
West Hills High
Pebble Beach Dr
City of
Santee
City of
San Diego
Zoning
City of Santee
City of San Diego
Parcels
City of Santee Zones
P/OS
PD
R14
R2
City of San Diego Zones
IH-2-1
RS-1-8
0 1,000 2,000 ¯ Feet
PROPOSED STREETS FY 2025-26
OVERALL MAP
DISTRICT 4
DISTRICT 1
DISTRICT 3
DISTRICT 2
GENERAL FUND
TRANSNET/RMRA
ZONE BH
CUYAMACA ST FANITA DR
MISSION GORGE RD
PROSPECT AVE
MAGNOLIA AVE
MAST BLVD
RANCHO FANITA DR
WOODSIDE AVE
SR-52 SR-125
MISSION GORGE RD CARLTON HILLS BLVD
FATHER JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL
AIRPORT VISTA DR
MAST BLVD
STAFF REPORT
PARK MAINTENACE IN HOUSE PROPOSAL
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 22, 2025
Overview
The City of Santee currently has two contracts for park maintenance totaling $1,109,222.00 for Fiscal Year 2024/2025. These contracts are the Landscape and Horticulture Management Area 1 – City Parks & Facilities contract with Steven Smith Landscaping for $1,037,855.00 and the Custodial Services – Parks contract with Aztec Landscaping for $71,367.00. Over the next 5 years it is projected the City will spend between $6M and $6.4M on park maintenance contracts based on historical CPI increases and amendment data. This proposal seeks to bring these two contracts inhouse to reduce the cost of park maintenance and increase the quality of work in the parks.
Historical and Projected Costs
Historical Contract Costs: Both contracts are in their final extension and will need to be rebid for Fiscal Year 2025/2026. The Area 1 contract was awarded in Fiscal Year 2020/2021 and is in its fourth and final extension. The initial contract amount was $586,791.00 which has increased 77% over the length of the contract to $1,037,855.00.
The contract has been amended 11 times with total permanent increases of $287,154.99 and total one-time increases of $445,519.96. Permanent increases have been for items such as the defensible space program and work for newly built parks/facilities that continued with each renewal of the contract while one-time increases have been for items such as brush clearing of specific areas and sod replacement that did not continue in the next renewal. The contract has also increased $163,909.01 from CPI adjustments The Custodial Services – Parks contract was awarded in Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and is in its third and final extension. The initial contract amount was $52,056.50, it has increased 37% over the length of the contract to $71,367.00. The contract has been amended 3 times with total permanent increases of $8,355.65 and increased $10,954.85 from CPI adjustments.
Projected Contract Costs: The City is projected to spend between $6,065,680.57 and $6,399,987.07 over the next five years on these two contracts. This range takes into account whether amendments to the Area 1 contract are considered. Since the Area 1 contract has been amended every year since its signing, a total considering the average amendment cost from the past five years is considered alongside a total that does not consider amendments.
Staff Report – Park Maintenance In House Proposal
2 5 Year Projected Costs
Fiscal
Year
SSL
Contract
Aztec
Contract
Avg
Amendment
Total
w/amends
Total
No amends
FY 25/26 $1,068,990.65 $73,508.01 $66,861.30 $1,209,359.96 $1,142,498.66 FY 26/27 $1,101,060.37 $75,713.26 $66,861.30 $1,243,634.92 $1,176,773.62 FY 27/28 $1,134,092.18 $77,984.65 $66,861.30 $1,278,938.13 $1,212,076.83 FY 28/29 $1,168,114.95 $80,324.19 $66,861.30 $1,315,300.44 $1,248,439.14 FY 29/30 $1,203,158.39 $82,733.92 $66,861.30 $1,352,753.61 $1,285,892.31 $6,399,987.07 $6,065,680.57
*Contract increases based on CPI increases of 3%
*Average amendment excludes outlier year of FY 21/22
* 10 Year costs are $13,766,079.81 and $13,097,466.81 respectively Proposal
Bring the Landscape and Horticulture Management Area 1– City Parks & Facilities and Custodial Services – Parks contracts in house to reduce the cost of park maintenance and improve the quality of work performed in the parks. This will require hiring additional staff, purchasing vehicles and equipment, and ordering supplies in-house as follows:
• Hire 5 full time Maintenance Workers for the parks crew, and two part time workers, in addition to the 2 Maintenance Workers currently on staff • Lease 5 Ford F150’s
• Purchase 3 electric zero turn lawnmowers, 2 trailers, and 2 UTV’s • Purchase additional landscaping tools to equip the staff • Purchase all landscaping supplies, custodial supplies, and mulch in house The now seven maintenance workers on the parks crew will have assigned parks they will be responsible for during the week, while the two part-time workers will be responsible for opening all parks on the weekends. Combined they will cover all the responsibilities of the Area 1 and Custodial-Parks contracts.
Staff Report – Park Maintenance In House Proposal
3 The first-year budget for this proposal is as follows:
In House FY 2025/2026 Budget
Employees
5 FT Employee Fully Loaded Salary/Benefits $451,100.00
2 PT Employee Salary $37,000.00
Overtime $37,000.00
Training/Development $4,460.00
Uniforms $6,680.00
Vehicles/Equipment
5 F-150’s - Leased $53,914.00
3 Electric Zero Turn Lawnmowers $75,000.00
2 Trailers $15,000.00
2 UTV’s $30,000.00
Fuel $11,320.84
F-150 Maintenance $8,000.00
UTV and Lawnmower Maintenance $5,000.00
Lawnmower Amortization $7,500.00
Supplies/Tools/Etc.
Back Room/Shed Improvements $10,000.00
Custodial Supplies $10,000.00
Landscaping Supplies $50,000.00
Landscaping Tools $25,000.00
Mulch $90,000.00
Contingency Costs $20,000.00
First Year of In-House Total $946,974.84
Projected Contract Total $1,142,498.92
First Year Savings (no amends) $195,523.82
* Wages start at C step and include 3% COLA
* Fuel is based off the F’150’s 17mpg and uses a matrix of the distances of park/city facilities to get an accurate yearly mileage for each individual worker
*Lawnmowers amortized over a 10-year life span
Staff Report – Park Maintenance In House Proposal
4 Costs and Savings
The cost and savings over 5 years for this proposal are as follows:
5 Year Projected Budget
Fiscal year Wages Vehicle/Equipment Supplies Misc Total In House FY 25/26 $525,100.00 $205,734.84 $175,000.00 $41,140.00 $946,974.84 FY 26/27 $561,321.00 $86,242.77 $180,250.00 $32,074.20 $859,887.97 FY 27/28 $600,312.30 $86,762.39 $185,657.50 $33,036.43 $905,768.62 FY 28/29 $621,078.26 $87,294.07 $191,227.23 $34,027.52 $933,627.07 FY 29/30 $640,941.19 $87,838.16 $196,964.04 $35,048.34 $960,791.73 $4,607,050.24
5 Year Savings
Fiscal Year Total Parks
w/amends
Total Parks
no amends Total In house Savingsw/amends
Savings
no amends
FY 25/26 $1,209,359.96 $1,142,498.66 $946,974.84 $262,385.12 $195,523.82 FY 26/27 $1,243,634.92 $1,176,773.62 $859,887.97 $383,746.96 $316,885.66 FY 27/28 $1,278,938.13 $1,212,076.83 $905,768.62 $373,169.51 $306,308.21 FY 28/29 $1,315,300.44 $1,248,439.14 $933,627.07 $381,673.36 $314,812.06 FY 29/30 $1,352,753.61 $1,285,892.31 $960,791.73 $391,961.88 $325,100.58 $6,399,987.07 $6,065,680.57 $4,607,050.24 $1,792,936.84 $1,458,630.34 10 Year Projected Savings w/amends: $3,879,883.64
10 Year Projected Savings no amends: $3,211,270.64
*Wages start at C Step and include 3% COLA
*Supplies, tools, fuel, etc. costs increase 3% yearly
Staff Report – Park Maintenance In House Proposal
5 Logistics
All parks, trails, and areas that were previously under the Area 1 and custodial contracts will be covered by the parks crew’s seven full-time maintenance workers during the week and the two part-time workers during the weekend. The seven full-time maintenance workers will each have assigned parks/trails that they will take ownership of and be responsible for opening, maintaining, and improving. Monday through Thursday they will focus primarily on their assigned parks. On Friday’s they will open their parks and then group up to perform landscaping at the Fire Stations, City Hall, and Operations Yard. On the weekends, the two part-time workers will be responsible for opening parks and maintenance until roughly midday.
Park Assignments:
Worker A: Mast Park
Worker B: Town Center East
Worker C: Town Center West, Town Center YMCA/Sportsplex Worker D: West Hills, Weston
Worker E: Big Rock, Ken Collier
Worker F: Woodglen Vista, Walker Preserve
Worker G: Shadow Hill, Sky Ranch, Mast Park West
Standard Work Week:
Monday – Friday: Full time maintenance workers will open their parks and work in them throughout the day. They will be responsible for cleaning restrooms, collecting trash, and general maintenance to ensure their parks are clean and operational. They will also be responsible for larger projects in their parks such as landscaping, trail maintenance, and repairs. Workers will take ownership of their parks and dedicate the majority of their time during the week to their assigned parks/trails making sure they are in the best condition.
On Fridays, after opening their parks the workers will perform landscaping at the Fire Stations, Operations Yard, and City Hall on alternating weeks.
Weekends: On weekends the two part-time workers will split up and open all the parks.
They will make sure the restrooms and rental spaces are ready for the first park rental time slot at 8:30 AM. They will then return to parks with restrooms and rental spaces to empty trash cans and check the restrooms as the morning rental space time slot ends and the afternoon time slot begins at 12:30 PM.
Holidays: On holidays the parks will either be opened by the duty person or by a worker from the parks crew on a standby list. Workers will only need to open the parks, clean restrooms and empty all trash cans.
Staff Report – Park Maintenance In House Proposal
6 Sick Days/Vacation: When a worker takes a sick day or vacation the rest of the parks crew will coordinate to cover their assigned parks. Workers will coordinate with their supervisor ahead of time for vacations to make sure enough of the crew will be present to cover their parks. The Irrigation Specialist and Parks and Landscape Supervisor will also be able to help cover any absences. If needed the Public Works crew can assist in worse case scenarios.
Extra Work: The Area 1 contract has historically included extra work items such as defensible space, sod replacement, and replanting that will be covered by the sevenperson parks crew. All extra work will be scheduled on days when the full team is there and after the crew has completed opening their parks they will group up and perform the extra work together.
Vehicles: Each of the seven workers on the parks crew will have an assigned truck.
There are two trucks in the existing City fleet for the current Maintenance workers. The five new workers will be assigned a new Ford F-150 leased by Enterprise. The two parttime workers will have use of these trucks on the weekends.
Equipment: The three electric lawnmowers will be purchased in accordance with California AB 1346. Two of the lawnmowers will be the main mowers used for mowing in the parks. The third will remain as a backup to ensure we will always have the necessary two lawnmowers if one goes down. The lawnmowers will be stored and charged at the operations yard. The two trailers purchased will be used to transport the mowers to parks and will also be stored at the Operations Yard. The two UTV’s (Utility Task Vehicles) will be used at Mast Park and Town Center Community Park East. This will allow the workers at those parks to quickly get around the park to places the F-150’s cannot reach. They will be stored in the maintenance sheds at their respective parks.
Supplies and Tools: All supplies previously included in the contracts will be purchased in house. For the Area 1 contract that will be landscaping supplies and mulch, while the Custodial-Parks contract will be custodial supplies. All these supplies will be purchased at a lower rate without the markup the contractors charge to provide them. Landscaping tools such as trimmers and chainsaws will also be purchased to equip the staff to tend to their parks. Most of these tools will be stored in maintenance sheds as each worker has at least one assigned park with a maintenance shed.
Benefits
In addition to the financial benefits there will be significant performance benefits in both the quality and quantity of work.
• Workers will take ownership of their assigned parks/trails and be able to take pride in their work
• More time and effort spent in the parks to provide in-depth care and maintenance • Quicker response to incidents and emergencies in the parks Staff Report – Park Maintenance In House Proposal
7 • More “presence” in the parks to deter vandalism and misuse of park assets • Extra work that once required amendments can be scheduled and completed quicker
• Workers will be trained by Irrigation Tech on their park’s irrigation
60139.00001\43120745.1
ORDINANCE ___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTEE ADDING CHAPTER 7.19 TO TITLE 7 OF THE SANTEE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT TRESPASS ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY AND BUSINESS PREMISES
WHEREAS, the City of Santee, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by California Constitution Article XI, Section VII and section 100 of the Charter of the City of Santee to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations; and WHEREAS, California Penal Code Section 602 prohibits trespass on private property and the interference with a lawful business being carried out on the property; and
WHEREAS, the City is aware that from time to time private property and business owners have had difficulty dispelling trespassers from their land; and WHEREAS, the City now desires to regulate trespass on private property, by way of this Ordinance, to prohibit persons from remaining on private property without the consent of the owner(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santee does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Incorporation. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.
SECTION 2. Trespassing Prohibition. A new Chapter 7.19 is hereby added to Title 7 of the Santee Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 7.19
TRESPASS
7.19.010 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to the use of these terms for the purposes of this chapter:
“Expressive activity policy” means a written policy of a shopping center owner that establishes regulations for the time, place, and manner of expressive activity on private property
“Posted property” means any property at each corner of which, and 60139.00001\43120745.1
at each entrance to which, a sign is posted three (3) feet above the normal ground level, and said sign is composed of wood, metal or other equally substantial material, the face of which is not less than one (1) square foot in area, and upon which, in legible letters not less than two (2) inches in height in black against a white background, appear the words “PRIVATE PROPERTY—NO TRESPASS.” In addition, the sign may contain such other words as may be desired, indicating that trespassers are subject to prosecution. Where the area of such property exceeds one (1) acre, the notice shall also be posted at intervals of not more than three hundred (300) feet along or near the boundaries thereof.
7.19.030 Trespass upon private property prohibited.
A. No person shall remain upon any private property or business premises, after being requested to leave by the owner, owner’s agent, lessee, or by a peace officer acting at the request of any of the foregoing. For purposes of this section, a lessee includes a tenant in lawful possession of real property.
B. No person, without permission, express or implied, from the owner, owner’s agent, or lessee, shall enter upon the private property or business premises after having been notified by the owner, owner’s agent, lessee, or a peace officer acting at the request of any of the foregoing to keep off or keep away therefrom.
C. No person shall enter or remain upon posted private property without the permission, expressed or implied, of the owner, owner’s agent, or lessee of such posted property or premises. .
D. No person shall enter or remain upon business premises for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent or by the person in lawful possession.
7.19.040 Exceptions.
A. Exceptions. The provisions of Section 7.19.030 shall not apply in any of the following instances:
1. When its application results in or is coupled with an act prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act or any other provision of law relating to prohibited discrimination against any person on account of sex, race, color, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation;
60139.00001\43120745.1
2. When its application results in or is coupled with an act prohibited by Section 365 of the California Penal Code or any other provision of law relating to duties of innkeepers and common carriers;
3. When its application would result in an interference with or inhibition of peaceful labor picketing or other lawful labor activities;
4. When its application would result in an interference with or inhibition of activities protected by the California or United States Constitutions, including, but not limited to free speech and freedom of assembly rights, if any.
5. When the person who is upon another’s property is there pursuant to the property owner’s expressive activity policy.
6. When the person who is upon another’s private property or business premises is there under claim or color of legal right and is not loitering or otherwise suspected of violating any law or ordinance. This exception is applicable, but not limited to, the following situations involving disputes wherein the participants have available to them practical and effective civil remedies: marital and post-marital disputes, child custody or visitation disputes, disputes regarding title to or rights in real property, landlord-tenant disputes, disputes between
members of the same family or between persons residing
upon the property concerned up until the time of the dispute, employer-employee disputes, business-type disputes such as those between partners, debtor-creditor disputes, and
instances wherein the person claims rights to be present pursuant to order, decree or process of a court.
7.19.050 Violations and Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is subject to the penalties provided in chapter 1.04 of this code.
SECTION 3. Conflicting Regulations. Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, all former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed and declared to be of no further force and effect.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or 60139.00001\43120745.1
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
SECTION 5. Compliance With CEQA. City Council finds that this Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378, as it is an administrative activity of government and the Ordinance does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the amendments are considered a project under CEQA, they are exempt from CEQA review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as the Ordinance does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
SECTION 6. Publication and Effective Date. A summary of this Ordinance was published on February 7, 2025, five days prior to its adoption and this date, and will be published again within 15 days after adoption. The Amendment will take effect thirty (30) days after passage.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Santee, California, on the 22nd Day of January, 2025, and thereafter ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council held on this 12th Day of February, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
60139.00001\43130493.1
STAFF REPORT
Legislative Update on New Laws Relevant to Santee
January 22, 2025
I. Highlighted New Laws Effective in 2025
• AB 2561 (McKinnon)—Requires a local public agency to present the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts at a public hearing at least once a year. Santee Staff will implement as part of the regular budget process in May and June.
• SB 1181 (Glazer) and SB 1243 (Dodd)—These new laws make a variety of changes to the Levine Act. As the City Council will recall, the Levine Act was amended in recent years to apply to elected officials. This change to the Levine Act limited the amount of campaign contributions that an elected official could receive from an interested party and still participate in matters involving that party. SB 1881 and SB 1243 address a variety of ambiguity challenges related to the implementation of this change to the Levine Act. These include the types of proceedings covered, applicability to the city attorney, period of time to return a contribution, and the codification of when a person is an “agent” for purposes of the Levine Act.
• AB 1785 (Pacheco)—Prohibits a local agency from publicly posting the home address, telephone number, name and Assessor Parcel Number of an elected or appointed official without written consent.
• AB 98 (Carrillo/Reyes)—Prescribes 21st-Century warehouse design and building standards for new or expanded logistics use developments located within 900 feet of sensitive receptors. The new law applies to projects starting on January 1, 2026. It also requires cities to update their circulation elements by January 1, 2028 regarding truck routes.
• AB 2715 (Boerner)—Confirms that a legislative body may discuss a threat to critical infrastructure related to cybersecurity in closed session. • AB 2553 (Friedman)—Requires lower traffic impact fees for certain qualifying transit oriented developments.
• AB 2854 (Irwin)—Requires local agencies to publish on their websites and provide the Department of Tax and Fee Administration certain information about local sales tax agreements.
• AB 2904 (Quirk/Silva)—Requires 20-day public notice for certain local zoning ordinances. The measure focuses on planning commission hearings but may impact Santee zoning ordinances going forward.
60139.00001\43130493.1
• AB 413 (Lee)—This is a law enacted in 2023. It prohibits the stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present. As of January 1, 2025, citations may be issued for violation of this law.
• Retail Theft Bills (AB 1779, 1802, 1960, 1972, 2943, 3209; SB 905, 982, 1144, 1242, 1416)—The Legislature enacted at least 11 new laws to generally expand enforcement of retail theft statutes and related laws.
• AB 166 (Cmte. On Budget)—This measure provides the framework for the distribution, use and oversight of $1 billion in funding for the sixth round of the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program.
II. Miscellaneous New Laws
• AB 2346 (Lee)—Authorizes local jurisdictions to count compost produced and procured from certain compost operations, investments, and expenditures toward their procurement targets.
• SB 1072 (Padilla)—Requires a local agency to provide a credit against Proposition 218 fees unless a refund is explicitly provided by statute. A case is pending before the California Supreme Court that addresses parts or all of this new law.
• AB 3093 (Ward)—Requires future general plans to account for housing needs of people experiences homelessness as part of the housing element. • AB 1889 (Friedman)—Requires future general plans to include a wildlife connectivity element in updates after January 1, 2028.
• AB 2684 (Bryan)—Requires future general plans to address hazards associated with extreme heat after January 1, 2028.
• SB 1361 (Blakespear)—Clarifies that local agencies’ actions to provide services for people experiencing homelessness are exempt from CEQA. • AB 2939 (Rendon)—Allows the use of local parks by a nonprofit or native American tribe to provide interpretative services to 30 or fewer park visitors at a time.
• AB 2302 (Addis)—Makes updates to the virtual meeting process under the Brown Act.
• SB 1034 (Seyarto)—Recognizes a “state of emergency” exception to timelines to provides documents under the Public Records Act.
60139.00001\43130493.1
• AB 2597 (Ward)—Makes numerous changes in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. Changes include shorter timelines for appeal, submittal to HCD, and public hearing process for appeals.
• AB 2632 (Wilson)—Requires that local zoning laws treat thrift retails stores and non-thrift retail stores in the same way. Certain reasonable regulation of thrift retail stores is permitted.
• SB 450 (Atkins)—Limits local agencies’ ability to deny housing projects that qualify under SB 9.
• SB 1037 (Wiener)—Authorizes the Attorney General to fine local jurisdictions up to $50,000 a month for not having a certified housing element or for other housing related violations.
• SB 1123 (Caballero)—Requires ministerial approval of certain parcel maps up to 10 units.
• AB 2533 (Carillo)—Prohibits the denial of certain unpermitted ADUs or JADUs constructed before January 1, 2020, unless certain findings are made. The Santee Municipal Code was recently updated to reflect this new state law. • SB 1211 (Skinner)—Requires local agencies to ministerially approve up to 8 detached units on an existing multifamily dwelling lot, so long as the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing dwelling units on the lot. Also prohibits the requirement to replace certain uncovered parking spaces that are demolished to construct an ADU. Recent updates to the Santee Municipal Code ensure its consistency with this new law.
• AB 1413 (Ting)—Requires posting of certain notices regarding Housing Accountability Act compliance.
• AB 1820 (Schiavo)—Requires local jurisdictions to provide preliminary fee and exaction estimates within 30 business days of a request during the preliminary application process.
• AB 3012 (Grayson)—Requires local jurisdictions (in the size range of Santee) to provide an online fee estimate tool by July 1, 2032.
• SB 937 (Wiener)—Requires that the payment of certain fees be deferred to the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy (rather than issuance of permits) for specific affordable housing projects.
• SB 393 (Glazer)—Changes the burden of proof in certain CEQA lawsuits involving housing projects.
60139.00001\43130493.1
• SB 1498 (Ashby)—Permits the City Attorney to enforce certain laws regarding cannabis advertisements.
• AB 1775 (Haney)—Allows a local jurisdiction to allow for the preparation or sale of non-cannabis food or beverage products at cannabis businesses where the consumption of cannabis is allowed.
• SB 1059 (Bradford)—Limits a local jurisdiction from including specified stateauthorized taxes in the definition of “gross receipts” for purposes of a cannabis business tax or fee.
• AB 1843 (Rodriguez)—Requires the provision of certain peer support services for emergency ambulance employees, upon request.
• AB 2618 (Chen)—Extends time period for local agencies to make certain investments of surplus funds.
• SB 1418 (Archuleta)—Requires a local ordinance on hydrogen fuel stations by September 30, 2028.
• SB 399 (Wahab)—Prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee due to an employee’s decision not to attend certain employersponsored meetings that communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters.
• SB 1100 (Portantino)—Prohibits an employer from including a statement requiring a driver’s license for employment in various employment materials unless the employer reasonably believes that driving is part of the critical job duties for the position.